Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

You, yes you

Schlichter revisits an old theme of his—and mine.

Don’t be gaslighted. They will tell you exactly what they want for you if you give them long enough. The beauty of social media is these creeps just can’t help themselves; you just have to have the strength to listen and accept the truth no matter how unpleasant it is. Many of them want you dead – again, they will tell you outright. Others will be satisfied with you just being serfs, unable to participate in your own governance, obedient, working hard to fuel the liberal redistribution machine that pays off Democrat constituencies. To the fields, flyover drones! Grow our kale, drive the trucks carrying our cucumber-infused pale ale! We are to be the silent stagehands in the urban hipster play that is their lives.

Understand that the left doesn’t hate the NRA. The NRA stuff is a distraction. Leftists are dumb, but they understand the power of the NRA is really the power of millions of Normal Americans coming together to defend their right to protect themselves, their families, their communities and their Constitution. That’s why they fear it. That’s why they can’t abide it. They want your voices silenced.

And the left doesn’t hate guns either. In fact, the progressives fully intend to be the only group left with any guns. That should turn out great for us.

At best, the government that they promise will protect us will make excuses why they can’t see red flags waving and why they can’t be expected to actually protect us. Liberals have just come out foursquare in favor of police cowardice; their argument is you don’t need guns to protect yourself, and you certainly can’t expect a Democrat-run law enforcement agency like the Broward Sheriff’s Office to protect you because that would be scary to the poor government workers. Where does that leave you? You can’t protect yourself, and in return, no one from the government will protect you either. That whole outliving talk looks more and more sinister every day.

They want you disarmed and disempowered, not the nuts, not the criminals, not the terrorist, not the illegal aliens. You. Why?

Because they hate you.

They hate that you won’t submit.

They hate that you won’t obey.

And they hate that you refuse to give up your only means of protecting yourself and preserving your rights.

They hate you.

So what do you do?

You understand and accept the truth, which many allegedly on our side refuse to do because the truth is too harsh and painful.

Sad, sorry, contemptible case in point:

The people pushing for gun restrictions have basically done the exact opposite of what I thought was wise. Instead of depolarizing the issue they have massively polarized it. The students from Parkland are being assisted by all the usual hyper-polarizing left-wing groups: Planned Parenthood, Move On and the Women’s March. The rhetoric has been extreme. Marco Rubio has been likened to a mass murderer while the N.R.A. has been called a terrorist organization.

The early results would seem to completely vindicate my position. The Florida Legislature turned aside gun restrictions. New gun measures in Congress have been quickly shelved. Democrats are more likely to lose House and Senate seats in the key 2018 pro-gun states. The losing streak continues.

Yet I have to admit that something bigger is going on. It could be that progressives understood something I didn’t. It could be that you can win more important victories through an aggressive cultural crusade than you can through legislation. Progressives could be on the verge of delegitimizing their foes, on guns but also much else, rendering them untouchable for anybody who wants to stay in polite society. That would produce social changes far vaster than limiting assault rifles.

Two things have fundamentally changed the landscape. First, over the past two years conservatives have self-marginalized. In supporting Donald Trump they have tied themselves to a man whose racial prejudices, sexual behavior and personal morality put him beyond the pale of decent society.

While becoming the movement of Dinesh D’Souza, Sean Hannity and Franklin Graham, they have essentially expelled the leaders and thinkers who have purchase in mainstream culture. Conservatism is now less a political or philosophic movement and more a separatist subculture that participates in its own ostracism.

If progressives can cut what’s left of the conservative movement off from mainstream society, they will fundamentally alter the culture war. We think of the culture war as this stagnant thing in which both sides scream at each other. But eventually there could be a winner. Progressives have won on most social issues. They could win on nearly everything else.

That’s David Brooks, whose picture will surely sit beside the entry for the present-day usage of the word “Cuck” should it ever make it into the dictionary. Emphasis mine, to highlight just how deeply he’s internalized the Left’s usurpation of the meaning of “mainstream culture”—more damningly, of how highly he prizes the opinion of what he thinks of as “polite society.”

Ah, but it gets worse still. His attitude towards the accustomed Cuck function of Noble Loser, eternally begging for scraps from the Lefty table that they’ll never, ever give him, isn’t merely resignation—he actually prefers it that way. His horror and disdain for the people who are fighting aggressively—AND WINNING—is proof enough of that.

Self-flagellating sycophants like Brooks, surrounded as they are by Leftists justly contemptuous of their spinelessness, are afflicted by an inferiority complex towards liberals so broad and deep they’re not even aware of it. They don’t stop at accepting the Left’s premise that conservatism is indefensible, an ideology despicable root, branch, and bough—they voraciously gobble it down whole, to be regurgitated on command.

Is it any wonder that such “conservatives” have failed utterly to conserve anydamnedthing? They waddle around their precious DC eateries, watering holes, and “exclusive” gatherings of the Deep State elite like neglected, unloved puppies desperate for any sign of affection, rolling onto their backs and pissing themselves for a dismissive pat on the head from their masters. They snarl as ferociously as they’re able at those who have done far more, by simply showing fight, to advance the principles they falsely proclaim. Then they scurry eagerly back to their masters to simper for more abuse.

The loathsome worms have balls enough to sniff about “conservative principles,” complacently accepting defeat and destruction for years and years as if that were somehow either useful or honorable. They then demonstrate what’s truly important to them by waxing indignant (for purely aesthetic reasons, no less) over a successful effort to upend the Deep State status quo: why, it’s unseemly! It’s coarse, it’s rude, it…it…it…why, it’s UNHEARD OF!

UNCLE PETER, MY SMELLING SALTS!

For them, defeat is infinitely preferable to winning in a way they don’t approve of, a way that makes them uncomfortable among their true peers. It’s the old cigarette ad in reverse: they’d rather switch than fight.

Far from being inappropriate or off-base, there could not possibly BE a more perfect descriptor for them than the word cuck. It fits them to a tee. Which is probably why it bothers them so much, truth be told. Nice thing is, the more they fume and splutter, the more they rail in defense of an unsustainable system tottering under the weight of its own contradictions and manifest failure, the more irretrievably they relegate themselves to the sidelines, dismissed themselves as the empty, useless irrelevancies they now are.

Their sell-by date is long past, and they’re sour and curdled. I’ll let Schlichter pour them down the drain.

The first step is the political battle. Wake up – the midterms are coming and we need to ensure that these people do not gain the power to undercut our rights. At CPAC, President Trump demonstrated that his competitive nature is in full effect – he intends on winning. We need to do the same. Volunteer. Donate. Activate. Yeah, it’s a hassle. We’d all like a pause to this constant cold warfare. That is not happening.

The second step is the cultural battle. The left is intent on mobilizing the corporations that form the infrastructure of society against us. We need to respond with our own political power, and that means casting off the tired shackles of an ideology that assumes we are in a pure free market scenario. “Free market solutions” don’t apply where companies instead act based on political ideology when choosing to exercise political power; how, exactly, do we respond to a company that acts against us but decides it doesn’t care about the market consequences? Well, we can’t – unless we use our own political power. Georgia refusing to give Delta a tax break – which it should not have gotten in the first place – is the template. If they want to declare a cultural war on us, let’s give them one. It’s not how you or I want it to be, but it is how it is. Maybe pain will motivate them to re-adopt the old rules. Surrender sure won’t.

Nope. The inglorious example provided by cucks like Brooks proves that adequately enough.

Share

Open secret

Wow. I mean, just…wow.

“Go in and think like a liberal” was the advice two FBI agents gave Jonathan Gilliam prior to his taking an FBI entrance exam. Gilliam shared his anecdote during a Wednesday interview on SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Tonight with co-hosts Rebecca Mansour and Joel Pollak.

Gilliam, a retired Navy SEAL and former FBI special agent, spoke of left-wing political corruption across the federal government, specifically identifying the CIA and FBI.

Gilliam recalled that two FBI agents advised him to “think like a liberal” during his FBI entrance exam. “I was told by two FBI agents that did not know each other –  I was told, ‘Do not go in and take that test as though you are thinking like a SEAL.’ In other words, ‘If this happened, this is the way it should be done because this is the way a team works, and this is the way an investigation should be carried out.’ They said, ‘Don’t do that, you’ll fail. Go in and think like a liberal.’ And that’s what I did, and I passed.”

The FBI’s entrance exam illustrated how leftists use ideological filtering tools preferencing ideological fellow travelers, said Gilliam.

The “deep state” network of leftists, said Gilliam, extends across various federal bureaucracies. He advised President Donald Trump to cleanse federal bureaucracies of politically corrupt leftists.

“If you want to see the deep state, this is what you’re looking at,” said Gilliam. “It’s not just the FBI. It’s not just the DOJ. It’s also the State Department. It’s the IRS. It’s the DOD. It’s the VA. You want to look across the board and look (at) all of these.”

It’s one thing to know this intellectually, as we all do. It’s quite another to see it spelled out so unabashedly, straight from within the belly of the beast. Awestruck kudos to Gilliam for having the big clanking brass ones to fearlessly speak up like this. Given the FBI’s sordid history, he has most probably put himself in real peril by daring to lift the veil publicly—for publication, no less. He’s a brave man indeed.

We’ve had discussions here on a couple of occasions with people dismissive of the notion of any actual organized “conspiracy,” formal or informal, behind Leftist influence on government. But that’s the wrong way to think of it from the start—a flawed premise which can only lead further analysis astray and render it futile.

My position has always been that, when it comes to the dead hand of Progressivism on the levers of power, collusion (yeah, I said it) doesn’t require conspiracy. It’s more the result of a confluence of like-minded people in positions of influence, a Borg hive-mind that is diligent about taking care of their own and takes the institutional primacy of their ideology as a given, with conservative or Constitution-respecting types well aware of the hostility towards them and mindful of the necessity of keeping their own beliefs under wraps. Think of it as Hollywood writ much larger and you won’t be far wrong.

Much larger, and much more nefarious too. After all, you can always choose not go to the movies.

(Via WRSA and Heartiste)

Share

No worries

Schlichter asks: “Will Trump Go Sloppy and Soft on Illegal Immigration?” The first-approximation answer, to quote liberal dimwit Paul Krugman in one of the very first of many Smart-Set humiliations dealt out by the supposed “clown” Trump, is: no. The solid smackdown he just gave the open-borders crowd after his brilliantly-conceived show-meeting to shunt their gnat-like focus away from Wolff’s pack of scurrilous lies would seem to indicate so, at any rate. He let them blather and posture and demand, pretended to be interested in what they had to say, and then…told them to go take a flying fuck at a plate-glass window until they’re ready to get behind the wall and other moves to get control of the borders and immigration.

The very next damned day, he did. Meanwhile, the scurrilous tapeworm Wolff’s unfounded slanders have indeed wafted away like smoke thanks to Trump’s surefooted maneuvering—rendering the whole thing a twofer at the very least, insofar as humiliations go.

I indicated my growing impatience not long ago with cheerleaderish claims that Trump is playing 3D chess while everyone else is trying to learn checkers, but now…well, I dunno. Might have to rethink that one all over again.

I am absolutely delighted at the fake outrage over Donald Trump correctly assessing much of the Third World as a “Schumerhole.” It’s about time we had some real talk about immigration. For decades, the open borders establishment has tried to blind us with a blizzard of deceptive euphemisms designed to hide the truth. “Dreamers.” “Undocumented workers.” “Nation of immigrants.” Enough!

It’s all a scam designed to allow liberals to shut you up when you raise questions about why we should let our nation be flooded by outsiders – any questions. And they don’t even pretend to be coherent. One day we’re monsters for wanting to send illegals back where they belong, and the next we’re monsters for accurately describing the places they came from. We wonder why, if those Third World wonderlands totally aren’t what Trump said they are, their residents so eager to leave – and not to go back once they get here? And if Dreamers were wonderful hard workers who contribute so, so very much, why can’t they do all that contributing back where they came from?

Sheesh. Can you hacks please settle on a consistent narrative?

No, they cannot. It’s asking way too much of them, in no small measure because the motive behind their push for unrestricted immigration for the least desirable, most damaging candidates is not what they say it is. Or not entirely, anyway. Oh sure, they’d love to throw open the borders and invite the world in, no doubt about that. But in the larger, longer view, they don’t really give a good goddamn about immigrants or Dreamers except as a means to an end: cobbling together a new voting coalition now that normal Americans have finally seen through them and have indicated their displeasure by voting them out of local, state, and federal office in droves all over the map (excepting only their urban enclaves that multitudes of saner people are fleeing just as fast as they can manage to round up a U-Haul to rent—an undertaking which has, quite tellingly, become a damned difficult and expensive one indeed). Once they get the useless, parasitic throngs into the country, onto the voter rolls, and enrolled in welfare programs, Democrat Socialist concern for them will suddenly become very thin indeed on the ground.

After the big meeting, conservatives fretted that Trump seemed inclined to give away the store. He could have been folding, but then everything we learned about Trump over the last couple years indicates that he is no dummy – regardless of what his enemies fervently wish. It’s more likely that he understands the key consideration very, very clearly.

If Trump rolls on amnesty – that is, if he makes a DACA deal that doesn’t buy us real reforms today and not one of those “I’ll gladly pay you Tuesday” scams where Tuesday never comes – then we dump him.

We’re gone, Mr. President. Nothing personal, but if you shaft us like everyone else has shafted us, we walk. And your enemies will have beaten you – the same ones who stuck you in the back when they broke the confidence of your private meeting.

Now it looks like a DACA surrender is unlikely, especially in light of the feces-pit furor. Good. Maybe the Nice Trump at the meeting was a negotiation ploy. There’s a technique in negotiations where you wave the other side’s objective right in front of them, let them smell it, feel it just within their grasp, and when you get them so invested in the idea that it is about to be theirs, you snatch it back and lay your demands on them in the hopes they’ll feel they’re so close to success that they have to give in.

Or maybe Dreamer-hugger Trump was playing the good cop while Stephen Miller, who is infuriating the surrender caucus by being the proverbial monkey in the wrench, was being the bad cop. It could be a giant mind game with the mindless drones of the legislature.

Maybe. But it’s a dangerous game.

Nah, not really. That sort of bait-and-switch IS the game, one he figures on winning. Plus, I don’t believe for one minute that he doesn’t know all about the risk of Kurt’s “we walk” promise already, and I also think his stated position on the absolute necessity of re-establishing the national borders is something he truly does believe in. If there’s anything he’s shown us in the past year, it’s that A) he’s extremely smart, and possessed of an extraordinary facility for coming out on top in any negotiation he enters into, and B) he’s relentlessly determined to come out on top in said negotiation, and won’t enter into it in the first place without great confidence that he can bend his opposition to his will in the end.

This leak-fueled bogus scandal over Trump accurately assessing the relative quality of different nations is an important reminder for the president that the people across the table (including some GOP types) are not his friends. They don’t wish him well. They do not want him to succeed. They desperately want him to blow this negotiation, to give them the zillions of new Democrat voters and to mortify his base of support. They want a win-win for them, and a lose-lose for the president.

Don’t be a lose-loser, Mr. President.

Don’t fall for the Nancy Pelosi football scam.

If Trump sells us out, will the media suddenly reward him with positive coverage, like they did for a few hours after the big meeting? Get real. If he signs a bill giving amnesty in exchange for some bull-hole promise of border security down the road, the first thing the media will do is find his outraged supporters. The second thing it will do is find some other outrage du jour and pump that wall-to-wall.

All of which you can also assume Trump knows perfectly well. In fact, just to take the first one, if there’s anybody out there not remotely likely to make the rookie blunder of thinking of “the people across the table” as his “friends,” it would have to be Trump. Hell, they may actually even BE his friends away from that table. But when they all sit down to bargain, there’s no evidence that Trump is sucker enough to let that influence him in any way. It’s been his whole damned life, and he s excels at it. He would never have gotten where he is otherwise.

Immigration must serve our interests, the interests of Normal Americans, not the interests of Democrat pols who want more pliable voters. Not the interests of corporate hacks who want hordes of uncomplaining serfs. And not the interests of these foreigners. Good luck to them, but their countries are their problem, and we are not the solution.

Immigration must stop benefiting everyone but us Normal Americans.

And for that to happen, the lies have to stop. The deceit has to end. We need to call things by their true names. And sometimes, their true names aren’t nice.

Stay honest, Mr. President. Stay firm. Don’t get suckered. Keep your promises to the people who elected you. And keep telling the truth.

That’s the way to bet, Kurt. To think otherwise would be to succumb to the fear that Trump might actually be as stupid and/or incompetent as his desperate detractors have claimed all along. You know, the very people he’s spent the last year running rings around and making fools of.

They’ve come a cropper every single race so far, getting the hide whipped off them every step of the way: staggering blindly across the finish line at the very back of the pack, steaming and sweating and gasping in humiliating defeat even as Trump is looking ahead to his next win. I can’t see any reason to put one thin dime on these hapless also-ran nags suddenly, miraculously coming up winners for once. Better that we do all we can to see to it they’re packed off to the glue or dog-food factory—where they really belong, and might finally turn out to be of some use to somebody at long last.

After so many GOPe betrayals, a little nervousness and trepidation over the prospect of getting knifed in the back yet again is probably understandable. But keep the faith, Kurt: one of the most important factors that got Trump into the Oval Office is that he isn’t “one of them.” It amounts to a bargain made by him with the American people, one that he keeps constantly in mind. It may well be that he reneges on that deal eventually. But right now, I just can’t see it; he’d have nothing to gain by it, and everything to lose. He’s way too sharp not to grasp the consequences of such a betrayal, and I don’t really think he’s inclined in that direction anyway.

Share

Science: yer doin’ it wrong

Science without doubt isn’t science at all.

Let’s consider for a moment, your very best efforts to have me fired.

You’ve called me an “ultra-right wing conservative,” who is both “anti-education,” and “science-doubting.” Interestingly, you offer no proof. Odd, for a lover of science. So I challenge you to do so now. Please provide some evidence that I am in fact the person you’ve described. And by evidence, I don’t mean a sentence taken out of context, or a meme that appeared in your newsfeed, or a photo of me standing next to a politician or a talk-show host you don’t like. I mean actual proof of what you claim I am.

Also, please bear in mind that questioning the cost of a college degree does not make me “anti-education.” Questioning the existence of dark-matter does not make me a “dark-matter denier.” And questioning the wisdom of a universal $15 minimum wage doesn’t make me an “ultra-right wing conservative.” As for Morgan Freeman, I agree. He’s a terrific narrator, and a worthy replacement. But remember, Morgan played God on the big screen. Twice. Moreover, he has publicly claimed to be a “believer.” (gasp!) Should this disqualify him from narrating a series that contradicts the Bible at every turn? If not, why not?

Anyway, Rebecca, my beef with your post comes down to this – if you go to my boss and ask her to fire me because you can’t stand the sound of my voice, I get it. Narrators with unpleasant voices should probably look for other work anyway, and if enough people share your view, no hard feelings – I’ll make room for Morgan. But if you’re trying to get me fired simply because you don’t like my worldview, well then, I’m going to fight back. Partly because I like my job, and partly because you’re wrong about your assumptions, but mostly because your tactics typify a toxic blend of laziness and group-think that are all too common today – a hot mess of hashtags and intolerance that deepen the chasm currently dividing our country.

Re-read your own post, and think about your actual position. You’ve publicly asked a network to fire the narrator of a hit show because you might not share his personal beliefs. Don’t you think that’s kind of…extraordinary? Not only are you unwilling to engage with someone you disagree with – you can’t even enjoy a show you claim to love if you suspect the narrator might not share your view of the world! Do you know how insular that makes you sound? How fragile?

I just visited your page, and read your own description of you. It was revealing. It says, “I stand my ground. I fear no one & nothing. I have & will fight for what’s right.”

Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t think the ground you’re standing on is worth defending. If you truly fear “no one & nothing,” it’s not because you’re brave; it’s because you’re unwilling to expose yourself to ideas that frighten you. And while I can see that you like to fight for what you think is “right” (in this case, getting people fired that you disagree with,) one could easily say the same thing about any other misguided, garden-variety bully.

In other words, Rebecca, I don’t think you give a damn about science. If I’m wrong, prove it.

As you may have guessed, that’s the estimable Mike Rowe eviscerating a nitwit who wrote his bosses demanding he be fired because she doesn’t like political views she assumes he holds. Attempting to destroy a dissident’s ability to make a living—along with camping out on his lawn or porch en masse and screaming threats of violence at him and his family both day and night—has become a standard operational tactic with liberal-fascists, of course, one of the most acutely despicable of their many Gestapo-like transgressions against basic decency and tolerance.

But Rowe isn’t having any of it, and he manages to dispose of the twit not only deftly and completely, but calmly and even politely as well. She responds to him almost right away with the expected libtard incoherence and near-illiteracy, either failing or refusing to meet Mike’s challenge to provide an intelligent argument supporting her specious, spittle-flecked accusations in the typical libtard style we’ve all come to know and loathe.

Mike’s equable, reasoned approach isn’t my style anymore, for better or worse, although as incredible as it may seem it was in the early years of this site. No, I ain’t kidding, I promise. I had a good handful of liberal regulars here, in fact, several of whom I actually liked personally and enjoyed intellectually jousting with. Those debates back then were always civil and respectful, without any of the rancor that we’ve latterly been dragged into.*

But Lefty burned away all my patience a long time ago, and I no longer have the slightest inclination to either debate or attempt to persuade him, preferring instead to flamethrower the flesh off his bones and then scatter a little dirt over the whole smoking ruin just to keep the odor down. But I can respect Rowe for his forbearance and willingness to engage with them just the same. I can’t honestly say I believe there’s any real use in it—which, when I think about it, is kind of depressing. Rowe’s sincere, good-hearted belief in Lefty still retaining some humanity and decency in spite of voluminous evidence to the contrary speaks well indeed of his own basic decency, and probably makes him a better man than I.

Oh yeah, and from her picture she’s every bit the corpulent, grotesque bull-dagger caricature you’d assume, as ugly as she is stupid and vicious—charmless, petty, spiteful, repellently unattractive in every way imaginable. So there, dammit.

*NOTE: If the idea of a reasonable, sane, intelligent liberal seems inconceivable to you (as well it might, given the shrieking brats, violent Marxist extremists, and gibbering pathological headcases we’re inundated with these days), you guys should look up a fellow named Marc Danziger, a serious motorcyclist and staunch 2A guy that I became quite good friends with in the Olden Thymes. He blogged back at the very dawn of the blogosphere under the handle “Armed Liberal.” Sadly, I’ve lost touch with him over the years, but he was a great guy, and I miss him. Don’t know if any of his original writings survive out there, but it’d be nice to think they did, if only as a reminder of a better, more civilized age, now lost forever as our hold on respectful if passionate disagreement loosens and we slowly descend into madness, hatred, and outright physical conflict.

Share

Liberal Sideshow Bob’s latest rake

Oh, we’ve REALLY got him now!

Unnamed sources are once again claiming president Trump said outrageous things, including calling Haiti and parts of Africa “shi*holes.”

They ARE shitholes, and everybody with even half a lick of sense knows it. The big question is how we allowed ourselves to be dragged to the point that speaking self-evident truths in plain if impolite language came to be an impeachable offense.

No one is sure this actually happened, but it sounds true, so the Washington Post ran with it. But it brings up an interesting point. Are we allowed to point out that there are places in the world that are not ideal, or are we pretending all countries are equal? This seems demonstrably ridiculous, yet the left is acting super-offended at the suggestion that some countries are shi*hole-ish.

.i never hear enough stars speak out on this racist pig of a President..he calls BLACK n brown countries shitholes ..POTUS is RACIST
— cassandra white (@babiegirlprod) January 12, 2018

This doesn’t explain why the elite don’t vacation in Haiti and Cape Town.

Who in their right mind would? I guess maybe you could use that as the basis of an argument that libtards aren’t all THAT stupid, if you were so inclined. Follows, a list of the shitholiest of shitholes, including:

1. Haiti
A quick search of Haitian vacations found that a person could have a full week in Haiti for $600, airfare included. If that isn’t a screaming red flag, I don’t know what is. The reason it’s so cheap is that you have a high likelihood of never returning. If you don’t get murdered, you will probably get a disease.

2. Anywhere ending in “-stan” (or Iran)
Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, and all the other stans are not for me. If you don’t get stoned to death by the modesty police, you get dragged away in the middle of the night by secret police for some offense against whatever shi*head is running the shi*hole. No thanks. I’ll stay out of the stans.

4. Somalia
Unless you’re dying to go on a cruise and experience a real-life pirate adventure, complete with getting your throat slit, stay away from the Somali coast. I also wouldn’t recommend Somalia on land either. I still can’t get that image out of my head of American soldiers being dragged through the streets by Somali rebels. More recently, the violence has not abated as reported by Human Rights Watch: “Targeted attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure, particularly by the Islamist armed group Al-Shabab, with suicide bombings and improvised explosive devices (IEDs), continue to have a devastating impact.”

Somalia is an outright shi*hole.

They all are, every one on this list and plenty of others, and we all know it. Trump, as is his wont, did nothing but speak the undeniable, simple truth. He said things everybody realizes—hell, things we’ve all probably SAID at one time or another. Once again, the Left’s argument is not with us; it’s with objective reality. My favorite off the list? Easy-peasy:

7. Detroit
Yes, I know it’s not a country. I’m still not going there. Wild horses or even Wild Turkey couldn’t drag me into Detroit. I drove through it once with the gas pedal to the floor and I shall never do it again. Coincidentally, all the American shi*holes on this list are run by Democrats.

“Coincidentally” my ass. Nonetheless, liberal idiot Dick Turban cranked the OUTRAGE!™ up to eleven in an attempt to make hay with both this and another “deeply troubling” and “shocking” aspect of Trump’s “gaffe”:

“He said, ’Haitians, do we need more Haitians?’” Durbin said.

DAMN, seriously? This putz is offended because the genocidal MONSTER Trump called Haitians…Haitians?

But of course he isn’t any such thing; I’m quite certain the shitstain Turban has made such comments his own damned self. Way more than just once, too. Little Dick’s motivation for this shitfit subterfuge is way deeper, and way darker. More on that in a minute, though; first, let’s explore some of the defining characteristics of these shitholes:

Is there any question Haiti is a s***hole? Who’s offended by that? If it wasn’t a s***hole it wouldn’t be one of the most prominent recipients of American charity aid on Planet Earth. And it isn’t like this country has ignored Haiti — we’ve been trying to lift it out of s***hole status for more than a century, with absolutely no result whatever. In 1910, President William Howard Taft granted Haiti a large loan in hopes that Haiti could pay off its staggering international debt and therefore achieve a larger measure of independence from Europe. The result? Haiti defaulted and U.S. tax dollars were poured into a bottomless pit. In 1915, following the assassination of Haitian president Jean Vilbrun Guillaume Sam, President Woodrow Wilson sent in the U.S. Marines to help establish order there — and the American military presence in Haiti didn’t end until 1934. Yet so little was America able to influence the Haitians that Haiti is the only country in North America where baseball — a national pastime in the Dominican Republic next door — isn’t played by the population.

There is no poorer country in the Western Hemisphere than Haiti, though given time Communist Venezuela might well change that.

And no, it’s not racist to note Haiti is a s***hole. While Trump was having his supposed outburst his administration was removing Temporary Protected Status from some 200,000 Salvadorans, most of whom are not black people, who had entered the country illegally. Why would he do that? Perhaps because on balance, mass immigration from El Salvador isn’t such a great idea. Know what you get when you take in an unlimited number of illegal Salvadorans? You get MS-13, which is a Salvadoran street gang spreading its vicious tentacles into every Hispanic community in America in the precise way the Italian mafia achieved a chokehold into the Italian community in this country a century ago.

Apparently, repeating the errors of the past makes you a racist. Of course it does. And you’re especially racist if you note that the modern American Left’s patron saint Saul Alinsky learned the tactics of “community organization” passed down to today’s neo-Communist radicals from the Italian mafia in Chicago. Even more so if you wonder whether Alinsky’s ideological disciples don’t secretly want to repeat that collaboration in order to organize America’s Hispanic community into a monolithic Democrat vote, which would explain the jeers and “fact-checking” pieces hurled at Trump when his Justice Department declared war on MS-13 last year.

And yes, El Salvador is also a s***hole. When your country has the world’s highest murder rate, you qualify for s***hole status.

How about Somalia? Who’s up for more mass immigration from Somalia? Is there any argument Somalia is a s***hole, or do we need a national screening of Black Hawk Down to remind us what that country is like? If you’d like a more recent depiction of what Somalia has to offer the world we could all watch Captain Phillips, the 2013 Tom Hanks vehicle about the true story of the Maersk Alabama, set upon by one of the multitudinous hordes of pirates — yes, actual pirates — sloughing off from Somali shores in search of fat from international commerce. Somalia is such a s***hole that its stench infects nearby countries like Kenya — viz., the Westgate Shopping Mall attack in Nairobi in 2013 — and Uganda, where Al-Shabaab, Somalia’s home-grown jihadist terror group, set off a series of bombs in the capital of Kampala to slaughter 76 people as they watched the 2010 World Cup soccer final.

What has America derived from mass immigration from Somalia? Machete attacks on street corners in Columbus and mall stabbings in suburban Minneapolis. And if you like, you can ask the current and former residents of Lewiston, Maine, what a boon Somali immigration has been to that town.

Sure, ideally it would be nice if the president wasn’t quoted as describing other countries as s***holes. But these are s***holes.

Ahh, but why exactly would it “be nice” if the president wasn’t etc? Yes, yes, I know, the coarsening of discourse, the dignity of the office, blah blah, sniff sniff. But coarse or not, lowbrow or highbrow, rude, crude, and socially unacceptable or otherwise, this is how ordinary people talk. And one of the very things at the root of Trump’s appeal from the first was his easy way of connecting with us crusty ol’ knuckledragging common folk. Y’know, the benighted proletariat, to put it in terms a libtard might more readily grasp. He doesn’t talk at us, or over us, or down to us. He talks to us in familiar terms, speaking obvious but forbidden truths in a language that doesn’t require anything at all in the way of deciphering.

No, it might not be precisely correct or genteel according to Emily Post rules. But I’d say you’d have a hard time finding a single Trump supporter in the smallest way bothered by his use of the term “shithole” to describe…a shithole.

And asswarts like Turban, along with the handful of Vichy Republicans who hastened to pile on, aren’t really offended either. Their sanctimonious posturing is a tactic, and nothing more. I, along with many others, have long assumed that their hope is to finally trip Trump up enough to have him removed from office with the spray-and-pray barrage of Outrage Of The Week nothingburgers, but I’m doubting that now. I think their aim, recognizing as they must their decline into impotent irrelevance as they flounder in Trump’s wake, is more just to keep him tied up so as to hamper his ability to get anything at all done. If nothing else, they hope the OOTW will at least serve as a distraction, while Praetorian Media hammers away at one bent, rusted nail after another, trying to drive one of the things home at last.

There’s another assumption implicit in that position: that they really ARE that desperate, and that they really ARE pathetic enough that this really IS all they can manage. Given the way Trump just keeps right on beating their dumb asses like a big bass drum, I’d say that’s one assumption we can mark down as confirmed.

Bottom line: Trump, rich and famous though he be, is at heart one of Us. He has never been one of Them, and he never will be. Most galling of all to the Powers That Be, he has as yet never evinced a shred of interest in becoming one, either. He’s a walking, talking, unimpeachable refutation of their most cherished fantasy: their status as the deserving, capable Elite.

Update! Okay, I admit it: I was just about to refer to Steyn as a “shithead” here, but then it hit me that I’ve just about dug to the bottom of the shitpit with my “shit___” wordplay. Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.

Given the ongoing furor over President Trump’s executive order commanding the State Department cartographer to mark the map of the world with “Here be sh***holes”, I thought for our Saturday movie date we should have a film about just how bad it can get. Twenty-four years ago, the Rwandan genocide was just about to get under way: In a hundred days, a million people were murdered – with machetes, all very low-tech. Since then, as I noted only the other day, the machete has been introduced to such boring white-bread places as Shelburne, Vermont, and Dundalk, Ireland, and Gothenburg, Sweden, and Kandel, Germany. But back then you had to go to what the President calls the s***hole countries to be on the receiving end of such vibrant diversity.

How compassionate was pre-Trump America to Sh*tholia? There being no hashtags in those days, President Clinton, the Pain-Feeler-in-Chief, had to slough off the victims with a brusque soundbite nixing international intervention: “The UN has to learn how to say no,” he declared. And so 20 per cent of the population of Rwanda was slaughtered, a number so huge that the world chose to hold it at a big, woozy, blurry distance. To mark the tenth anniversary, the editors of the Economist asked, ‘How many people can name any of the perpetrators?’ I’d say it’s more basic than that. How many could tell you whether it was the Hutu killing the Tutsi or the Tutsi killing the Hutu? C’mon, take a guess, without looking it up.

Well, it was the Hutu energetically hacking the Tutsi into oblivion, while the rest of the globe sat back and watched that decade’s “never again” genocide as it would the next one (Darfur): Toot, toot, Tutsis, goodbye! In 2004, when Hotel Rwanda was released, I didn’t think you could carry off a movie “about” this subject. It’s really an anti-story — it’s about the cavalry not showing up. And how do you find any human interest in it? These fellows killed a million of their neighbors, in the lowest-tech way possible — with knives — and taking especial care over the murder of the children, in order to wipe out the next generation of Tutsi. They’d slash open three kindergartners and then move on to the house next door. It’s a story of lack of human interest.

Which is why us actual developed-world humans weren’t terribly interested. In fact, if I remember right, the Tutsis came to power later, and repeated the whole process themselves once they were on top. The pattern is of a piece with the MO of the Ethiopian famine in the 90’s: warlord seizes power, warlord proceeds to use starvation as a weapon of genocide against his tribal enemies, warlord is toppled from power, his enemies return the favor. Lather, rinse, repeat. Endlessly.

Which, in turn, is precisely the sort of thing that makes a shithole a shithole, and renders the hopeless intractability of sub-Saharan Africa’s perpetual cycle of murderous misery a story without an audience: it’s just not worth bothering to tell because it has no end, no resolution, and is damnably disheartening to listen to. Steyn somehow does make this movie sound kind of interesting, despite its underlying reality remaining just depressing as all hell. But sooner or later, the sad realization hits home: Africa is the shithole it is because it’s full of Africans. No amount of aid of any kind will bring down the curtain on Africa’s sorry saga until the cast finds a way to break character and move forward at last.

Share

Stacking the deck

The Left badly needs a new electorate. And they’ve been working hard as they can to get themselves one.

Why do we have an immigration system that favors countries on fire vs countries not on fire?

I’ve spoken to a British immigration lawyer who told me how hard it is for Brits to move to this country. If you have something to contribute to this country, stay out. If you’re going to be on welfare for the next three generations, go to the head of the line.

The left would never admit that it’s policy, but it’s policy.

It’s not purely partisan. That hypothetical Norwegian immigrant is very far from a sure GOP vote. It’s quite possible that a Norwegian immigrant is as statistically likely to vote Dem as a Haitian immigrant. And may even be more professionally left-wing.

But that’s not the only issue.

The left doesn’t just want likely voters that lean their way. Many welfare immigrants will never bother to get citizenship and have poor voter turnout rates. But they utilize as much of the system as possible. And that’s where the real money is.

Remember, elections come and go, but the bureaucracy endures. 

Yep—and dependency on Uncle Sugartit is forever. But it really is about more than just stuffing more Wards ‘O The State into the maw of the Machine:

The Center For American Progress (CAP) Action Fund circulated a memo on Monday calling illegal immigrants brought here at a young age — so-called “Dreamers” — a “critical component of the Democratic Party’s future electoral success.”

The memo, co-authored by former Clinton communications director Jennifer Palmieri, was sent around to allies calling on Democrats to “refuse to offer any votes for Republican spending bills that do not offer a fix for Dreamers and instead appropriate funds to deport them.”

Their ideology is stagnant, their policies stale, their programs the same old reliable failure they’ve always been; Trump’s remarkable ascension, stunning as it was to the business-as-usual DC remoras, would seem to demonstrate that enough voters now realize it to send them packing.

Admittedly, cobbling together a new electorate isn’t the entire Democrat Socialist motive for bringing in hordes of unskilled, illiterate, no more than half-bright immigrants that nobody really wants or needs, just as Daniel argues. But it’s certainly an important part of it—and if you don’t think so, just ask those among them like Palmieri who are at least smart enough to see the writing on the wall. Ultimately, though, their problem is even bigger, as Limbaugh glancingly mentioned today during a discussion of the Trump tax cuts:

The increase in your standard of living this year is money that the government did not get because the Republicans cut your taxes. And that’s it in a nutshell. And this is something, again, not one Democrat voted for. This is something that pretty much every member of the Democrat leadership lied about. This is something that no Democrat, not only didn’t vote for, but probably doesn’t support. This is a threat to Democrats! Rising economic stability, rising standards of living, less dependence on government?

Those are not good things. As I said yesterday, the Democrat Party is the one political party that profits from poverty, the one political party that attempts to grow and enrich itself with poverty. The Democrat Party is the Democrat Party that stakes its future on a constant underclass in poverty. Yet they claim they’re for the little guy.

And this right here—their cynical reliance on widespread, intractable poverty as a mechanism for gaining and maintaining power, their despicable pimping of helplessness and hopelessness—is why they’re almost certainly doomed. As I’ve said right along, they have revealed themselves as being unalterably, implacably opposed to the very idea of Making America Great Again. How does any party so twisted and perverse transform itself into something most normal Americans would ever want to vote for—especially at the moment those Americans are experiencing real, practical benefit from an America throwing off its Democrat-forged shackles and slowly but steadily rising to its feet once more?

Trump is undeniably getting results, and Americans are seeing the fruits of his labor in their own wallets, which means more to them than just about anything else, I’d bet. No, he hasn’t made good on every last promise he made as of yet, sure enough, and there’s nothing wrong with holding his feet to the fire when he looks like needing it. But the bottom line is this: can anybody out there remember a President that achieved so much of such profound benefit to the nation so quickly—in his first year alone? I’ve been paying attention to this stuff for a long time now, and I sure can’t.

Better still, every move Trump makes in implementing the MAGA agenda amounts to pounding another nail into the Democrat-Socialist coffin—or tossing another golden shovel-full onto their grave, more like. Which, burying them once and for all will likely prove to be the biggest step towards truly making America great again we could ever take, all by itself.

Best of all? Honestly, I cannot for the life of me see a single damned thing they can do about it. After all, they dug that hole themselves, and were so pleased by the excellence of their work that they went and just jumped right on in. Their GOPe handmaidens jumped in with them, following their lead as they always have. All we needed was to find a guy unafraid to take up the shovel himself and start filling in on top of the damned fools.

And so we did.

The Democrat Socialists badly need Trump to be every bit as stupid as they’ve assumed he was all along to bail them out via an immigration botch. He has shown absolutely no evidence to date of that being the case—NONE. Quite the opposite, actually. They now find themselves in the worst position imaginable: the only one who can save them from Trump is…Trump.

Yep, we’re gonna need those Midwestern farmers to grow us a HELL of a lot more corn for popping before all is said and done, I figure.

Share

Man with a plan

Bill does some pretty deft analyzin’.

Remember, Codevilla never said it was necessary to destroy the nations that supported Muslim terror, just the regimes that did so. He also said the way to do that was to empower the native enemies of those regimes to do so, because who would know better who, and how many, needed to be killed (and where to find them) than those native enemies of the regime?

And so the very first stop on (Trump’s) very first foreign trip was the capital of Saudi Arabia. And, hmmm. A few months after that, seeming arising out of nowhere, Mohammed bin Sultan becomes Crown Prince, and initiates a massive purge against the very elements of the Saudi regime that supported Islamic terror gangs like Al Qaeda and ISIL (the head of the bin Laden company was among those arrested).

This is getting very little play in the American media, because MbS is using the massive influence among American elites developed by the Kingdom over decades to sort of hide what he is doing in plain sight. Some of his actions are being reported, but our media claims that his motivations are surrounded in mystery. They aren’t at all, if you can connect the dots and read between the lines a bit.

So…Trump now has the enemies of the old theocratic regime housecleaning them right out of the regime and onto the dustbin of history. Amazing enough, ISIL was utterly destroyed as a force on the ground during the same period, and its “caliphate” reduced to smoking rubble. They probably really missed all the financing, sheltering, arming, training, and so on they used to get from the Saudi theocrats before MbS decisively shut off that spigot.

I believe that the Saudi regime is now out of the Islamic terror business, thanks to President Donald Trump.

Next item:  I’m still trying to flesh this out, but I very much doubt that it is either coincidence or accident that seemingly out of nowhere a flash revolution against the Iranian Mullahs seems to be brewing. I assume that the Israelis (and the Saudis) are involved in that. Both have far more assets on the ground in Iran than we do. If so, we see another page in a now-familiar playbook being turned: The Iranian regime has a plenitude of internal enemies. If we and our allies like SA and Israel can give them the upper hand, you can rest assured they will know who to kill, how many, and where to find them. Nor will they be much hampered by international disapproval. Whoever emerges on top, they will still have all. that. oil., and nominal control of the Straits of Hormuz.

And finally, yet another aspect of the challenge: Pakistan. It is the largest Muslim nation on the planet, and it is a full fledged nuclear power. However, it is generally acknowledged that their nuclear arsenal was financed by Saudi Arabia, and Saudi money plays an enormous role in the economic and political life of that impoverished nation. In other words, if the Saudis are willing, we have an enormous lever that can be used to pry the Pakis away from their taste for terror gangs like the Taliban.

And, lo and behold, just yesterday Donald Trump began tweeting about…Pakistan, and threatening to remove US aid because the Pakis are a “terror aiding” nation. You bet they are. And if both the US and the Kingdom pull the money plug, the Paki regime will be in a world of hurt, nukes or not.

I don’t expect our national disgrace of a media to ever put these pieces together, not, at least, for public consumption, because crediting Trump with what would effectively be victory in the war against Islamic terror would be far more than they would ever wish to give him.

But I think it is real, I think it was gamed out maybe even before Trump made his final decision to run, and I think it is playing out right under our noses.

And I think the chances are good that Bill is onto something here.

Update! Think the notion that Trump is enacting a canny and well-thought-out strategy against Muslim terrorism, rather than getting lucky here and there amidst a bunch of clueless floundering about, might just be a bridge too far even among diehard Trump supporters? Might want to reconsider that.

I, frankly, came to despair that we would ever awaken from and escape that crushing Obamista incubus. Then, of course, a November miracle; in that month in 2016, despite the polls and the sneers of the MSM and Hollywood, despite the fabulously financed Democrat Party machine, and an epidemic of fake news and phony “dossiers,” the most improbable thing happened: brash, loud and bold non-politician Trump won the election. He ran what was, in essence, the only successful third-party candidacy in the long history of our Republic since, perhaps, Lincoln. The GOP leadership was as befuddled by the Trump phenomenon as was that of the DNC. As we have commented on in this humble blog, that event led to the greatest meltdown of the left since, since…well, I don’t know since when. His election revealed the leftist rot in the US and global elites that many of us had long suspected and perhaps commented on, but had not realized the full extent.

The resistance to Trump’s nomination and election started with prominent Republicans, such as Romney and the Bush clan, and continued with brave talk of riots in the street, “pussy hats,” vote recounts, electoral college challenges, Russian “collusion” investigations, and ended with ISIS on the run, US oil production roaring along, a new tax scheme, thousands of regulations slashed, the economy booming, Hollywood in a tailspin, Jerusalem recognized as the capital of Israel, illegal alien criminals rounded up, UN budget cuts, a teetering EU, riots in Tehran, the “deep state” exposed, the Supreme Court turned around, the Maduro regime on the ropes, and lefties fighting over first class seats on United Airlines (BTW: I know the “teacher” who got booted from her first-class seat by that whacky leftist Congresswoman; she’s a hard-core leftist “activist” who made my life and career very difficult many years ago. Lefties like to travel first class.)

That’s a pretty damned lengthy list of solid successes for an incompetent moron, seems to me, and it is by no means comprehensive. Nothing speaks louder than results, and Trump is undeniably getting ’em. The exposure of the Leftist rot Dip mentions, and especially the public psychotic break on the Left it helped nudge along, is by no means the least of Trump’s many achievements. I believe the long-term impact of that alone is going to be…umm, YUUUGE—most especially when you consider the related revelation of the complete failure of their entire program right along with it.

No wonder they’ve all gone bug-fuck nuts right out in front of God and everybody.

Share

Tired of all the WINNING!™

You and I might not be, but Schlichter can name you plenty of folks who are.

Slowly, it’s dawning on Trump’s enemies – on our enemies – that this isn’t just an unfortunate, temporary bump in the road to the Californiaization of America, but a U-turn. The people who elected Donald Trump were something his allegedly conservative Never Trump opponents never were: serious about being conservative. It’s easy to grift the donors with big talk about culture wars and policy initiatives when you never expect to be in a position to actually pull them off. But the Normals finally got sick of election year bomb-throwers morphing into pliable puffboys once their reps crossed into the Beltway. And that’s how you got Trump.

Suddenly, the fake hardcore facade of Conservative, Inc., was revealed for what it was – a pose, an act, tiresome political voguing. When someone finally showed up who actually wanted to act on all the things the pro-cons had been talking and writing about for decades, well, that didn’t leave a lot of room for those who only wanted to talk and write and luxuriate in being insiders. Never Trumpism spends a lot of time whining about how Trump is “vulgar” and “unfit,” but what these guys really resent is that he has embarrassed them. He showed them up. He did what they had been yakking endlessly about doing, and they hate him for it. They much prefer the quiet dignity of losing under a Bush or a Romney to obscurity under a Trump.

It’s crisis time for Conservative, Inc. The Eagle Liberty Forum of Conservative Freedom and Liberty can’t fill its annual dinner tables anymore, even with a keynote speech by Ben Sasse on how “True Conservatism™ Morally Obligates Us To Lose And Not Offend The Elite Rather Than Win And Displease Our Betters.”

That’s why they hate Trump. He didn’t make them irrelevant; he just showed the world that they were irrelevant. And that’s unforgiveable.

Trump’s kickin’ it old school in his enemies’ heads, chillin’ in their cerebral crib. His foes defined themselves by not being him. The Democrats’ tax policy? Not Trump. Their regulatory policy? Not Trump. Their foreign policy? Not Trump. And it’s the same with the allegedly conservative Never Trumpers. How do you get an alleged conservative to oppose moving our embassy to Israel’s capital? Get Trump to finally do it.

They are all about Trump, 24/7. CNN, and its silly Don Lemons and Tater Stelters, need Trump. They obsess over him, for without Trump they are nothing. The Resistance? They have nothing but Trump to fill their empty lives, getting giddy every time some media outlet reports that someone who knows somebody who heard somebody say that maybe Mueller is investigating someone who met Trump once for felony jaywalking. The Supreme Poo-Bah of the HIPAA Court is readying his Grand Warrants of Arresting – it’s gotta be true cuz I read it on the interwebs!

Trump owns his foes. They are mere satellites orbiting around him, and his gravity is all that keeps them from spinning off into space. They have willingly submitted to the reality of a Trumpocentric political universe. It’s hilarious.

Ain’t it, though. Ain’t it just. This is probably the most important part of all, though:

Their impeachment fever dreams are fading, so they look at popularity polls and take solace at the numbers. They took solace in them on November 8, 2016, too.

It amazes me that some of us to this day are baffled and/or fretting over Trump’s supposed “unpopularity” according to the very same polls which have never yet been right about him, not even once. The feeble guesswork of the polling apparatchiki—part and parcel of Ruling Class manipulation, most of it—is another thing that stands exposed by the Trump Awakening, but some folks still haven’t realized it for some reason.

But come on: can anybody out there seriously claim to expect honest, reliable truth from any poll done by ABCBMSNBCNN, the NYT, or the WaPo? And if you do, can I please request that you share whatever the hell it is you’re smoking with the rest of us?

Share

Nose to the grindstone, people

Time to get back to work at Job One: kicking Lefty while he’s down.

When we gather together this Christmas, it’s going to be super-awkward since everybody is dead because Donald Trump pulled out of the Paris Climate Scam, repealed net neutrality, and cut taxes. The depredations of Genghis Khan, the Black Plague, and the repeal of the Obamacare mandate – these are pretty much the same thing. Santa Claus and all of our dreams are dead too.

On the plus side, since we are all dead there’s no one to make egg nog, which is the worst of all possible nogs.

You know what these eggs need? Some milk. And then rum.

No. Whoever invented egg nog is the second grossest human being ever who is not Lena Dunham, exceeded in grossness only by the first person being who thought, “Look, an oyster! I know. I’ll put that slimy thing in my mouth.

The Democrats are the egg nog of American politics. Discuss.

The rest of the column is great fun too, but I felt it was most important to get this part in as the excerpt portion, every word of which I wholeheartedly endorse. Especially that bit about oysters. Ugh.

Share

The secret: no secret

It ain’t just the fuck you money. It’s the fuck you attitude.

President Trump has fuck you money because he defines success differently than do other people at his level of wealth. He cannot be shamed into or out of a particular action or position because he simply does not care how the chattering class views him. This, alone, makes him a fascinating character and one deserving of study. I also believe it’s what makes Donald Trump such a uniquely effective politician.

It’s this quality that has Trump’s opponents spinning like tops. They’ve gone back to the same playbook for so many years that they don’t know how to adapt to someone who is immune to their historically most potent attacks. Trump has ripped back the curtain on the wizards of public shaming and revealed them to be powerless crybabies.

But he’s the only man who could do it. He had both the money and the attitude necessary to the task. His supporters grasped the importance of this unique advantage early.

I am not alone in this assessment. What is less obvious is exactly what it is that makes Donald Trump tick. He loves to talk about winning, but how does he define winning for himself? My best guess is that it’s getting things done when other people say you can’t. It’s an internally motivated, fuck you approach to life that I don’t think most politicians possess.

Quite the opposite, actually: professional politicians have it bred into their very marrow that they must NEVER, no matter what, either literally or figuratively say fuck you to anybody, whether it’s deserved or not. Should they get caught doing so, a groveling, insincere apology that satisfies no one will immediately follow. They consider an oleaginous eagerness to please a job requirement instead of a character flaw, and Trumpian obstreperousness, his willingness to handle his opponents roughly when their behavior merits it, a career-killer.

We cannot spare this man. He fights.

Pundits on both the left and right have asserted that Hillary Clinton is the only possible candidate that a guy like Trump could have beaten. While I think that she was a terrible candidate, I also believe that they have it backwards. I don’t think a single GOP candidate could’ve beaten Hillary other than Trump, as he was the only one who inspired enthusiasm within the frustrated and dispirited base.

I’ve heard rumors that people who actually know Donald Trump say that the man they know is nothing like the one you see on television. I suspect that this is true and that most of what you see is a clever act designed both to appeal to his supporters and to frustrate his opponents.

I also believe that Donald Trump is far more intelligent and capable than his opponents and even many of his supporters believe him to be. This video of a young Donald Trump on the David Letterman show in the 1980’s gives some insight toward the man. It’s worth noting that he was banging the drum about our “allies” taking advantage of us 30 years ago. Also notice how intelligent and well spoken he is. Did he somehow lose all his smarts as he grew older or is this interview a glimpse of the man behind the mask?

The big question as we move past Donald Trump’s first year in office is whether Trumpism is a force that is dependent on the man bearing its title or whether it’s a cultural and political wave that will retain its power when he leaves.

I don’t have the answer to this question, but I think it can be confidently asserted that there is no returning to the status quo after Donald Trump has exited the stage.

It IS a damned good question at that, but I remain pretty confident myself that the movement he galvanized is bigger than he is, and will continue on without him in at least some fashion. Whether it will be as successful without him might well be another story. Trump was the perfect melding of Man and Moment, and we had been waiting for him a long time. He didn’t create the movement himself, but instead stepped in to lead it, to steer it, and that happy confluence of events might well prove to be unique, and not reproducible.

Continue reading “The secret: no secret”

Share

A consummation devoutly to be etc

We can only hope Lifson is onto something here.

When Rod Rosenstein evaded the answers being sought in a congressional hearing and deferred to the inspector general investigation underway, I thought it a reasonable response, even though Rosenstein is now a hate-object for having appointed Robert Mueller as special counsel. The I.G., Michael E. Horowitz, is no political stooge. (For background on the inspectors general, see Ed Lasky here and here. There are unsung heroes of our constitutional republic among them, hero-federal bureaucrats.)

And letting any of the I.G.’s cats out of the bag early could have serious consequences.

He then points us over to another of Sundance’s thoroughly researched and insightful posts, to wit:

The text messages between FBI Agent Peter Strozk and his mistress, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, have been released to both Fox News and CBS.

The messages reflect a strong bias against President Trump. However, the bigger story is not the anti-Trump bias within the text communication, the BIGGER story is why the Department of Justice, Office of Inspector General (OIG), began even looking at Agent Peter Strozk’s communication in the first place.

Remember, the original mandate by the Inspector General’s office was initiated to review and discover any politicization of the FBI and/or DOJ officials.

After news broke of Strzok’s removal from investigative duty within the FBI counterintelligence unit, what the OIG responding statement said was for 11 months the Dept of Justice OIG office has been investigating the politicization within the DOJ and FBI and deciding if the actions, or lack of action, was driven by the political ideology of the participants therein…

Getting caught as a leaker is likely the reason Strzok was removed and reassigned to the HR post; not the bias. The bias, writ large, is essentially a snipe hunt; it makes good media clicks, it feeds a good headline, but ultimately it’s a nothingburger. The reports on this angle are flak and countermeasures.

However, Agent Strzok leaking information to the media; his changing the outcome of an FBI investigation into a political ally, Hillary Clinton; and his investigative involvement in the Trump Russia Conspiracy, via the Steele Dossier and FISA warrant, well, that’s the real issue evident here.

Interesting indeed. Without falling into the old wishful-thinking trap of assuming that Trump is some sort of 3D chess-playing wizard here, I will note that he’s shown himself to have patience enough to be capable of playing a longer game than people often assume, in both business and politics. This is convoluted, twisty, tangly stuff for sure; also, Occam’s Razor still makes for an excellent guide in most circumstances, and should perhaps be carefully borne in mind in this case, too.

All that said, though, I wouldn’t bet against Trump playing a pretty Machiavellian game here himself: one of his most under-acknowledged and useful skills throughout his career has been his ability to get adversaries to underestimate him to their own great detriment, as we’ve seen demonstrated again and again since the beginning of the Republican primary campaign. And Sundance himself has been adept enough at seeing forests instead of trees for long enough now that I ain’t willing to bet against his having the right of things here, either. Not quite yet, I ain’t. I seem to recollect seeing somewhere or other that Horowitz’s final report is scheduled to drop in April of next year; all will come clear by then, I guess. Back to Lifson:

We should be hearing from the I.G. in the early part of next year, in time for this to start to unfold in TV prior to the November midterm elections.

Sundance looks ahead the next couple of steps, toward prosecution, and follows the potential chain upward. Momentum, and consequently timing, is critical because of the expected all-out resistance. Watergate was nothing compared to this.

Well, no, it wouldn’t be, would it? I mean, Watergate was a bungled coverup of a penny-ante burglary—which, I think, hardly rises to the level of a soft coup aimed at nullifying the results of a legitimate presidential election and removing a duly-sworn-in chief executive from office without real justification. Not to even mention the revelation of partisan corruption from top to bottom of entire federal agencies, with arguably treasonous treachery and manipulation at the very highest levels.

Update! Steyn on the big picture:

Politically, America is a bitterly divided 50/50 nation, where a few hundred thousand votes in a dwindling number of swing states determines control of the national (it’s no longer really “federal”) government. That places an ever greater burden on the professional civil service to behave professionally, and to be perceived as behaving professionally. Mueller, Comey, McCabe, Ohr, Strzok, Page and the rest have engineered a situation that ensures half the country will never accept the legitimacy of whatever their “investigation” concludes. If they indict Trump, one half will regard it as a coup by Deep Staters in the bag for Hillary. If they exonerate Trump, the other half of the country will blame Trump for discrediting these fine upstanding career public servants.

So Mueller and his team have made things worse. Thanks a lot, corruptocrats.

It is not unreasonable to conclude that this pseudo-investigation is an elaborate bit of FBI dinner theatre to obscure Strzok and others’ attempt to subvert the election. What Strzok and Ohr have done is far worse than anything Flynn and Papadopoulos did: why should only the latter face jail time?

Why, because Stroke and Ohr are liberals, see. That makes it diff’runt.

Until we reach the heads-on-pikes stage, I mean. At which point I will eagerly look forward to Obama, Hillary!™, and the rest of the dirty gang sharing the same fate.

Share

Pressure

More on Jerusalem, the rightful capital of the Jewish state of Israel.

Trump’s move applied pressure to the PLO’s Palestinian Authority in exactly the way that the left had wanted pressure to be applied to Israel. He did to the PLO, what Obama had been doing to Israel by covertly backing the PA’s statehood moves.

The double standard is that pressuring Israel in this way is deemed a very good thing because the Jews are somehow the obstacles to peace. While pressuring the PLO is a terrible thing because that will destroy the cause of peace.

Why is pressuring Israel a good thing and pressuring Islamic terrorists a bad thing?

That’s the bias that needs addressing.

Because the Left looooves them some Moslem savages and loathes the only functioning, civilized democracy in the Middle East, that’s why.

Update! Of course, the Deep State is still gonna Deep State:

The United States still will not formally recognize Jerusalem as being located in Israel on official documents, maps, and passports, despite President Donald Trump’s announcement earlier this week that America is formally recognizing the holy city as Israel’s capital, according to State Department officials who spoke to the Washington Free Beacon about the matter.

Despite Trump’s declaration, which was formally codified on Wednesday into U.S. policy, the State Department is taking a more nuanced position on the matter, drawing some ire in Congress among pro-Israel lawmakers who accuse the State Department of undermining Trump’s efforts.

State Department officials this week had difficulty stating as fact that Jerusalem is located within Israel, instead trying to parse the issue as still subject to diplomatic negotiations.

It’s a two-fer for them: they get to make an empty, futile gesture towards thwarting Trump, and they also get to thumb their noses at Israel into the bargain. And being Progtards and all, they don’t care in the least how their self-defeating foolishness makes them look:

State Department officials who spoke to the Free Beacon about the situation said that while it supports Trump’s declaration that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, it is not yet at the point where it will list Jerusalem as part of Israel on passports, maps, and official documents. This means that official documents, such as passports, will not, at this point, list “Jerusalem, Israel” as a place that exists.

As always, their argument really isn’t with Trump or any other sane, sensible person. Their argument is with reality.

Updated update! Oh, THIS is gonna leave a mark.

As the chicken-hearted, yellow-bellied, lily-livered, gutless and spineless leaders of Western Civilization from Western Europe to New Zealand now shake and tremble in the face of a simple truth that they all know — that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel — we may expect to hear the meme interminably day-and-night, until the next television or movie icon’s pants fall, that “This decision now threatens the Middle East ‘Peace Process.’” For the last fifty years, someone in a European capital and in the U.S. State Department has uttered that sentence at least once weekly. If Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston divorce, it will endanger the Middle East peace process. If Megyn Kelly ever gets ratings on NBC, it will endanger the Middle East peace process. If Hillary Clinton admits that she knowingly spoliated those emails and that they had nothing to do with yoga, yogurt, or Chelsea’s wedding, it will endanger the Middle East peace process. If Netflix raises its prices again, it will endanger the Middle East peace process. If Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie divorce, it will endanger the Middle East peace process. If Eli Manning does not start for the New York Giants, or if Colin Kaepernick does start anywhere, it will endanger the Middle East peace process. If Bill Clinton admits that he raped Juanita Broaddrick, it will endanger the Middle East peace process.

So, while other experts debate the meme, let us share a secret: There is no Middle East “peace process” and there has not been a “Middle East peace process” for decades. It is a sham

Couldn’t have said it better myself. More inconvenient truth:

Arafat and his cronies, chief among them Mahmoud Abbas, the current Palestinian Authority dictator who now is entering the thirteenth year of his four-year elected term in office, never wanted a final agreement that would recognize the permanent existence of a non-Muslim, Jewish-majority country in the Middle East. There never was a “Middle East Peace Process.” Rather, it was a “Piece Process”: Fool one American President to get us a piece of the Sinai, the next to get us a piece of the Golan Heights, the next to get a piece of Gaza. There never was a “Peace Process” — and, if one simply pauses to contemplate the reality of the terrain and the demography, the painful conclusion is that a “Two-State Solution” is best when not contemplated. Consider:

Before June 1967, an Arab Muslim polity (Egypt) held Gaza, an Arab Muslim polity (Syria) held the Golan Heights, and an Arab Muslim polity (Jordan) held Judea and Samaria (misnomered the “West Bank”). Yet in 1964, three years before June 1967, the Arab world created the “Palestine Liberation Organization” (PLO). Which “Palestine” did that “organization” set about to “liberate” in 1964? Not Gaza, Golan, and Judea and Samaria (the “West Bank”). Jordanian Olympic athletes were not attacked for “occupying the West Bank.” Nor were Egyptian school children for “occupying Gaza.” Nor Syrian civilians for “occupying the Golan.” Rather, all PLO terror attacks, from the PLO’s 1964 founding through June 1967, aimed within pre-June 1967 IsraelThat is what the PLO was organized to liberate: the “Palestine” that is Israel. Not Gaza, Golan, nor Judea and Samaria.

Bingo. If the “Palestinians” were anything other than implacably opposed to the idea of peaceful coexistence with Israel, they could’ve had it long, long ago. Instead, they cling to the same old dream they always have cherished: the destruction of Israel, and the genocide of the Jews. It’s the same dream they were promised by their Arab “brethren,” none of whom are in the least amenable to offering up a chunk of their own ample land for a “Palestinian” state, when the modern state of Israel was established. Fischer is correct: there is no “peace process.” It’s a sham, a subterfuge, and a very, very bad joke, and it has never been—nor will it ever be—anything more.

Share

“Is there any reason to believe that acquiescing to Arab demands will lead to peace?”

No. No, there is not.

In April of this year, when Russia declared its recognition of West Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, the announcement was met with deafening silence by the Arab world. Why, then, the roars of protestations at the same simple acknowledgment by the United States?

Threats by Turkey and other countries in the Arab League to sever diplomatic relations with the U.S. over the issue prove once again that in our time the world has made the Middle East safe for hypocrisy.

If we are looking toward our own best interests, there are good diplomatic and constitutional reasons to countenance Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. First and foremost is historical reality and common sense. As law professor Eugene Kontorovich, an expert on international law and policy, pointed out last month in testimony before Congress, “One of the main reasons for the failure to reach a peace deal is the unspoken assumption that protracted and repeated Palestinian rejectionism costs them nothing diplomatically, while creating constraints for Israel.

Every country in the world has had the right to designate the capital of its choice, with Israel the lone exception. Congress recognized this anomaly over two decades ago, when it passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act in 1995. (The vote was 93-5 in the Senate and 374-37 in the House.) The Act noted that. “Jerusalem is the seat of Israel’s President, Parliament, and Supreme Court, and most of its ministries and cultural institutions” – and that since the reunification of the city in 1967, religious freedom has been guaranteed to every faith.

Which would assuredly NOT be the case were the Paleosimians ever to take over.

Screw them. With their moronic intransigence; their refusal to recognize Israel’s right to exist on land their forebears possessed for long millennia before anybody even thought of a name to call the primitive Jordanians and other miscellaneous Arabs squatting there; their duplicitous charade of “peace talks” which always end in their flat rejection of meaningful offers of compromise, each and every time; their neverending campaign of mindless, brutal terrorism against Israelis; their clinging to the ugly dream of genocide for the Jews—with all these things, they prove themselves not just unworthy of any “two-state solution,” but of any sympathy or concern for them on the part of any civilized person at all.

Israel is the ancient ancestral homeland of the Jewish people. Jerusalem is and of right ought to be its capital. Period fucking dot. Turkey, the Arab League, the “Palestinians,” American libtards, and any and every Jew-hating Moslem goat-humper worldwide who might be shrieking and bitching over this long-overdue move can all go bite a fart. And if Trump tells ’em so, in those exact words—well, that’ll be jake with me.

Share

Misdirected

Their real purpose is not what they claim it is. It never was.

We’re now in Act 3 of a leftist conspiracy to invent a conspiracy to justify its own conspiracy.

In Act 1, the Clintons created the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory and used a British former intelligence agent with connections to Russia and the FBI to inject the dossier into the FBI. In Act 2, Obama officials used the dossier to justify their eavesdropping on Trump officials. In Act 3, Team Mueller is using that illegal eavesdropping to entrap and generate crimes against assorted Trump officials.

After all this time, the conspiracy theory remains as unproven as ever.

And the conspiracy theory is that the past election was illegitimate, that Trump doesn’t belong in the White House and Hillary does, and that radical measures must be taken against the First Amendment, the Electoral College and our entire political system to prevent such a “mistake” from occurring again.

That’s not just a conspiracy theory. It’s a radical leftist conspiracy against America.

Mueller had every opportunity to make his case. He could have run a fair and transparent investigation. Instead he’s become the public face of a partisan witch hunt in which a confederacy of Hillary supporters and judges dispense with everything from attorney-client privilege to the U.S. Attorneys’ manual so that they can offer fresh heads to the baying D.C. mob reading the Washington Post.

Enough.

Mueller must go. This circus must end. And a real investigation must be conducted of the Obama administration’s eavesdropping on Trump officials and members of Congress. Both the DOJ and the FBI require urgent housecleaning. That is the only meaningful result of the Muller investigation. 

The revelation of that home truth—of just what kind of government we really do have, inarguably, for all to see—might actually render the entire circus worthwhile in the end…IF Trump makes the fullest possible use of it.

Share

“Can’t Kill Enough to Win?”

Well, can we at least TRY?

Those given the awful task of combat must be able to act with the necessary savagery and purposefulness to destroy those acting as, or in direct support of, Islamic terrorists worldwide. In 2008, then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Navy Admiral Michael Mullen said, “We can’t kill our way to victory.” Ever since, many have parroted his words. But what if Admiral Mullen was wrong? The United States has been at war with radical Islamists four times longer than it was with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in World War II. And those previous enemies were far more competent and aggressive than the terrorists. It is time to kill a lot more of them.

Okay, we’re off to one hell of a good start as far as I’m concerned. But there’s a problem right out of the gate here—a big one—and I suspect a good many if not most of you can already guess what it is.

In addition to the overabundance of ill-trained lawyers in the force, leaders are giving too much credence to people and organizations (such as Amnesty International) with distorted views of how wars ought to be fought rather than how they truly are. For instance, the concept of proportionality under international law has nothing to do with making war a “fair fight” or using “minimum force.” Sadly, however, such human rights law language has crept into U.S. military standing rules of engagement (SROE), despite warnings from sage counsel such as international and operational law expert W. Hays Parks.

In the mid-1990s, a small cadre of combat-experienced officers began to militate against overly restrictive rules of engagement and tactical directives. They advocated that if U.S. military forces must fight in such environments these warriors should at least have the same protections that U.S. constitutional law provides police officers in the United States. This still has not happened. Sixteen years and thousands of U.S. military lives have been lost, and the military still is plagued with obtuse rules of engagement and soul-crushing investigations into every action.

While the United States may not be following the full-on nation-centric strategy of Alfred Thayer Mahan to fight terrorists today, it ought to use the military primarily to forward its national interests. And that ought not be a strange or unsavory concept to any U.S. warrior or citizen.

The military’s leadership has a responsibility to push back hard when told to do anything that would dilute the fundamental responsibility to win wars. For the past two decades, the U.S. military has put more effort into combating climate change and training to prevent sexual harassment than it has into training warriors to kill the enemy.

I wrote a post the other day lamenting the sad state of the “most powerful military in the world,” which Aesop responded to at length in the comments. It’s worth examining the arguments he makes out front here a bit, I think:

We now have an army and navy nearly as small as what we had on hand around the Great Depression.

And the armed might we wielded as recently as 1990 was barely a patch on the machine we dismantled in 1946, after doing the heavy lifting to win two world wars.

That’s what happens when you cut defense spending precipitously, plow the money into stock bubbles, housing welfare, etc., and in the process crash the economy hard twice.

And between the two bubbles, we squandered a serviceable but barely adequate military on adventurism and asinine you-break-it, you-bought-it “nation building” in two of the most illiterate and utterly worthless sh*tholes on the face of the earth. We traded a family cow’s worth of military power for the magic beans of Middle Eastern democracy, and we don’t even have a beanstalk to show for it afterwards. Just a dead giant.

But we burned out the troops, burned up their airplanes, wore out their weapons, and mothballed our rusted navy, because affirmative-action generals like Colon Powell never read Alfred Thayer Mahan.

What you see now is what happens when you entrust leadership to idiots, in an organization dedicated to the Peter Principle as a promotion tool.

Militaries cost money and brains, and both Congress and the Pentagon have been short on both for decades. And there’s no easy fix for that, either place.

This is all perfectly true, sure enough. But it seems to me that the biggest problem of all is the American people, or all too many of them at least. They seem to lack the will to commit to backing their military forces all the way to complete victory; they’re soft, coddled, and insulated from the realities not just of war, but of military service itself. The concept of what victory in war might even amount to is foreign to them, and it’s near certain that the sacrifice, the real price, of victory is too.

In fact, most Americans are almost completely isolated from their military, from the soldiers themselves; a historically low percentage of the populace is personally acquainted with someone in uniform, or even with someone else who is. The idea of putting on a uniform and picking up a rifle for a hitch in service themselves seems wholly alien to them, and ludicrous. One might as well suggest that they grow gills and flippers and swim the Atlantic without coming up for air. Y’know, tomorrow morning.

As has been pointed out here before by other commenters, this state of affairs goes beyond lamentable and crosses handily over into being outright dangerous. Naturally, it’s not true of everyone; I suspect that this alienation is most prevalent by far in the big-city enclaves of the Left, and the college campuses that breed and nurture Progressivist drones by the thousands. I’d guess it would be a lot less so out in the great heartland of the country, the South generally, and the towns surrounding military bases. Such locales generally have a great respect and a high regard for their soldiery, and became far less circumspect about expressing those sympathies openly once 9/11 sort of granted permission to harbor them again.

All of which indirectly brings me to the problem I mentioned up top, which is with this statement: “…destroy those acting as, or in direct support of, Islamic terrorists worldwide.” That’s fine as far as it goes, and would amount to at least a good start if nothing more. But what of the millions upon millions of Moslems who are supportive of jihad without openly declaring it; who believe in the supremacy of sharia law, but who aren’t necessarily willing to commit acts of terrorism or offer material support themselves beyond, say, financial contributions to their local “moderate” mosque, from whence the money make its circuitous way into the hands of the jihadists who depend on it?

These are the “moderates” touted endlessly by our media and politicians, but according to poll after poll after poll, their beliefs aren’t anything most of us would label “moderate.” While they may not constitute a clear majority of Moslem “immigrants” just yet, they are nonetheless legion. And they have deliberately been seeded throughout the West in unsuspecting communities who are carefully kept in the dark as to the nature of their beliefs and activities, and are oblivious to the threat posed by them.

None of which even begins to address the additional problem of “refugees” from the Middle East, who ain’t necessarily coming because they dig them some freedom, tolerance, and democracy, bub (been a good, long while since I saw any of that “Democracy, whiskey, sexy!” signage being waved around by anybody at all, I’ll say that much). We aren’t told how many of them there are; that’s something our rulers don’t think we ought to know. It’s doubtful anybody, in government or out, knows where they all wind up. The government is probably way more meticulous about tracking YOUR whereabouts than they are theirs.

So considering all that, how much chance do you think there is of our ever making effective war on Moslem terrorism, and of truly winning such a war? How would we even go about such a thing? The ideas presented in the first linked piece above are good ones; I’m wholeheartedly in favor of all of ’em, and plenty more besides. But I bet Hell will freeze over good and damned solid before we ever see a one of ’em done.

Share

Trump at war

As are we all.

Steve Bannon: This is a war. This is a war for our country. This country, we’ve been in this war for a while. It’s going to take another 15, 20, 25 years and we’re going to be one thing or the other on the other side of this. We’re either going to be the country that was bequeathed to us by the 14 or 15 generations that came before us, or it’s going to be something radically different.

What do you think was the specific messaging that drove those low propensity voters to actually, at the end of the day, pull the trigger for Trump?

Pat Caddell: Yeah, as I said, my question all along had been whether those voters would respond.  Alienation can often make people depressed and not participate. What did it, I think, is if you look at the last 8 to 10 days of Trump’s message, where he said, “This isn’t about me and Hillary. This is about you and them.”  Essentially a campaign that said your country is going to hell. You have to do something. And whether it was on immigration, which was a big issue, trade, where the country had taken a huge leap, or basically the idea, which I think was the most powerful of all, of “drain the swamp” and the corruption. Enough people felt that they, with good reason, would want a change, and they took the biggest gamble in history.

By every other measure we have had, this never should have happened. But the reason it did is because the country has never been where we are except twice before. I believe in the 1820s and the Civil War – well three times – and the Great Depression.  And what we have is a new paradigm in politics. This isn’t the traditional Democrat/Republican, Liberal and Conservative. This is inside, outside, us, them and the question of who’s country it is, and I have said to Steve the other day, and I’ll end on this note: At the heart of it is a perception. The subtext is that they know that their leaders are trying to manage the decline of America.

Steve Bannon: No, the issue of the polling and the analytical work, which was so thorough — this is not some slapdash poll like is done all the time. This was really deep analytical work. The question that the American people answered — 75 percent of your countrymen think America’s in decline. And what they understand is the country is in decline, right?  Particularly vis-à-vis the rest of the world. And that’s what the elites, that was the whole contrast in the campaign. Hillary Clinton and the Republican elites are very comfortable managing that decline.

Pat Caddell: Yes, they believe their destiny, I think, is to make sure it’s soft, we’ll be like the British. I have news for them: this election in 2016 and the ones that are coming are really about the fact that this country will not go gently into that good night of decline. They will rage, rage against the dying of the light.

We can only hope that there are enough stout American souls left among ‘us to stem the dismal tide. I especially like this part:

Pat Caddell: The issue is the country. It’s not which party. It’s going to be who owns the country, them or you. And the question is is America going to go into general night of decline or are we going to turn things around for our children and grandchildren. These are great moral questions.  And that is the new battleground that needs to be fought. And let me just say something. The media. The press, which was you could argue is adversarial, but what we have is not adversarial. We have a partisan opposition press which works hand in glove with the Democrats, which is the most corrupt media, and which, by the way, as a believer in the First Amendment, totally threatens the First Amendment, because as I have tried to say to people, when they figure out, which they have, that they can not only tell you who you must vote for, but they can tell you what truth you’re allowed to know or not to know, as we have seen in all of this other stuff with Russia, all of the stuff with the Clinton Foundation, all these things. The real question becomes why do we need a First Amendment if they’re not going to do their job, which is to be the tribune of the people and instead become the outriders of one political movement or another.

Steve Bannon: See, I look at it differently than Pat. I like having the media as the opposition party because they’re so dumb and lazy. I detest them. I detest them. Dumb, lazy, worthless. A great opponent. One last thing, we’ve got to wrap up here, is that it’s about the President. It’s about Donald J. Trump. Look, I got the great opportunity. I’ve known him for years, but I didn’t know him that well until I got into the campaign. I saw it every day. Here’s a guy, everything you see in the mainstream media is basically nonsense. Here’s a guy that was worth, I don’t know, five, six, seven, eight billion dollars. I don’t know the exact number, but a lot of money. He was 70 years old. He has a lovely wife, a great family, great kids, grandchildren. The friends he’s got from the sports and entertainment world and the business world are so close to him and such great people. He just had a perfect lifestyle. I mean here’s a guy at 70 years old that’s going around not just buying great hotels and refurbishing them and making them part of his Trump organization, but buying great golf courses and making them better and getting them in the U.S. Open or the Open Championship. It’s the kind of thing you would do, all of us would do when we’re 70 years old.  He ran for President of the United States. He’s not a narcissist and not in it for his ego or anything like that. You couldn’t do it for that. I saw this guy every day on the politics of personal destruction where they came after him hammer and tong. And you guys only saw a tenth of it. If you saw the other 90 percent, you’d just be stunned. These people know no bounds. I don’t really disagree with it because I see what they’re trying to do. They’re trying to take control of the most powerful nation on earth, and they’re prepared to do anything to do that.

Donald Trump is an American hero because he had the courage to step up and run. In that primary, if you think about it, with Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz and Christie, go through all of them, 16. That was the Republican Party’s an entire generation of their best politicians that have been kind of bred for 10, 20, 30 years. And as good as those gentlemen are and Carly Fiorina, there’s not one, or even combined could they have taken on the Clinton apparatus. The Clinton apparatus is a killing machine, and it took somebody like Donald Trump, a blunt-force instrument, to defeat it.

Bang ON. You’ll want to read all of this one, gang; it’s just slap full of good, fascinating stuff. It’s a pity Bannon isn’t still working directly for Trump; this is a guy who truly gets it, with insight more penetrating than just about anybody else, and ingenuity and aplomb enough to have pulled together a cohesive, long-term vision for how to straighten out the mess fifty or sixty years of Progressivist misrule has wrought. Both Bannon and Caddell have some pretty choice things to say about Her Herness that you’ll get a solid giggle out of, too.

Share

Playing rough

This. This right here, dammit.

My Leftist friends (as well as many ardent #NeverTrumpers) constantly ask me if I’m not bothered by Donald Trump’s lack of decorum. They ask if I don’t think his tweets are “beneath the dignity of the office.” Here’s my answer:

We Right-thinking people have tried dignity. There could not have been a man of more quiet dignity than George W. Bush as he suffered the outrageous lies and politically motivated hatreds that undermined his presidency. We tried statesmanship. Could there be another human being on this earth who so desperately prized “collegiality” as John McCain? We tried propriety – has there been a nicer human being ever than Mitt Romney? And the results were always the same.

This is because, while we were playing by the rules of dignity, collegiality and propriety, the Left has been, for the past 60 years, engaged in a knife fight where the only rules are those of Saul Alinsky and the Chicago mob.

I don’t find anything “dignified,” “collegial” or “proper” about Barack Obama’s lying about what went down on the streets of Ferguson in order to ramp up racial hatreds because racial hatreds serve the Democratic Party. I don’t see anything “dignified” in lying about the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi and imprisoning an innocent filmmaker to cover your tracks. I don’t see anything “statesman-like” in weaponizing the IRS to be used to destroy your political opponents and any dissent. Yes, Obama was “articulate” and “polished” but in no way was he in the least bit “dignified,” “collegial” or “proper.”

I’d say “articulate” is off, as is made apparent by any of the multiple YouTube clips of the hilarious stuttering clusterfuck that ensues every time his Teleprompter crashes on him. His reputation as a “great orator” was never anything more than a useful deceit perpetrated and maintained by his Praetorian Media props, and one look at those YouTube vids establish him beyond debate as nothing more than a bumbling, witless boob in far over his head, that frightened deer-in-the-headlights stare washing over his face and the “Uh, uh, uh, uh, ah, um, uh”s piling up faster and higher.

“Polished,” I’ll grant; his handlers buffed him to a fine chamois as an essential element of the whole con—which, given his prickly, unjustified arrogance and inexplicable egomania, must have been a mighty tough job indeed, one that even Mike Rowe would find too odious to accept. But the most apt descriptors of him are the ones I’ve always used: cunning, oleaginous, sneaky, and slick. Anyway, onwards.

The Left has been engaged in a war against America since the rise of the Children of the ‘60s. To them, it has been an all-out war where nothing is held sacred and nothing is seen as beyond the pale. It has been a war they’ve fought with violence, the threat of violence, demagoguery and lies from day one – the violent take-over of the universities – till today.

The problem is that, through these years, the Left has been the only side fighting this war. While the Left has been taking a knife to anyone who stands in their way, the Right has continued to act with dignity, collegiality and propriety.

With Donald Trump, this all has come to an end. Donald Trump is America’s first wartime president in the Culture War.

During wartime, things like “dignity” and “collegiality” simply aren’t the most essential qualities one looks for in their warriors. Ulysses Grant was a drunk whose behavior in peacetime might well have seen him drummed out of the Army for conduct unbecoming. Had Abraham Lincoln applied the peacetime rules of propriety and booted Grant, the Democrats might well still be holding their slaves today. Lincoln rightly recognized that, “I cannot spare this man. He fights.”

Great stuff—GREAT fucking stuff—from a guy who clearly Gets It. And incredible as it may seem, it just gets better from there. Read every deliciously satisfying word of it.

This brilliant, incandescent rip was posted by Evan Sayet, who I have to admit to being not too familiar with. But I’m fully “woke” to him now, and I’ll sure be keeping a sharper lookout for his work from here on out.

Share

Oh, irony!

They’ll remain oblivious, of course.

As Roy Moore’s troubles were just getting underway, leftist CNN commentator Van Jones made what has to be one of the least self-aware and yet most revealing comments of the Trumpian Age. Targeting Breitbart firebrand Steve Bannon, who had promoted Moore, Van Jones said, “Bannon is trying to create this sense of an aggrieved identity, frankly, of a white aggrieved identity group that’s under siege by everybody. And this is that in its worse form. So, you’re not supposed to vote as a father, you’re not supposed to vote as a woman. You’re supposed to vote as a member of this identity group against the world. And if that works, that is very, very bad for the Republican Party and it’s very, very bad for our country.”

This comes from the man — from the political party — from the philosophy — that has sold absolutely nothing but aggrieved identities for the last sixty years, ever since it became clear that actual leftist policies don’t work. Blacks, women, people who think they’re women, people who pretend to be black — whatever category you find yourself in, the left has preached that you should ignore the disaster of leftism and focus only on your sweet victimhood, voting your grievances even when it’s against your best interests.

In other words, Van Jones’ only real complaint against Bannon is that Bannon has sunk to the level of Van Jones!

It is no surprise that leftists are empty vessels with “Virtue” printed on the side. What is new here is that all CNN’s horses and all the New York Times’ men can’t quite put the Dems’ self-image together again. What’s new is a rebel media and a pugilistic president who call them out for the despicable liars they are. The days when a press monopolized by the left could crown a sick punk like Ted Kennedy the “Lion of the Senate,” and get away with it? Them days are done.

So if leftists really want conservatives to behave like conservatives, they should make sure the networks and the Times and CNN begin to hold everyone to the same standards all the time no matter what’s at stake.

Don’t even dream of holding your breath waiting for that, bub. As Vox says:

Klavan and other conservative commentators have got to get over their irrepressible desire to fix the Left and understand that they don’t get a vote. The point is not to prove to the Left that they are wrong and that they should stop what they are doing and behave more like we do. The point is to defeat them utterly, then eradicate their ideas from Western civilization before they manage to destroy it once and for all.

Preee-cisely.

Share

“Before I can teach you how to reason, I must first teach you how to rid yourself of unreason”

Ground rules.

Reasoning requires you to understand truth claims, even truth claims that you think are false or bad or just icky. Most of you have been taught to label things with various “isms” which prevent you from understanding claims you find uncomfortable or difficult.

Reasoning requires correct judgment. Judgment involves making distinctions, discriminating. Most of you have been taught how to avoid critical, evaluative judgments by appealing to simplistic terms such as “diversity” and “equality.”

Reasoning requires you to understand the difference between true and false. And reasoning requires coherence and logic. Most of you have been taught to embrace incoherence and illogic. You have learned to associate truth with your subjective feelings, which are neither true nor false but only yours, and which are constantly changeful.

We will have to pull out all of the weeds in your mind as we come across them. Unfortunately, your mind is full of weeds, and this will be a very painful experience. But it is strictly necessary if anything useful, good, and fruitful is to be planted in your head.

One of the falsehoods that has been stuffed into your brain and pounded into place is that moral knowledge progresses inevitably, such that later generations are morally and intellectually superior to earlier generations, and that the older the source the more morally suspect that source is. There is a term for that. It is called chronological snobbery. Or, to use a term that you might understand more easily, “ageism.”

Second, you have been taught to resort to two moral values above all others, diversity and equality. These are important values if properly understood. But the way most of you have been taught to understand them makes you irrational, unreasoning. For you have been taught that we must have as much diversity as possible and that equality means that everyone must be made equal. But equal simply means the same. To say that 2+2 equals 4 is to say that 2+2 is numerically the same as four. And diversity simply means difference. So when you say that we should have diversity and equality you are saying we should have difference and sameness. That is incoherent, by itself. Two things cannot be different and the same at the same time in the same way.

Furthermore, diversity and equality are not the most important values. In fact, neither diversity nor equality is valuable at all in its own right. Some diversity is bad. For example, if slavery is inherently wrong, as I suspect we all think it is, then a diversity of views about the morality of slavery is worse than complete agreement that slavery is wrong.

Similarly, equality is not to be desired for its own sake. Nobody is equal in all respects. We are all different, which is to say that we are all not the same, which is to say that we are unequal in many ways. And that is generally a good thing. But it is not always a good thing (see the previous remarks about diversity).

Related to this:  You do you not know what the word “fair” means.

Look for this brilliant professor to be reprimanded at the very least, if not fired outright, in the wake of this. Read all of it; the man is just starting out in this excerpt from the prefatory portion above, and it just gets better from there. I especially like his third rule, and believe it should be enforced not just in his class but throughout the whole of our faltering society. At gunpoint, if necessary, and on pain of flogging.

Via Steyn, who adds: “My admiration for this professor’s manifesto is mitigated only by the melancholy reflection that two generations ago every single thing he said would have gone without saying.” Sure enough.

Share

Bullets first

Schlichter sums up:

Show of hands. Who is up to give up your ability to protect yourself because the same people who celebrate us being murdered demand it? Anyone? Hello? Bueller?

Then, of course, the killing spree got stopped by the very thing that liberals insist doesn’t exist except for all the times it has existed – a good guy with a gun. A Texan exhibiting something liberals are unfamiliar with – manhood – took his rifle and went one-on-one with that walking chamber pot and put a round in him. The tubby terrorist, confronted with an armed American citizen instead of little kids, dropped his rifle and ran, gut shot. Let’s hope he suffered good and hard before he checked himself out like the coward he was.

So, let’s review. We’re supposed to demand laws that make it illegal for human suppositories like this to have guns, even though it was already illegal for him to have guns. We’re supposed to rely on government background checks to protect us even though the government keeps failing at that. We’re also supposed to disarm at the behest of people who know literally nothing about guns or existing gun laws. And we’re supposed to not believe that we have the ability to defend ourselves, even though normal Americans do so every day – here, an instructor from the NRA literally ended this bloodbath. But we should ignore that for reasons and because.

But wait, there’s more. We’re supposed to disarm in the face of people who celebrate when we are murdered. The Hollywood types, taking a break from molesting each other, didn’t exactly celebrate our deaths, but they couldn’t help spewing their hatred for our faith. I bet if we were disarmed, and a government controlled by liberals had a total monopoly on force, they’d be totally cool and respect our religious rights. I checked with Chet and he thinks so – it’s not like right now they want to bankrupt people for not baking cakes.

Here’s the sad fact – the people who want us disarmed don’t care if we get murdered. Not at all. Chicago has a slow motion Sutherland Springs every two weeks and the smarmy Democrats who run that hellhole don’t care. If they did, they would unleash the cops, who know exactly who the crooks are. Remember how liberals howled about “stop and frisk?” That took illegal guns off the streets, but progressive politics always take precedence. Our lives don’t matter except as a tool to be exploited when they want to take normals’ rights.

Our elite doesn’t want gun control. It wants us control.

Bingo, nailed it in one. But they have a big, big problem which, just as it always has, still boils down to this: from my cold, dead hands, bitches. I know they’d be fine with that as long as they could get someone to do it for them and all, but still.

Think I’m alone in that, or at best part of a tiny, statistically insignificant handful of radical, fanatical 2A extremists? Better think again, Poindexter:

In 2014, attorney and policy analyst Paloma Capanna filed suit on behalf of Rochester-based radio host Bill Robinson seeking data on NY SAFE Act compliance: specifically, how many assault weapons had actually been registered in the state.

Cuomo administration officials first ignored, then denied Robinson’s Freedom of Information Act request. But, on June 22, following two years of litigation, state police released the information based on a court decision which found that while the law forbade the disclosure of the actual registration forms, nothing precluded the release of aggregate data.

That data shows massive noncompliance with the assault weapon registration requirement. Based on an estimate from the National Shooting Sports Federation, about 1 million firearms in New York State meet the law’s assault-weapon criteria, but just 44,000 have been registered. That’s a compliance rate of about 4 percent. Capanna said that the high rate of noncompliance with the law could only be interpreted as a large-scale civil disobedience, given the high level of interest and concern about the law on the part of gun owners.

“It’s not that they aren’t aware of the law,” said Capanna. “The lack of registration is a massive act of civil disobedience by gun owners statewide.”

Oh, and did I mention their needing someone to confiscate ’em for them? Why yes; yes I did.

Opposition to the SAFE Act has been widespread across upstate New York, where 52 of the state’s 62 counties, including Ulster, have passed resolutions opposing the law. Upstate police agencies have also demonstrated a marked lack of enthusiasm for enforcing the ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines. According to statistics compiled by the state Department of Criminal Justice Services, there have been just 11 arrests for failure to register an otherwise-legal assault weapon since the SAFE Act took effect in March 2013 and 62 for possession of a large capacity magazine. In Ulster County, where 463 assault weapons have been registered, there have been just three arrests for possession of large-capacity magazines and none for failure to register an assault weapon. Ulster County Sheriff Paul VanBlarcum has been a vocal critic of the law; he said he believed large numbers of Ulster County gun owners had chosen to ignore the registration requirement.

“We’re a rural county with a lot of gun enthusiasts,” said VanBlarcum. “So [463] sounds like a very low number.”

VanBlarcum said he had advised deputies to use their discretion when it came to making arrests for SAFE Act violations like unregistered assault weapons and he had no plans to undertake proactive enforcement measures.

“We are not actively out looking to enforce any aspect of the SAFE Act,” said VanBlarcum.

As I’ve mentioned before, I have friends and family who are cops; many of the customers at the Harley shop I used to work at are cops. And I can assure you based on my own conversations with these guys that there is absolutely ZERO enthusiasm among them not only for having to enforce these laws, but for the laws themselves in the first damned place. Their opposition to such laws, in other words, is based not on narrow concern for their own safety in enforcing an unpopular law, but on their personal firm belief in the right to keep and bear arms.

Too, they’re nearly all recreational shooters themselves; when I used to attend the bi-annual Knob Creek Machine Gun Shoot every year, a goodly number of the attendees there were always cops. There are exceptions out there, of course, but on the whole these aren’t people who are going to be able to muster a whole lot of enthusiasm for personally going out to violate the Constitution on a door-to-door basis. In fact, they’re way more likely to refuse to do it flatly and without equivocation:

With more states passing stronger gun control laws, rural sheriffs across the country are taking the meaning of their age-old role as defenders of the Constitution to a new level by protesting such restrictions, News21 found.

Some are refusing to enforce the laws altogether.

Sheriffs in states like New York, Colorado and Maryland argue that some gun control laws defy the Second Amendment and threaten rural culture, for which gun ownership is often an integral component.

They’re joined by groups like Oath Keepers and the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, both of which encourage law enforcement officers to take a stand against gun control laws.

Lewis, who is running for re-election this year, said sheriffs have a responsibility to push against what he sees as the federal government’s continual encroachment on citizens’ lives and rights.

“Where do we draw a line?” he asked. “I made a vow and a commitment that as long as I’m the sheriff of this county I will not allow the federal government to come in here and strip my law-abiding citizens of the right to bear arms. If they attempt to do that it will be an all-out civil war. Because I will stand toe-to-toe with my people.”

If our 2A rights are ever to be fully restored—or even maintained as is, without further watering down or sneak-thief encroachments on it—we’re going to need as many like Sheriff Lewis as we can possibly get to help with it. As for non-compliance, it ain’t just New York, either:

While the recent experience in New York is strong evidence of the American public’s unwillingness to comply with firearms registration, it is only the latest instance illustrating the futility of these types of laws. In Connecticut, a 2013 law required residents to register certain types of semiautomatic firearms, and individual magazines with a capacity greater than 10, by January 1, 2014. Out of an estimated several hundred thousand guns and 2.4 million magazines that were required to be registered, by the deadline Connecticut gun owners had registered 50,016 firearms and a mere 38,290 magazines.

In March, the Sandy Hook Advisory Commission, assembled by Governor Dannel Malloy “to review current policy and make specific recommendations in the areas of public safety, with particular attention paid to school safety, mental health, and gun violence prevention,” issued its final report. The commission suggested that Connecticut “Prohibit the possession… of any firearm capable of firing more than 10 rounds without reloading.”

Similarly, in 1989 California enacted a law requiring registration of certain semi-automatic firearms. According to a February 17, 1992 Los Angeles Times article, in the years since enactment only 46,062 semi-autos were registered. The article goes on to note, “The state Department of Justice has estimated there are 200,000 to 300,000. Others have calculated as many as 450,000 to 600,000.” The authorities attempted to bolster the lackluster compliance with a 90-day amnesty period at the start of 1992; this program only netted another 13,470 firearms.

The results of New Jersey’s semi-auto ban were comparable. An April 17, 1992 New York Times article titled, “Owners of Assault Guns Slow to Obey Law,” notes, “In New Jersey, which enacted an assault weapon ban in 1990, 2,000 weapons have been surrendered, made inoperable or registered as collectors’ items, according to the State Police. The state Attorney General’s office estimates that there are between 20,000 and 50,000 assault weapons in New Jersey.”

And those are just the ones they know about. But hey, given our history and national character, only in America would such personal defiance of tyrannical edicts be likely to occur, right? Wrong yet again:

Canada passed a strict gun-control law in 1995, partly in reaction to a 1989 shooting  at Montreal’s Ecole Polytechnique with a semiautomatic rifle. The law required universal regulation of guns, including rifles and shotguns. Proponents said the central registry would give law-enforcement agencies a powerful new tool for tracking guns used in crimes. They also claimed it would help reduce domestic violence and suicide.

The registry was plagued with complications like duplicate serial numbers and millions of incomplete records, Mauser reports. One person managed to register a soldering gun, demonstrating the lack of precise standards. And overshadowing the effort was the suspicion of misplaced effort: Pistols were used in 66% of gun homicides in 2011, yet they represent about 6% of the guns in Canada. Legal long guns were used in 11% of killings that year, according to Statistics Canada, while illegal weapons like sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, which by definition cannot be registered, were used in another 12%.

The bigger lesson of Canada’s experiment, Mauser says, is that gun registration rarely delivers the results proponents expect. In most countries the actual number registered settles out at about a sixth. Germany required registration during the Baader-Meinhof reign of terror in the 1970s, and recorded 3.2 million of the estimated 17 million guns in that country; England tried to register pump-action and semiautomatic shotguns in the 1980s, but only got about 50,000 of the estimated 300,000 such guns stored in homes around the country.

All of which brings us ’round to this delicious 2014 press release, from Connecticut Carry:

To Officials of the State of Connecticut: Either Enforce or Repeal 2013 Anti-gun Laws.
It’s time for the State to enforce the tyranny they passed or repeal it entirely.

For years, Undersecretary Michael Lawlor, the upper levels of the State Police, and Governor Dannel Malloy have sought to disarm those whom they fear. The laws they passed show that they fear constitutionally and lawfully armed citizens. Despite thousands of gun owners showing up at each legislative session expecting to be heard by their ‘representatives’, government officials seized upon public panic related to the Newtown Massacre, as a means to exert legislative and executive fiats intent upon disarming gun owners who have harmed no one. The Connecticut Executive and Legislative branches showed their cowardice when they installed metal detectors and armed guards at the entrances to the Legislative Office Building (LOB) only for firearms-related hearings.

Gun hating officials now have their laws on the books in Connecticut. They dreamed up those laws, in their tyrannical dystopias, but it was NOT the majority of the public that supported such laws. Despite all the severe legal language that the government passed, there is still no open discussion of enforcing those tyrannical laws, as they stand. Throughout the Legislature and the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP), there is only talk of “amnesty” and possibly boiling the frog at a slower rate.

As many media sources have pointed out, there is very little compliance with the new edicts, and there is absolutely no way for the State to know who is obeying the law or not. State officials have made their bluff, and Undersecretary Lawlor has made his position clear, that the State will enforce the laws. We say: Bring it on. The officials of the State of Connecticut have threatened its citizens by fiat. They have roared on paper, but they have violated Principle. Now it’s time for the State to man-up: either enforce its edicts or else stand-down and return to the former laws that did not so violently threaten the citizens of this state.

There is nothing that will so completely destroy faith in those edicts faster than the State-provoked chaos and violence that will be required to enforce the 2013 anti-gun laws. Connecticut residents should not have to live in perpetual fear of “the jack boot” coming down on them. Unenforced, frequently repeated threats fall on deaf ears. By passing laws that they cannot or choose not to enforce, State officials tell the public that this State is ignorant, immoral, blind, and impotent in its legal and decision making processes. The passage of such foolishly conceived, insufferable laws is an affront to every law-abiding citizen. Every official who supports such legal foolishness mocks our State and the Constitution they swore to uphold.

“From Governor Malloy, to Undersecretary Lawlor to DESPP, Commissioner Schriro, and Lieutenant Cooke of the firearms unit, and including Lt. Paul Vance, the state needs to shit, or get off the pot. The fact is, the state does not have the balls to enforce these laws. The laws would not survive the public outcry and resistance that would occur.” – Connecticut Carry Director Ed Peruta

I remind you, as incredible as it may seem, that this comes to us from…Connecticut. The state hasn’t repealed the abominable thing as far as I know, of course, but not for want of effort on the part of CC and Ed Peruta; good on ’em for slamming the dimestore dictators like this, valiantly continuing the never-ending battle for liberty in a region not exactly noted for being particularly hospitable to it. I can’t say I envy them their struggle; it’s one of several reasons I left NYC in the first place, although it pains me to have to acknowledge that where I live now ain’t exactly known for being bereft of liberals either.

Kudos, too, to all the doughty patriots there and elsewhere who defiantly—and courageously—rejected tyranny and upheld the spirit of our Founders by refusing to meekly surrender their weapons to an overreaching, grasping government. As I always make a point of telling each and every gun-grabbing liberal I argue the issue with: you’ll never get mine, motherfucker.

Who knows, if Trump can keep helping the Democrat Socialist collapse along, and the RINOs continue to offend red-blooded Americans with their now-exposed fraud and collusion, maybe the time may not be too far off when we can stop concentrating on merely holding the line and actually begin to roll the insidious project to deny the basic human right to defend one’s self, one’s family, and one’s home back.

Share

UNPOSSIBLE!

Yet another example of something the gun-grabbing, lying Left asserts never happens.

Today’s mass shooting in Sutherland Springs, Texas, was only halted after an armed Texan “engaged” the killer and put an end to the rampage, the Texas Rangers reported.

Freeman Martin, a major in the Texas Rangers and a spokesman for the Texas Department of Public Safety, says the suspect dropped his rifle and fled after being confronted by a local man who had grabbed his rifle.

I was out of town yesterday and today for a show, and didn’t know anything about this story until I got home earlier. As such, I don’t know if the liberal media has been trying their usual subterfuge and portraying this killer as a RightWingFascistNaziExtremist™ or not, but I naturally assume that they have—and that they’ll drop this one like a hot rock as soon as his Democrat-Socialist campaign contributions, fondness for Bernie!™, and photos of him at an anti-Trump or BLM rally wearing a Pussy Hat surface. Y’know, of course, and as usual.

For now, it’ll suffice as a reminder that the only way—the ONLY way—these crazed mass killers are ever stopped is when a good guy shows up with a gun. The longer that takes, the more people die. Each and every single time.

From our cold, dead hands, Libtards.

(Via Insty)

Update! Drip, drip, drip.

UPDATE:  There are several reports circulating on Twitter, based on purported screenshots of Kelley’s FB page, to the effect that he was a member of the Bernie Sander’s support group Together We Rise.  There are also rumors that he was an Antifa member/supporter.  Also, that he was interrupted and possibly even killed by an armed citizen with a rifle.

This would, if true, obviously be a nightmare for the alt-left in America.  But none of it has been confirmed, as of yet.

Nah, no nightmare. They’ll just ignore it, and get real busy pretending none of it ever happened.

Share

Fool Kill me once…

Aesop has a suggestion, and it’s a good ‘un.

Islam is incompatible with Western democracy. You can believe the Diversity Bandwagon, or just believe your lying eyes from every spot they foul around the world.

99.something percent of rapes in Scandinavia – Norway, Sweden, Denmark – are perpetrated by Muslim invaders there.

They’ve burned London and Paris, several times apiece. (Reference what we did, collectively, when the Nazis did this. I’ll wait.)

Nearly every current war in the world is traceable to either Muslims vs. other Muslims, or Muslims vs. Anyone Else, because they don’t work and play well with others, and haven’t since 610 AD.

Proof of the frog-in-a-frying-pan theory is that if this truck attack had taken place on the 9/11 anniversary, let alone on 9/12/2001, New Yorkers would have rounded up every Muslim in the Five Borough by hand, and deported them bodily into the Hudson River, with transmissions and engine blocks tied to them to help kickstart their auto repair businesses back in Dirkadirkastan. And the fires from burning mosques in the city would be visible from space, and keeping homeless people warm for days. Because NYFC residents are givers like that.

Instead, they’re wringing their hands, cowering in fear, and listening to DeBlovio burp out platitudes. Instead of going all Tony Soprano, and taking care of business.

You had WTC I, WTC II, and now this. Three strikes and you’re out, boys and girls.

The D.C. Snipers, Ft. Hood, Orlando, San Bernardino, Nashville, Boston, and NYFC three goddam times. Shall we wait for four, or fourteen, just to be absolutely sure???

And those are just the bigger incidents, we’re not even talking about the onsie-twosie incidents. Let me know when the penny drops.

(I know the “fool me once, fool me twice…” aphorism. How does it go after 27 or 57 times…?)

If you’re in a cage with a hungry tiger, you either get a gun, or you crawl into his food bowl.

It’s time to put Islam into the same box as Carthage after the Third Punic War.

For the historically curious, look up the results of the Fourth Punic War.

I’m all for it. But you’ll pardon me, I’m sure, if I don’t hold my breath waiting.

Share

Draining the swamp

One stinking, slimy rat at a time.

What Flake said on the Senate floor, a screed castigating Donald Trump and moaning about the coarseness of our discourse despite being flogged as “historic” by the usual suspects in the Democrat/JournoList mob, was as unremarkable as his career. Much of it may have contained some truth, but then again I’m sure Harvey Weinstein gave a hell of a speech about respect for women at some point. The messenger can certainly pollute the message, and Flake’s minuscule approval rating has nothing to do with Donald Trump — it has a lot more to do with a familiar pattern of campaigning as a principled conservative while governing as something else. People will only put up with being treated as marks for so long, and then they become weary of the exercise.

And no, you don’t get to call yourself a “libertarian” when you vote to continue the Export/Import Bank and give a “yea” to the Cromnibus bill.

This continuing Establishment perfidy is why Trump is in office, after all — something Corker, another Senate dinosaur ripe for the asteroid strike, should take heed of. Corker, who became persona non grata when despite warnings from nearly every quarter within his own party he shepherded the Obama Iran deal to legitimacy, simply will not shut up about Trump and his fitness to hold the office in which he sits. This as Corker, like Flake, has thrown in the electoral towel.

Hey, it’s a start.

Share

The ultimate National Conversation

Careful what you wish for, “liberals.”

I don’t agree with liberals often, because I’m not an idiot and because I love America, but when they once again say, “We must have a conversation about guns!” I still couldn’t agree more. And, since all we’ve heard is you leftists shrieking at us all week, I’ll start it off.

You don’t ever get to disarm us. Not ever.

There. It sure feels good to engage in a constructive dialogue.

Okay, I can see already that I’m getting ready to bend “fair use” over and give it the rogering of its young life. I just don’t see any way I can avoid lifting this most excellent of Schlichter rants almost entire.

Now, we should have this conversation because in recent years we’ve seen a remarkable antipathy for the fact that normal Americans even have rights among those on the left. We should have this conversation to clear the air before leftists push too far and the air gets filled with smoke. But we really don’t need to have a conversation about our rights to keep and bear arms. They’re rights. There’s nothing to talk about.

This goes for all our rights that the left hates, like the rights to speak and write freely, to practice our religion as we see fit, and to not be railroaded by liberal authority without due process. Leftists hate our rights because they hate us, and when we assert our rights it gets in the way of their malicious schemes to dominate and control us. It makes them stamp their little sandaled feet in rage when we normals just won’t cooperate and surrender our rights. But we love our rights – rights are wonderful things with which we were endowed by our Creator, and which our beloved Constitution merely reiterates. But the left, including its pet media, thinks that our rights were merely iterated, and that the left can take an eraser to the parchment and—voila!—no more pesky rights for you flyover people.

Nah. I think we’ll keep ‘em. All of them, unchanged. And there’s only one way we can lose them, unless a lot of leftists buy a lot of guns, conduct a lot of tactical training, and stop being little weenies. I’m not worried about any of those things happening, particularly the last one. So, as a practical matter, we only lose our rights if we allow ourselves to be shamed, threatened, whined, and lectured into giving them up by skeevy tragedy-buzzard pols, mainstream media meat puppets, and late night chucklemonkeys whose names and faces all blend together into one unfunny, preachy blur.

I just don’t see Jimmy Kimmel donning Kevlar to molon labe and risking his sorry carcass trying to separate normal Americans from their ability to defend themselves, their families, and their Constitution from the people who constantly tell us how much they hate us.

Well, not unless there’s about thirty of him surrounding one of us, as per the usual liberal-fascist MO. Otherwise, it’s doubtful he’d so much as lift a finger to prevent his wife and daughter getting raped and murdered in front of his very eyes. Probably by a gang of those “moderate Muslims” the Left is so enamored of, without ever being able to find a single living example of.

On the bright side, I DID manage to honor fair use by leaving out a few paragraphs there, which you’re going to want to go and read anyway. But then Kurt really cuts loose with the Clue Bat, fungo-ing huge, achy lumps onto those empty “liberal” heads:

So, let’s continue our important conversation. How about this? How about we continue to speak freely, saying whatever we want however we want, and you leftists just sit there and be offended? How about we practice our faiths however we want, even if that means some of us don’t end up validating every one of your preferred personal peccadillos (I checked under all of the penumbras and emanations in the Constitution and I can’t find anywhere that you have a right to have us high-five everything you do). And how about we insist that everyone accused of something gets due process and the chance to defend himself – or herself, or even xirself?

Yeah, we know that us having rights is inconvenient, but that’s too damn bad. Because we aren’t asking you for our rights. We’re telling you we aren’t giving them up.

See, we’re done walking on eggshells and playing your verbal minefield game. You’ll call us “murderers,” “racists,” “sexists,” “homophobes” and every other kind of “phobe” you can invent no matter what we do anyway, and it’s all a lie. It’s also all meaningless. You don’t even believe it. It’s just a rhetorical weapon, and a lame one, but you’ve fired all your ammo. The chamber is empty. Keep pulling the trigger on your slanders, but we’re now woke to the scam and you’re just shooting blanks.

Anyway, let’s continue our conversation. You’re not going to pin the rampage of some scumbag on millions and millions of people who didn’t do it. You’re not going to leverage this spree into disarming us – which is your ultimate goal. We know how you hate the idea that we are armed and independent, that we hold a lead veto over your fever dreams of tyrannical rule over us. You know how important it is to us to be free citizens; you yearn to humiliate us by stripping us of our self-respect by taking away our means of keeping ourselves free from the tyranny of people like you.

You never cared that 59 people were murdered – some of you, as we have seen, cheered – and I gotta say, it’s a bad look to screech “I’m glad you crackers are dead, now heed my command to give up your guns!” If you really cared about 59 people being murdered, you’d demand that the Chicago PD flood the ghetto and stop and frisk until every punk with a gun was disarmed because 59 people get murdered there in a slow month. Oh, but wait – their rights! Gee, I thought that RIGHTS DON’T MATTER IF TAKING RIGHTS AWAY SAVES JUST ONE LIFE… I guess it’s really about whose rights, isn’t it?

So, let’s finish our conversation about guns. Where was I? Oh yeah. No.

BANGFUCKINGZOOM. I’m gonna leave out his conclusion too, which is another thing you won’t want to miss. I’ll close my own post here with a quote from the great Charlton Heston, directed at Al Gore at the time and still readily applicable to the rest of the gun-grabbin’ Left: from my cold, dead hands, motherfuckers. You jump on up and start the ball any time you think you’re ready to dance. We’ll be waiting.

Share

Tell us how you REALLY feel…

In the comments here, the esteemed and estimable Aesop says:

The National Felony League has no clue what a firestorm they’ve unleashed by coddling this crapola.

I’m betting that Mattis’ DoD comes down on them next, followed by the advertisers, then the owners dump Goodall, and the @$$clown player purges start with a vengeance.

If they’re smart, and do this in a hurry, they get over it in 5-10 years.

If they dig in harder, they become roller derby.

Okay, that’s good squishy right there sure enough. But then, over at his place, he REALLY uncorks:

For the benefit of the illiterate double-digit IQ players: any display whatsoever during the national anthem is still a me!me!me!-fest, for you attention-whoring douchebags, and just as obnoxious as the original displays, @$$holes.

Probably more so, since you have yet to apologize for the earlier virtue-signaling grandstanding, sh*tting on America, and wiping your @$$#$ with the flag, and have in fact doubled down, doing it now without the slightest bit of shame.

The national anthem isn’t about you pampered sports pussies, it’s about the country of US.

You want to put your hands somewhere, it’s easy (unless you were born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia): your right hand goes over your heart, and your left hand goes at your side.

Linking your arms is the same middle finger to America that all your other antics have been, and we’re not buying the bullsh*t.

Until you stop ALL DISPLAYS during the national anthem, other than one of humble respect for the flag and nation you live in, and under whose blessings you’re all favored to be paid far more than you deserve for a pretty meager set of skills in anything but a society of bountiful plenty, you’re all still just a bunch of disrespectful bums, who deserve to be kicked to the curb until you’re forced to earn a real living at a real job, or fired by the spineless jellyfish who nominally run your League Of Losers.

Ouch. That stung all the way over here. Pretty much says it all, too—especially his closing statement, perfectly expressed in graphic form.

Out of the mouths of babes brats update! Moron accidentally stumbles upon wisdom, fails to recognize its significance:

Don’t come to the game.

That’s the message a couple of the Titans’ star players have for any outraged fans threatening to turn their back on the team…

“First off, I’m going to say this: We’re not disrespecting the military, the men and women that serve in the Army. That’s not what it’s all about,” Titans tight end Delanie Walker said…

“And the fans that don’t want to come to the game? I mean, OK. Bye. I mean, if you feel that’s something, we’re disrespecting you, don’t come to the game. You don’t have to. No one’s telling you to come to the game. It’s your freedom of choice to do that.”

That right there is advice we should all be heeding…until Walker and his ilk are all stocking shelves at Wal Mart, manning drive-thru windows, filling in potholes, or cleaning hotel rooms for a living. And as Stephen adds: we’re way ahead of you, pal.

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