Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

Civil War v2.0 realities

A little speculation.

To begin with, it would not look like the first American Civil War, which was essentially a war between two regions of the country with different economic interests. The divide created two separate countries, both initially contiguous, intact, and relatively homogeneous. The lines of demarcation now are only somewhat regional, and tend to correspond to differences between urban and rural populations, as well as differences of race and class. A second American Civil War would be much more similar to the Spanish Civil War, with the leftists dominating the cities and conservatives controlling the countryside. Conflicts of this nature, with enemies mixed geographically, are a formula for spontaneous mass bloodletting.

Seems reasonable enough to me. Instead of set-piece clashes between large armies fielded in the old Napoleonic fashion*, Civil War v2.0 is way more likely to be fought with guerilla-style, hit-and-run tactics—quick, small-scale bloodlettings, raids, or sniper attacks followed immediately by a hasty, surreptitious retreat: the very embodiment of what is now referred to in military circles as Fourth Generation Warfare, or 4GW. Such an open-ended conflict could and very probably would drag on for a long time indeed; with resounding, decisive victory a practical near-impossibility almost by definition, such a war would end up a long, bitter, and brutal slog, ended not by victory or conquest but by sheer exhaustion.

The federal government, naturally, would attempt to intervene, but on which side and with what ultimate intent being difficult to predict. In Bracken’s Enemies trilogy, as well as Max Velocity’s excellent Patriot Dawn and many others, federal intervention in a Civil War/rebellion provides the State its justification for instituting true tyrannical oppression, taken to its practical limits, at last…which still winds up being largely ineffective except in the limited geographical areas it controls.

All of which is certainly chilling enough. This, though, might well be the most chilling observation of all:

Some dimensions of a future civil war would be, I think, largely unprecedented. When lesser countries have imploded in violence in recent times, they have done so with most of the world around them still intact. There were other nations to offer aid, assistance and intervention, welcome or unwelcome. There were places for refugees to go. The collapse of the world’s remaining superpower would take much of the world down with it. A global economic crisis would be inevitable. The withdrawal of American forces from bases across the world to fight at home would also create a power vacuum that others, even under economic strain, would be tempted to exploit. Whichever side gained control of our nuclear arsenal, our status as a nuclear power would probably persuade other nations not to interfere in our conflict militarily, but the collapse of trade alone would produce crippling effects that would be hard to overestimate. Many components for products our manufacturing sector makes are globally sourced. Add to this the breakdown of our transportation system, dependent on oil and transecting one new front line after another. The internet would fail. It is a frail enough now. Financial systems would fail. What happens if the banks find half their assets suddenly in hostile territory? All Federal government functions, including Social Security, would fail, many of them losing their very legitimacy to one side or the other. Food production, heavily dependent on diesel fuel, chemical fertilizers and pesticides, not to mention a steady supply of genetically engineered seeds, would slump alarmingly. In short, most things we depend on are now held together by a network of delicate and complex connections. Without those connections, would you have a job? If so, in what medium of exchange could your employers manage to pay you? What would there be for you to buy? Does your town, your county, or even your state have the ability to marshal its resources into a viable economy? How many people in those entities could deal with anything worse than a weather disaster, in which they count on the fact that help is coming soon?

The odds of civil war here, no matter how low-intensity or limited in terms of scale, inflicting chaos on other parts of the world seem to me to be pretty high. The question is whether such a looming threat, which would come to toxic fruition pretty quickly, would motivate some sort of direct intervention—necessarily involving foreign boots on American ground, of course—on the part of those other nations. Assuming any of them were even capable of any such intervention in the first place, of course, which is by no means a given. It’s safe to assume that the UN would regard the opportunity to take over and administer the US itself as heaven-sent, a dream come true—a chance to demonstrate both its might and its indispensability for all the world to see.

At first they would, anyway. They’d learn different pretty damned quick.

From an economic perspective, I think it is fair to say that the left would have a bigger problem than the right. Cities cannot feed themselves under any conditions, and what food could be grown on America’s resource-starved farms would be gobbled up by people nearer and dearer to the farmers. Leftists would have to both secure vast territories around their urban strongholds and relearn from scratch the generations-lost art of food production. Liberal enclaves stranded in the hinterland would simply be untenable. We, on the other hand, would be critically short of new Hollywood movies. Without a steady supply of the works of Meryl Streep and Matt Damon, millions of conservatives would instantly drop dead from boredom – that is, according to Meryl Streep.

And if there could possibly be a reason to actually wish for another Civil War, right there it is. A pretty powerful one it is too, I must admit.

Read the rest of it. WRSA holds that it’s “More than a bit optimistic,” and recommends perusing Bracken’s several comments too, which begin with this interesting thought:

A civil war will not be intentionally started by left or right. It will be an unavoidable downstream consequence of a disruption of our modern technological infrastructure. The disruption could be triggered by many vectors, but the consequences will all be the same. Once the lights go out in a major U.S. city, even for a week, chaos will ensue, and every supermarket will be looted to bare shelves. The Genie will then be out of the bottle, and it won’t be put back in.

This, too, seems right enough to me. Matt then links to one of his several WRSA posts on the topic, starting off with this preface:

A second civil war in the United States would be an unparalleled disaster. Nobody who is sane and who has studied modern civil wars from Spain to Lebanon to the Balkans and beyond would ever wish to see one occur. But if political, cultural and demographic trends are sweeping us toward that unhappy destiny, it would be wise to at least cast a weather eye over the possible terrain. 

Yep. As I keep saying myself, nobody but nobody among decent, well-meaning people ought to be seriously wishing for such a thing, and I very much doubt any significant number are. But the Left, incredibly, seems absolutely determined to force this horror on us, one way or another. Unless they somehow are brought to senses they don’t appear to possess in any measure, sooner or later they will leave Americans desirous of nothing more than their right to be left alone with no choice but to defend themselves. Again I say it: Lefty should be very, very careful what he wishes for…lest he wind up getting it.

The scenario wherein a tech or infrastructure disaster sparks such a conflict is even more alarming, the more so for being the more likely case. As Matt says, once urban grocery store shelves have been stripped, people trapped in the big cities will start to get hungry, with no recourse other than dispersing en masse into the surrounding countryside to forage for food. They won’t be content to just sit back and starve. And the folks they’ll be looking to loot aren’t very likely to just sit passively back and let themselves be looted, either.

Either way, Civil War v2.0 ain’t something anybody ought to be looking forward to with anything other than dread. Then again though, as unavoidable as it’s beginning to appear, maybe Grant had the right of the whole thing after all when he said, “If we have to fight I wish we could do it all at once and then make friends.”

* Ironically, the Civil War—and most especially the new weapons used to fight it—is generally regarded as having rendered Napoleon’s tactics obsolete—or more accurately, to have revealed them as such.

Share

Ask yourselves why we hate you

Explain all you want, but they still won’t get it. They can’t afford to.

So we arrive at a new theory: the media, when it tries to involve itself in Middle American political races, always manages to make things worse for the candidate that they support. The anti-media candidate, meanwhile, gains a new gust of momentum, courtesy of the public’s downright hatred for those mobs of carpetbagging weasels trampling over their yard signs and smirking at their values. People who didn’t care about the election one way or another all of a sudden vote for the guy getting vilified by the snobby people, because they see themselves in him. Populism is an instinct. That’s why the mainstream media is the most effective weapon patriotic Americans have to destroy the mainstream media.

The people of Montana, having heard the news and heard the tape, sided with the Republican who bodyslammed the liberal reporter. The bodyslam made him more appealing to the voters. Said Bozeman’s James Baker: ”A lot of reporters get aggressive. And I guess, after the heat of a long campaign, people can lose tempers. But obviously I don’t endorse it, but I think that in some cases it’s understandable even if it isn’t forgivable.” Said Kalispell’s Vaughn Warriner: “And now the night before the election, what do they do? They bring some outsider in, barges in, causes a scene, and make Gianforte look bad, when it was his fault in the first place.”

Ben Jacobs’ MSNBC “Chris Hayes” appearance did nothing to sway the good people of Montana to his cause. The good people of Montana simply hated him so much that they elected the guy who violently threw him to the ground.

In Georgia, the Democrats spent record-breaking amounts of money to try to elect some lightweight named Jon Ossoff to Congress in a special election for Tom Price’s seat, but it backfired. A Republican named Karen Handel beat him with 51.9 percent of the vote even though she got less than 20 percent in the primary. The voters didn’t care much about her either way. They simply hated Jon Ossoff, who, it turns out, didn’t even live in the district he was running in.

This is President Donald Trump’s America, where the Fake News is on the run but too ignorant to realize it, where reporters like Dave Weigel, who post blatantly false information, finally have to apologize for it and be held accountable to the American people forced to imbibe their errors and fabrications.

So why don’t people believe the media now when they tell us that a Republican candidate is a bad person? Because we already know the media has no values.

The media is for killing babies, covering up for Clintons, starting nation-building wars in countries they’d never deign to fight in, and advertising pornographic gun violence in movies even as they fight to disarm the lawful citizenry. They undress women on their stupid reality shows and patronize women on their braindead daytime talk shows. And now, as we find, the truly bad people in the workplace aren’t the conservative Republicans they tell us to hate. The bad people are Matt Lauer. Harvey Weinstein. Democrats so high on their own moral self-satisfaction that they forget to practice any morality whatsoever. They are the ones who hurt and abuse others more vulnerable than them. They are the ones who have turned against God or whatever conception of basic human decency guides the lot of us. So their moral posturing rings false.

They thought we’d all just humbly sit back and endure their abusive disdain forever; after all, it’s what Conservative Inc Republicrats have always done. But after decades of being lectured, nagged, and insulted—scorned as ignorant, bigoted, hate-filled fools too stupid to be trusted to act in our own best interests, which they’ve always been happy to define for us—from their ivory-tower enclaves in NYC and LA, normal Americans are fed up.

And not just with the Democrat Socialist/Media combine, either; they also finally kicked Conservative Inc to the curb in favor of a cantankerous political novice finally willing to punch back twice as hard on their behalf, to borrow a phrase. After years and years of false Republicrat promises meant to obscure a total unwillingness to defend them and their values, the Normals at long last said to hell with all you, and to hell with all this and rejected business as usual in favor of long-overdue disruption of the tired old charade.

But as much justified anger as there is at both Uniparty wings, it’s perhaps the liberal Praetorian Media that inspires the deepest wrath, and rightly so. No matter which flavor of empty-suit hand-puppet occupies the Oval Office, Old Media is always right there—to prop up a Democrat Socialist with relentless propagandizing, and to keep any Republicrat placeholder keenly aware of his proper role by attacking him unceasingly, dishonestly, and hypocritically, by any means necessary. Their influence isn’t what it once was, to be sure, and continues to dwindle; their old kingmaker/gatekeeper role has been seriously undercut by an earthquake, sudden but long a-building, that they seem to have missed completely. But among the old guard politicians they still do hold some sway.

Maybe even worse for them, both in terms of their dwindling influence and the low regard Normals have for them, is that on the rare occasions when an Old Media “journalist” dares to venture out into the heartland to report on its incomprehensibly bizarre, barely-human inhabitants, the condescension fairly drips from them, and their confusion, discomfort, and wonderment at this alien landscape is palpable. The “journalists” assume that the subhuman hayseeds are so awed by their celebrity as to be blind to the contempt they feel for them, and I’m sure plenty of them are. But not all; at this point, I’d guess not even close to most. The Normals harbor a pretty deep contempt for the “journalists” too, and for far better reasons, although being polite folks they’re way more careful about letting it show.

Trump has lashed Old Media remorselessly and to great effect with the “Fake News” crop, and the Normals know he’s speaking nothing but the plain truth. Far from being alarmed or put off by it, Normals are enjoying seeing the liars called out, after having waited and wished for it for a long, long time. To compound the misery of the “journalists,” the past week’s blundering has rendered their sniveling outrage over Trump’s richly-merited scourging of them completely ludicrous:

This week alone, four big scoops were run by major news organizations — written by top reporters and presumably churned through layers of scrupulous editing — that turned out to be completely wrong: Reuters, Bloomberg, The Wall Street Journal, and others reported that the special counsel’s office had subpoenaed Donald Trump’s records from Deutsche Bank. They weren’t. ABC reported that Trump had directed Michael Flynn to make contact with Russian officials before the election. He didn’t (as far as we know). The New York Times ran a story that showed K.T. McFarland had acknowledged collusion. She didn’t. Then CNN topped off the week by falsely reporting that the Trump campaign had been offered access to hacked Democratic National Committee emails before they were published.

Forget your routine bias, these were four bombshells disseminated to millions of Americans by breathless anchors, pundits, and analysts, all of them feeding frenzied expectations about collusion that have now been internalized as indisputable truths by many. All four pieces, incidentally, are useless without their central faulty claims. Yet there they sit. And these are only four of dozens of other stories that have fizzled over the year.

If we are to accept the special pleadings of journalists we have to believe these were all honest mistakes. They may be. But a person might then ask, why is it that every one of the dozens of honest mistakes are prejudiced in the very same way? Why hasn’t there been a single major honest mistake that diminishes the Trump-Russia collusion story? Why is there never an honest mistake that indicts Democrats?

Easy: because they AREN’T “honest mistakes.” Their “mistakes” only ever cut one way—which all by itself militates against their being “mistakes,” and certainly not “honest” ones—and of late they capitulate and issue a “correction” of sorts only after having been dragged kicking and screaming to it: burying a mealy-mouthed, weasel-worded admission of semi- or non-specific “problems” near the bottom of page C37 (for those few newspapers still able to publish that many pages), after several days of complaints from people fully aware of what they’re up to. More from Limbaugh:

Therefore what Mueller is doing is not the investigation of a crime. What Mueller is doing is pursuing an impeachment. There is no two ways about it now. I didn’t have any doubt about it last week, but this perspective on this. So this brings us back to CNN. There is no evidence. You know what else? If we’re gonna suppose that there was collusion, that the Russians hacked or whatever — and that’s all it is — let me tell you what you get when there is no evidence of Russian hackery, when there is no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion in this mythical hackery.

You know what you get? You get fake news. You get Brian Ross lying in a report about General Flynn’s plea bargain. Brian Ross lied through his teeth when he said that Trump, as a candidate, made Flynn call the Russians. Reuters and Bloomberg published a false report about a subpoena for Trump’s financial dealings with a German bank. That didn’t happen. CNN lies about Donald Trump Jr. getting early notice of emails posted on WikiLeaks with the encryption key to open the file.

That didn’t happen! Donald Trump Jr. got nothing in advance of anything that was made public. And then Dave Weigel of the Washington Post posted a phony photo of the Trump rally in Pensacola on Friday before people were even let in, pictures of empty seats. Weigel wanted people to believe that nobody cared about the Trump rally (be sure to hit the link; Trump’s response busting the deceitful moron is absolutely hilarious—M). That’s what you get. You get lying, fake news when there isn’t any collusion and when there isn’t any evidence of any collusion.

I got a quick question for CNN and all the rest of you Drive-By Media types. You’re telling us these mistakes you’re making are honest. Yeah, you’re just trying so hard to be good journalists. Let me ask you: How many totally lying, erroneous, false, damaging, defamatory stories about Barack Obama ran in eight years? Hmm? How many times in your quest to be over-the-top fair and to get it right did you run defamatory stories that did damage to Barack Obama? Answer: Zero.

Which is just another little thing that gives their game away. Add in that it ain’t just one Fake News outlet making these “mistakes,” but several—ALL in the same direction, mind—and you can no longer deny that the Liberal Media is participating in our political process not as honest, at least reasonably impartial reporters of news as they claim, but as active advocates promoting one side over another. Not and be taken seriously, you can’t.

Anybody—ANYBODY—who still thinks after all this that they can rely on Establishment Media for useful information on the news of the day—presented fairly, offering coverage of all viewpoints, untainted by a concealed agenda—is nothing but a damned fool. Period fucking dot.

“Honest mistakes”? Don’t make me laugh. Those “mistakes,” and their slow, reluctant “corrections,” are all part of the larger attempt to overturn the last election, that’s all. The keg of gasoline here around which they’re waving matches all unawares, though, is the whole idea of the peaceful transfer of power. Once a source of great pride in this country, taken as a given even after a hotly contested election, it’s the bedrock of our system’s stability. But now it is being recklessly endangered, by the very fools likely to be most badly burned by the resultant conflagration.

Jesus famously said, “forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do.” Same with these feckless fucktards—they truly know not what they do. Only they’re not seeking God’s forgiveness—He in His boundless wisdom not really being directly involved and all—and the people they WILL need to beg absolution from aren’t likely to be in a forgiving mood.

I’ve reiterated my long-held belief that if there is to be a second Civil War in this country, it will be gun confiscation that sparks it. But I’m beginning to think that there’s another possibility that just might suffice as well: a successful soft coup finally achieved by the Left and its propaganda wing that removes Trump from office on one or another of these Pecksniffian pretexts of theirs. Should they somehow contrive to pull it off at last, an uprising of some sort is far from inconceivable. A vast number of normal Americans are now fully awake to the nature and intentions of the forces arrayed against them, and the final confirmation of the removal of Normals’ right to a say in how they’re governed just might be the spark that sets off an explosion.

I would guess that it would begin as nonviolent protest both in Mordor on the Potomac and all over the country, but the potential for escalation to real violence would be pretty high right from go. If Antifa/BLM/Occupy/miscellaneous other thugs of the hard Left show up to deal out some of their trademark mob beatings, with the cops again quietly ordered by Democrat-Socialist city and state officials to stand idly by and let it happen…well, there’s really no telling where it all might lead.

But one thing I’m fairly certain of is that it would signal the start of open season on “journalists,” with no bag limit. Which I would have to consider a feature, not a bug. Tar, feathers, torches, and pitchforks would end up being the most trifling of their concerns, a best-case scenario.

In light of which, although I know it amounts to whistling in a hurricane and all, I’ll repeat my sage advice to them yet again: best be careful what you wish for there, Proggies. I’ll let Schlichter lay out the bottom line:

These are the same people who constructed, out of whole cloth, the narrative that we are somehow morally obligated to give up a red state Senate seat because Gloria Allred dragged out some sad-faced woman with a story and a yearbook. Except the yearbook was tampered with – just like the Roy Moore Truthers said. No, our glorious press didn’t uncover that lie. But then, the press didn’t want to.

What about the Washington Post and its alleged “scrupulous reporting?” Turns out it’s likely that this whole thing is a Jeb!boy hit job. No shock – the corrupt establishment has been working with the corrupt press to claw back the power we relieved them of since we rejected Felonia Milhous von Pantsuit. The Fredocons and liberal journalists want respect, but they deserve only contempt – and woke conservatives are delivering.

Say, who’s ahead on embarrassing corrections regarding the Russiafail fake scandal this week? WaPo? CNN? The Times? Because all we see are giant headlines about how this is the end for Trump, followed a few hours or days later by sheepish, page B-26 corrections and then hilarious tweets from Trump rubbing it in.

Mr. President, please never stop tweeting.

Seconded, with all my heart and soul. It’s not as if those fastidious Fauntleroys most distressed over the boorish unseemliness of it all were ever in his corner anyhow. Trump got to the Oval Office without heeding those dweebs; it would be an error most grievous to start paying attention to their agitated squeaking now. The payoff:

Here’s a lesson for our would-be moral instructors. See, the thing with moral authority is that you don’t get any more after you set fire to what you have. And our media/political/Hollywood elite’s moral authority is a raging inferno.

Well, now it’s time for America’s Normals to instruct you elitist jerks: We just don’t care what you say anymore.

Nope, not even a little bit. And if you devious, deluded lackwits DO somehow manage to gin up a way to get what you think you want and remove Trump from office…well, that’s when your REAL heartaches begin. For real, and for keeps.

You have been warned.

Share

So much for “moderates”

A completely brilliant piece from Daniel, wherein he perfectly crystallizes, analyzes, and explains an idea I’ve been groping around for for years now, but never could quite put my finger on.

The thing that must be understood is that moderates do not disavow radicals. Rather they bridge the gap between the radicals and the larger society, justifying their ends, and eventually their means, while pretending to disavow them. Radicals reject any dialogue. Moderates emphasize dialogue.

Moderates will verbally reject the means with which an end is pursued. Accordingly they will reject terrorism. They may even claim to reject the ends, such as an ideological dictatorship, but they will, in good fellowship, ask you to accept their premise which inevitably leads to the acceptance of both the ends and the means.

For example, moderates on the left and in Islam will ask you to accept that terrorism is caused by American foreign policy. Once you have accepted this premise, then you have partially justified terrorism and paved the way for accepting an “Arab Spring” that eliminates the consequences of American foreign policy by properly Arabizing and Islamizing the governments of the region.

Likewise, if you accept the premise that Israel’s presence in its ’67 territories is driving terrorism, then you have signed on to everything from BDS to the destruction of the Jewish State.

If you concede that crime and violence are driven by class and racial inequities, then you accept that the only way to end this “class war” is massive taxation and wealth redistribution through government intervention that addresses the root cause.

That is not the way it seems to most people. And that is why the “moderate” strategy works so well.

Once you have accepted the moderate definition of the root cause, you will inevitably be forced to accept the radical remedy. This is true across a spectrum of lower level policies. For example, accept that homosexuality is genetic and gay rights become the inevitable and inescapable outcome. That is how the root cause defines the outcome. And this is how moderates achieve radical goals.

The real threat is always the subversion of the moderates. The challenge then becomes the need to expose the false facade of the moderates. This leads to a push-pull struggle. The moderates cry that they are being unfairly victimized by hateful people. There are shouts of red-baiting and McCarthyism, profiling and bigotry. Their critics are paranoid and unhinged. The moderates even assert that there is something ugly and “Un-American” about asking them to account for their agenda.

And this is really the core argument made by the two allied subversive ideologies. It is “ugly” to expose their views, to quote them, to bring them to the surface. It is intolerant. It’s not the way that respectable people should behave. And the moderates, who pose as respectable people precisely to play on the weakness of the middle class for being respectable, understand that this is the ultimate weapon.

Respectable people do not accuse the friendly Imam on the block of belonging to the Muslim Brotherhood or promoting Jihadist texts. They do not accuse the cheerful teacher in the school whom everyone likes of pushing anti-American views on her students. That is not respectable behavior.

And moderates, who pretend to be respectable, excel at pushing the respectable shame button.

It doesn’t matter if it’s true. It’s ugly to discuss it. That is respectability simplified. It’s much better to talk about how much we have in common, to speak about how we can unite and make the world a better place. And the moderates have plenty of ideas in that regard. All of them involve accepting their premise of what the world’s problems are and how they can be improved by a series of proposals that would culminate with mass tyranny and murder.

Funny how it always seems to come down to that, ain’t it?

No kidding, folks, Greenfield really hit it out of the park with this one. In fact, it’s one of his best essays ever, I think. And that’s saying something.

Share

How they do it

Bogged down in pedantry and minutiae is a feature here, not a bug. In fact, it’s the whole point.

Senator Sessions will be testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee at 2:30 p.m. today. The event has not received as much fanfare as COMEY DAY did, but it will be watched by many who are hoping for a smoking gun or gotcha moment that will land President Trump and all his people in jail immediately.

We know one of the issues on which the committee will be focused will be Sessions’ two meetings with THE RUSSIANS and the mysterious, new third meeting in April of 2016. It’s important to get the facts straight before the inquisition committee meets so you are able to discern what is spin and lies and what is truth.

No it isn’t. What’s important is to realize they do nothing BUT spin and lie, and the truth is irrelevant.

Let’s talk about what the meeting with THE RUSSIANS in Senator Sessions’ office (“the second meeting”) actually means. Senator Jeff Sessions met with Ambassador Kislyak in September in his Senate office. That’s because he was a senator who sat on the Armed Services Committee, as well as the Budget, Environment and Public Works, and Judiciary Committees.

Sessions also met with the ambassador for the Ukraine prior to meeting with Kislyak; in fact, he met with 30 different ambassadors over an eight-month period.Senators regularly meet with ambassadors. Here is a picture of a meeting with Democrats Reed, McCaskill, and Landrieu and Russian Ambassador Kislyak. The media and the Democrats would have you believe Sessions’ meeting with an ambassador is out of the ordinary and exotic. It’s not; it’s part of his job.

Now I’m sure Liz thinks she’s doing important work here, unveiling the skullduggery and fraud integral to this whole manufactured circus. I’m even willing to consider the notion that maybe, in some very minor way that won’t matter one iota in two weeks’ time, she actually is.

But…well…dammit, NO. What she’s doing, in my view, is dancing to their tune. The Democrat Socialists/Deep Staters have been doing this sort of thing for years, and the Vichy GOPe has been going along with it far too willingly and far too long now for me to just assume they’re all merely stupid. We’ve seen this shitshow before, plenty of times. We all ought to know by now how it ends, and we certainly ought to know what the real motive behind this latest iteration is.

Trump ought to fire Mueller immediately—without a single word offering any explanation to anybody at all, preferably via Twitter. He ought to fire the shadowy Deep State troll who hired him, Rosenwhateverthefuck, too. He should probably instruct his employees at Justice to begin an investigation of Comey’s criminal leaks, and he also ought to see to it that Loretta Lynch is brought to justice for her collusion with the Clintons.

Yes, he can do all that. He probably doesn’t much want to, but if he intends to do any really effective draining of any swamps, he may have to. I would have probably picked the EPA or the State Department first before all this, but now Justice is looking more and more like a great place to start.

This whole “investigation” is nothing more than a sham based on a lie. It is a pretense, a fishing expedition to see if Trump’s enemies can either find, exaggerate, gin up, or stitch from whole cloth any excuse at all to either impeach Trump (extremely unlikely), hound him from office (again: unlikely), or simply tangle him up so thoroughly he can’t get anything done.

I don’t think that’s particularly likely either, since he’s been quietly beavering away and doesn’t seem much bothered by any of this nonsense so far. Seriously, consider: he’s removed us from the idiotic Paris “accords.” He’s put the Muslim nations in the Middle East on notice, in very clear terms, that they have some swamp-draining of their own to do, and they need to get to it. With a single Tweet (HORRORS!) he reduced London’s silky-smooth, too-glib, false-flag, jihad-supporting mayor to incoherent spluttering and a public endorsement of the repulsive notion that regular terrorist attacks are something big-city residents will just have to “get used to.” He’s cutting regulations like a fiend, as I mentioned the other day. A new coal mine has opened in Pennsylvania, the first one in decades.

No, he hasn’t repealed Obamacare; that’s a legislative matter, outside his proper purview, and not something he can do a whole lot about beyond advocating and lobbying hard for it—which he has done. His attempt to expand Obama’s travel restrictions on seven Muslim terror-sponsoring states has so far been stymied by politicized courts, for thoroughly specious reasons, and he needs to find a way around that, and get on with it.

But he has the entire Deep State apparatus trembling with rage and fear; he has the Democrat Socialists and their rabid, dysfunctional, America-hating constituency foaming at the mouth and revealing their true repellent nature every single day, to the disgust of real Americans who can finally see them for just what they are. He’s also exposed the Vichy GOPe collaborators for the double-dealing, fork-tongued frauds they’ve gotten away with being for so long.

With all that going on, I refuse to be distracted by a bunch of trumped-up hooraw about who Sessions did or did not talk to, when and where and what might have been said. Yes, the Russians tried to influence our elections; they’ve been doing it for decades, and they always will do it…and we do it too, all over the world. But there is absolutely no evidence at all that a single fucking vote was bought, stolen, hacked, erased, bribed into existence, or changed because of their efforts. NONE.

The whole bullshit Russia story was cooked up by Hillary and her team within a day of her humiliating defeat, to try to rationalize why she got her ass beat like a big bass drum. It has staggered on, zombie-like, because the Democrat Socialists and their constituency refuse to accept the results of the election, and will do anything at all to hang onto their illegitimate power. If there’s any election-stealing going on here, it’s them that’s doing it, right now. And they’re doing it brazenly, in broad daylight. And they’re doing it without the least apparent concern over what real Americans’ reaction might be should they somehow pull it off.

They’d better be damned careful what they wish for. Because the fact is, it isn’t just Trump they hate, and it’s not just him they’re trying to defy, disenfranchise, and dislodge. It’s US—the people who elected him to do exactly the things he’s been trying to do, whose agenda we endorsed by making him President. Ultimately, it’s our outlandish uppityness in imagining that we maybe ought to have some small say in how we’re governed that they’re trying to dispense with here.

Why, the AUDACITY!

I keep saying: it’s a coup they’re attempting here, nothing less. And while Trump is the legal target, it’s aimed at us every bit as much as him. They are violently opposed to the result of the last election; rather than accept it, they intend to overturn it.

But like I also keep saying: careful what you wish for, assholes. Because should you get it, you’ll very likely wind up getting a whole lot else shortly thereafter. And I feel extremely confident in asserting that you won’t like it nearly as much. I expect it will involve torches, pitchforks, tar, feathers, and rails for riding off to a midnight splash in the Potomac. It will probably move on to ropes and lampposts shortly thereafter. I doubt heads on pikes and drawing and quartering are entirely out of the question.

This far. No farther.

Share

How to avoid getting shot by the cops

Seems simple enough to me. But then, I’m not a rioting, looting #(Only)Black(Criminal)LivesMatter thug.

Break out your pencils, gentle readers, it’s time for a pop quiz. What do Eric Garner, Michael Brown, Freddie Gray, Walter Scott, Laquan McDonald, and Paul O’Neal have in common? Yes, they are all black men who died under controversial circumstances at the hands of the police, but you get only partial credit if your answer was limited to those facts. To get full credit, you must have included the point that they all would be alive today had they merely followed the lawful directions of the police officers who were trying to arrest or detain them.

Whatever the misdeeds of any of the police officers involved in these incidents, it remains a fact that even in those instances where the officers were charged with crimes, the officers had legal cause to detain the men who later died in the encounters. It was the decisions made by those men that set the fatal chain of events in motion. Yes, police officers are obligated to follow the law, but so is everyone else. When the police catch you dirty, the only wise choice – and the only legal one – is to put your hands up and do as you’re told. If Terence Crutcher and Keith Scott had done that, just like all the others mentioned above, instead of being martyrs to a discredited movement, they’d be unknown but alive today.

That’s about the size of it, yeah. You can whine about having to knuckle under to “fascist” cops all you like, but when the rubber meets the road, you’re gonna be a lot better off to stop when they say stop, freeze when they say freeze, and just generally do what they tell you when they tell you to do it, especially if you’re in a dicey neighborhood caught fair and square doing something you know you shouldn’t be. It might be “fair” or it mightn’t, but it’s certainly the way it is. And if you’re too stupid to know that, you just might end up getting shot. And shouldn’t be counting on a whole lot of sympathy from me when you do.

It all serves to remind me of this great and eternally relevant poster:


confused-statist-1.jpg
Or, if you like, my own version, from a post a while back. Careful what you wish for, libtards—lest you get it, both barrels, right full in the face.

Share

Surviving the riots

We all know there will be plenty of repeats of what happened here in Charlotte this week, particularly once Trump vanquishes Sick Hillary and sends the Clinton Crime Syndicate staggering off into the sunset for good. Vox posts a practical guide to escaping them intact, from Peter Grant.

You need to have a plan, at the first sign of such troubles, to get away from the riots before they get out of control. Make arrangements with family and friends, have bug-out bags and vehicles and plans in place (including sufficient fuel to get out of trouble without having to stop at a gas station, because they’ll be magnets for looters). Don’t wait until it’s too late. Far better to get clear of potential trouble, then return if the trouble doesn’t materialize, rather than wait until you’re sure there’s trouble, but not leave yourself enough space and time to get away from it.

That’s likely to be difficult once riots become established. A standard police tactic is to isolate the violence, establishing a perimeter to prevent it spreading. Police will wait at that perimeter until they can see the unrest ebbing, then move inward once again to re-establish control. That works for them, and helps to minimize casualties caused by them (and the political fallout from such casualties)…but it won’t help you if you’re trapped inside that perimeter. The rioters will be all around you, and you won’t be able to avoid them. That’s not a good place to be.

It sure ain’t. Vox follows up with a personal experience:

Peter is right about how easy it is to be taken by surprise, though. We were in Rome walking through the streets in a nearly empty quarter one day when we heard a dull roar. It was hard to tell what it was, or exactly from what direction it was coming. I was curious, since it could have been anything from immigrants to ultras, so my friend and I had the women and children stay back while we went to see what was going on. It kept getting louder, but there was nothing to see until we turned a corner to encounter a large mass of several hundred dark-skinned people who looked like Bangladeshis or Sri Lankans. They were loudly demonstrating against deportations or the lack of work permits or something, and while it wasn’t even remotely dangerous, I won’t forget the shock of suddenly encountering such a loud and overpowering mass of humanity without much in the way of warning besides that dull roar.

And I can attest that having a handgun wouldn’t have accomplished a damn thing. Frankly, a belt-fed .50 caliber might not have been enough without a minefield.

God might sort ’em out eventually, but you’re not likely to be able to kill ’em all yourself.

Share

Take heart, Part the Second

It ain’t over, folks. In fact, it ain’t even started.

Presidential races tighten up toward Election Day. The same people who brought you the inevitable President Jeb Bush are now bringing you the certainty of a Clinton coronation. But the election race begins the day after Labor Day, when Americans (at least the undecided ones) get down to the serious task of choosing who they’ll support for president.

Still — the polls, the polls! The mainstream media says the polls show this race is all over — everywhere. Shut ‘er down, no point in even holding the vote. You’d think America was North Korea, where the elections find the front-runner taking in 99.9879 percent of the vote.

But, you want polls? Let’s look at actual polls. The big, scary polls showing Clinton ahead by 10 or 12 points tend to get the most attention. But as of Friday, Clinton was ahead of Trump by only 6 points in the RealClearPolitics average of recent polls. Some of the latest polls put the two neck and neck. And it’s still August.

Still, Clinton isn’t running against Trump. She’s running against Trump, Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson, and Green Party candidate Jill Stein, who will each be on the ballot in all or nearly all of the states. When you factor in those two (hey, wait, what about “surging” Desperation Party candidate Ewan McGonigle?—M), neither of whom have a chance of winning, Clinton is ahead of Trump by only 4.5 points.

Yes, all this drama for a 4.5-point lead in August.

Of course, there’s still cause for concern, given that’s still probably within the margin of Democrat Socialist fraud. But there’s plenty more bracing cold water thrown in the face of unreasoning panic here, of which this one is maybe my favorite:

People also seem to forget that the only debates that have occurred have been in TV studios between Trump and Clinton surrogates, or between Trump surrogates and journalists. One of the keys to Trump’s victory in the primaries was his strong performance in the debates, where he relegated Jeb Bush from a giant to a lilliputian who, each debate — as Trump pointed out — was positioned further and further to the edge of the stage. Until, of course, he was off it entirely.

Yep. As I said, there’s plenty more, and you should definitely read it…and buck up. It all becomes clear when you recognize the “Trump can’t win” crowd’s stratagem for what it is: a desperate voter-suppression manipulation perpetrated in full-throated unison by both wings of the ruling-elite Uniparty.

Share

NOT WHO WE ARE: The fruits of unfettered immigration

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

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

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

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

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

Share

An old, old story

And a damned good one, too.

Before Donald Trump became a celebrity, before he became The Donald, even before he was regularly pilloried in the pages of the old Spy magazine as a “short-fingered vulgarian,” New Yorkers knew his name thanks to one thing in particular. Not the in-and-out-of-bankruptcy real estate empire he inherited, or his flamboyant love life, but the Wollman Rink in Central Park. And while I think he has little chance of winning the Republican nomination (is he even a Republican?), mostly thanks to the fixed-fight aspect of the GOP nominating process under the auspices of the junior wing of the Permanent Bipartisan Fusion Party, I do think his largely interchangeable opponents underestimate his appeal at their peril.

What’s the Wollman Rink, you ask? It’s a skating rink at the south end of Central Park that, like just about everything else in New York City, had fallen into decrepitude by the 1970s — the stinking, filthy New York City immortalized in such films as Death Wish and The French Connection. In 1980, the city announced it was closing the popular spot for renovations that were to last a couple of years; by 1986, the rink was still “under construction,” costs had soared to over $12 million, and the work that had been done was faulty; the rink had come to symbolize the futility of government at all levels. Up stepped Trump with a challenge to mayor Ed Koch: let him take over the rink and he would have the work completed in a few months and the place open to the public before the end of the year.

You know how this turns out, right? After all, it can really only turn out one way, given that it only happens every single fucking time free-market capitalism runs rings around bloated, corrupt government. Which is, y’know, every single fucking time they find themselves thrust fairly into the arena together. That’s the real story behind the story, and it is damned sure an old one; funny how we seem to be either too stubborn or too stupid to learn from it. Walsh points out another useful lesson at the end of his post, and it’s worth heeding too.

Share

Missive from the front

Can’t say it any better or more clearly than this.

Our sufferings today are the prelude of those you, Europeans and Western Christians, will also suffer in the near future. I lost my diocese. The physical setting of my apostolate has been occupied by Islamic radicals who want us converted or dead. But my community is still alive.

Please, try to understand us. Your liberal and democratic principles are worth nothing here. You must consider again our reality in the Middle East, because you are welcoming in your countries an ever growing number of Muslims. Also you are in danger. You must take strong and courageous decisions, even at the cost of contradicting your principles. You think all men are equal, but that is not true: Islam does not say that all men are equal. Your values are not their values. If you do not understand this soon enough, you will become the victims of the enemy you have welcomed in your home.

Nothing whatsoever to add.

(Via Col Bunny)

Share

Good advice

Glenn offers some:

Want to succeed? Don’t just protest in the public square. Go after him and his supporters personally. Think Ceaucescu. Because those are the stakes you’re playing for. This is no Velvet Revolution. If that’s not acceptable, you should probably just go home.

Which would apply to more than just the folks in the Ukraine rising up against their Marxist masters, you know.

Share

Words to live by

Herschel puts it as plainly as it can be put:

There is no compromise. There is no cooperation. There is only war between us as long as the collectivists want to enforce their will upon us. There will never be peace. That’s a promise.

Nor should there be. There is liberty, or there is…not. Herschel is talking about guns here, but as far as I’m concerned it works for everything else, too. And as he says, there is no real compromise with socialists; there is only capitulation.

Share

Wit and wisdom

Bo Diddley had it:

Bo Diddley’s Guide To Survival

Alcohol and Drugs Only drink Grand Marnier, and that’s to keep the throat from drying up in a place where there’s a lot of smoke. As for drugs: a big NO!

Food Eat anytime, anything you can get your hands on. I mean it!

Health Whenever you get to feeling weird, take Bayer aspirin. I can’t stand taking all that other bullshit.

Money Always take a lawyer with you, and then bring another lawyer to watch him.

Defense I can’t go around slapping people with my hands or else I’d go broke. So I take karate, and kick when I fight. Of course, I got plenty of guns – one real big one. But guns are for people trying to take your home, not some guy who makes you mad. I used to be a sheriff down in New Mexico for two and a half years, so I know not to pull it right away.

Cows If they wanna play, and you don’t wanna make pets out of ‘em, and you can’t eat ‘em – then get rid of ‘em!

Women If you wanna meet a nice young lady, then you try to smell your best. A girl don’t like nobody walking up in her face smelling like a goat. Then, you don’t say crap like “Hey, don’t I know you?” The first thing you ask her is: “Are you alone?” If she tells you that she’s with her boyfriend, then you see if the cat’s as big as you. If you don’t have no money, just smell right. And for God’s sake don’t be pulling on her and slapping on her. You don’t hit the girls! If you do this, you can’t miss.

Hearing Just don’t put your ears in the speakers.

The bit about cows is especially useful.

(Via Maet)

Share

Mike’s Iron Law #28

When they say “civility,” it means “if you disagree with me, shut the fuck up, you troglodytic cretin.” Same with any fork-tongued nattering about “tolerance” or “diversity.” That is all. Thank you.

Update! Mike’s Iron Law #29: the only difference between tattooed people and non-tattooed people is, tattooed people don’t care if you’re not tattooed.

Share

A question for our time, and for all time

Because the document itself is.

When was the last time you really read the Declaration of Independence? I’m not talking about skimming over it superficially, or searching for a part of it to quote. I’m asking you: when was the last time you read the Declaration of Independence in the context of the momentous statement of rebellion, resolve, hope and defiance of those brave souls committing treason, punishable by torture and death, against their King?

You probably haven’t. I haven’t.

I invite you to do so now. Stop after every sentence. Consider the personal destruction guaranteed in every syllable if they failed.

Each and every man signing this Declaration was not only risking his own life by authoring and signing it. He was singling out his wife and daughters for possible rape and murder, his sons for torture and death. His relations would become pariahs, shunned by those who swore allegiance to the crown. By signing this document each and every man was all but promising the end of his bloodline, the destruction of hishome, ostracism from his friends, and taking up the mantle of a traitor and terrorist.

Seriously. Read it.

Bob could not be righter. Read it and, as he goes on to say, think it over well and carefully. The questions such a reading will present to us are the most important we’ll ever be asked, and will admit of no easy, pat answers.

Share

Cliche response

Kathy Shaidle offers some good writing advice on avoiding cliches and well-worn aphorisms–advice that I admit I could stand to take a little more to heart myself. Or, umm, a lot. Anyways, in the course of it, she throws this in:

Some of my “favorites” made the list — like “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” As one wise fellow noted:

Plenty of good men have vigorously stood up to evil men, and lost. In the 20th century alone, there are mass graves full of principled, courageous men that fought the good fight and were murdered for doing so, while their opponents died comfortable in their own beds, achieving all their goals. Lenin died of natural causes, while the White forces were murdered en masse. Stalin killed more people than Hitler ever dreamed of, and not only died a peaceful death, but had monuments and temples built to his memory for decades to come.

“All that is necessary for evil to triumph” is for bad men to win. And it happens. The slogan makes it sound like if you just stand up, bam, evil loses. Reality doesn’t work like that.

Pretty danged timely and worthy of note, if you ask me.

Share

Prepping

Remember, it’s only insane, unnecessary paranoia when YOU do it.

In a puzzling, unexplained development, the Obama administration has been buying and storing vast amounts of ammunition in recent months, with the Department of Homeland Security just placing another order for an additional 21.6 million rounds.

Several other agencies of the federal government also began buying large quantities of bullets last year. The Social Security Administration, for instance, not normally considered on the frontlines of anything but dealing with seniors, explained that its purchase of millions of rounds was for special agents’ required quarterly weapons qualifications. They must be pretty poor shots.

But DHS has been silent about its need for numerous orders of bullets in the multiple millions. Indeed, Examiner writer Ryan Keller points out Janet Napolitano’s agency illegally redacted information from some ammunition solicitation forms following media inquiries.

According to one estimate, just since last spring DHS has stockpiled more than 1.6 billion bullets, mainly .40 caliber and 9mm. That’s sufficient firepower to shoot every American about five times. Including illegal immigrants.

To provide some perspective, experts estimate that at the peak of the Iraq war American troops were firing around 5.5 million rounds per month. At that rate, DHS is armed now for a 24-year Iraq war.

Two fairly obvious and by no means mutually exclusive explanations: one, that they’re taking as much ammo as they can out of civilian circulation. Two…well, that one is more than just fairly obvious.

Share

Ain’t it the truth

Glenn digs up another most excellent Heinlein quote:

Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.

More comfortable governors and leaders, too. Hell, somebody oughta dig up Heinlein and make him President. Near as I can make out, the man never said a wrong thing. And he’d be a damned sight better than the trainwreck we have squatting in the Oval Office now.

Share

And now, 60 Seconds with Andy McCarthy…

TICK…TICK…TICK…

At Big Journalism:

Q. You open with the memorable moment when President Obama bowed to the Saudi King. Although you dismiss the notion that Obama is some kind of “Manchurian Muslim,” why else would he do such a thing? In fact, why is he so loath to speak out against any Muslim, anywhere, if on some level he does not share either religious or cultural sympathies with them?

A. There is a difference between being a Muslim, which Obama is not, and sharing religious and cultural sympathies with Muslims — indeed, adhering to much of the Islamist narrative that blames America for our tensions with Muslims — which Obama surely does. … President Obama is the leader of the modern hard Left and King Abdullah — whose title is Keeper of the Two Holy Mosques, Islam’s crown jewels of Mecca and Medina — is the emblem of the global Islamist movement. They share a common goal of radically transforming the West. Even though they part company on the details of what they would transform it into, they both need to topple American constitutional republicanism in order to install their utopias.

At the NYPost:

Jihad is not mindless mass-murder, nor is it a syrupy “internal struggle to become a better person.” No, jihad is the mission to establish and spread sharia. … The goal is to seep sharia — Islam’s totalitarian legal code that governs not just the spiritual realm but all aspects of life — into our politics, law, financial system, educational institutions, labor negotiations, familial relations, and all facets of our domestic and foreign policy, from health care to engagement with Iran.

At Powerline:

I use the term Islamist advisedly. In the book’s second chapter, I’ve tried to take on the excruciating question of whether the existential challenge we face is Islam itself. … The problem is that those who say Islam is the problem have the better case. I was first struck by this sad fact during our terrorism trial in 1995…surely I should be able to locate three or four places where the Blind Sheikh had misstated the Koran and the other species of Muslim scripture. I searched high and low, but there were none.

To be sure, Islamic scriptures say a lot of things, and some of them are admirable. Good faith contentions can surely be made that passages terrorists cite need to be considered in conjunction with other passages they omit. (That’s a weak argument, by the way, but not a risible one.) But the point is that where the Blind Sheikh cited scripture, he did it quite accurately. Moreover, he is not, as we’d like to have it, a lunatic; he is a renowned doctor of Islamic jurisprudence…

Islam is not a religion of peace and Islamic doctrine is not moderate. There is, for those willing to pierce political correctness and grapple with fact, an undeniable connection between Islamic doctrine’s commands to violence and domination, on the one hand, and on the other hand, the often savage acts and the civilizational campaign carried out by Muslims against the West. For that reason, Islam is very problematic. There is, however, the other side of the coin: there are hundreds of millions of Muslims who, quite clearly, are moderate, tolerant people. These Muslims either reject terrorism (at least in the form of sneak attacks that kill civilians in the U.S.) or they don’t see terrorism as having anything to do with them. Thus, people who don’t want to grapple with Islamic doctrine point to these tolerant, moderate Muslim individuals and demand that we deduce that Islam, too, must be moderate and tolerant – regardless of what its scriptures say. …

As I point out in The Grand Jihad, it is fair enough to conclude that peculiarities of al Qaeda ideology are favored by only a fringe of the world’s Muslims. Here, I refer to the claim that it is legitimate to kill even other Muslims who reject the terror network’s strict interpretation of Islam. Now, I find even that fringe distressing. After all, 10 percent of 1.4 billion Muslims is a lot of people. …

The point is that Islamist ideology…is very mainstream. Sure, it is an aberrant position to endorse the killing of Muslims who fail to adhere to a strict interpretation of Islam; but if the proposition at issue becomes, say, “I support the killing of Americans operating in Muslim countries,” or “I would like to see the U.S. Constitution replaced by sharia law,” we find the percentage of approving Muslims shoots skyward. …

The thrust of my book is that we need to come to terms with this in order to defend ourselves. There is a vibrant debate in the Muslim world about terrorism. We need to understand, though, that it is a debate about methodology. Islamist terrorists and other Islamists are in harmony about the endgame: they would like to see sharia installed and the West Islamicized. That a person is not willing to mass-murder non-Muslims in order to accelerate that process does not make him a moderate.

Still, I think we have to support the reformist cause. I do not believe we can entice natural allies to our side by telling them their religion is irredeemable. They are trying to redeem it, and it is in our interest to help them – while recognizing that they may very well fail.

While they differ on a number of significant issues, Islamists and Leftists are in harmony on many parts of the big picture. Islamism and today’s Leftism (which, as I note in the book, David Horowitz aptly calls “neocommunism”) are both authoritarian ideologies: they favor a muscular central government, virulently reject capitalism, and are totalitarian in the sense that they want to dictate all aspects human life. They both see the individual as existing to serve the greater community (the state or the umma). Saliently, they have a common enemy: Western culture, American constitutional republicanism, and their foundation, individual liberty. When I argue that Islamists and Leftists are working together to sabotage America, this is what I am talking about.

On Rush:

RUSH: A giant mosque. In the shadows of 9/11. That mosque might be built before the World Trade Center is rebuilt. Now, everybody associated with the mosque says, “No, no, no, this is not about anything but good will and outreach.” What’s your take on this mosque? What if the purpose of this mosque is indeed to get a foothold of Sharia in New York City right there near Ground Zero? Is it possible?

MCCARTHY: Yeah. Rush, I think this has all the subtlety of a sledgehammer. It’s supposed to be named The Cordoba Islamic Center, as I understand it. Cordoba was the name of the caliphate that conquered Spain and ruled it, often brutally, for about half a millennium — actually longer than that. The guy behind the project is someone who has said that he would like to see Sharia law more insinuated into American law. The Islamist strategy is largely a propaganda strategy at this stage. The thought of having a mosque erected over the ruins of two of the great pillars of the Western economy and Western Civilization would be an enormous propaganda victory — and the most perverse thing of all is, the thought that it’s being done in the name of tolerance. You know, “We have to have the mosque because otherwise we’re intolerant.” We have 2300-plus mosques in the United States. There are probably a couple of hundred in the New York area. If you went to Mecca and Medina, you not only wouldn’t see a Christian church or a Jewish synagogue, you wouldn’t see a non-Muslim. They’re closed cities. Non-Muslims are not allowed to enter. Yet we’re told that we have to have this mosque in this place where Muslim terrorists relying on a construction of the Koran, mass murdered thousands of Americans. It’s an affront not only to common sense, but it would be a major victory for the enemy in a an ongoing war — and, you know, we ought to remind people we’re still at war.

His new book, “The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America”.

Share

How it works — how it’s SUPPOSED to work

An oldie but goodie:

If you want to know where the future is headed, look where the people are going. And if you want to know where the people are going, check with U-Haul. Here’s an interesting indicator, first noted by the legendary economist Arthur Laffer: Renting a 26-foot U-Haul truck to go from Austin to San Francisco this July would cost you about $900. Renting the same truck to go from San Francisco to Austin? About $3,000. In the great balance of supply and demand, California has a large supply of people who are demanding to move to Texas. There’s a reason for this.

There is indeed, and it’s EXACTLY what any sensible person would expect. It’s summed up nicely later in the piece:

A divided executive, a relatively weak legislature, severe constitutional limits: not a recipe for over-ambitious government. The result is: low taxes, low spending, light regulation — and a resilient, productive, growing economy.

There’s plenty more, and it all ought to be required reading for…well, just about everybody.

Share

The List (part 1)

John Hawkins of the indispensable Right Wing News lists this year’s Top 25 Conservative Columnists of 2009.

First, I’d like to thank the Academy–oh, wait; I’m not on it? An oversight, I’m sure. Oh, well, there’s always next year–unless Congress decides that Next Year is a greedy, polluting, bigoted exploiter of the masses who must be taxed into oblivion for Their Glorious Forced-March into the Radiant Future.

Just as it takes a Revolution to get a Paine, the Unprecedented Assault on America has brought out the best in these writers, though a bittersweet taste, to be sure. Let’s take a bite:

25.) Larry Elder:

Former Democratic presidential candidate George McGovern left the Senate after 18 years and bought a small business. It went under. He wrote: “(I) wish I had known more firsthand about the concerns and problems of American businesspeople while I was a U.S. senator and later a presidential nominee. … Legislators and government regulators must more carefully consider the economic and management burdens we have been imposing on U.S. businesses. … Many businesses … simply can’t pass such costs on to their customers and remain competitive or profitable.”

President Obama, like many members of Congress, has little experience in or understanding of the private free-market economy. Obama never started a business, ran one or struggled to meet a payroll. He shows little respect for the hard, long hours people put in to build successful businesses that compete to provide goods and services to customers and that hire people.

24.) David Harsanyi:

“It’s like communism; you can’t fix it,” Barton went on after the testimony. As a person who frequently and recklessly refers to his political opponents as Marxists, I would remind the congressman that in communist nations, sports were under the management of politicians. Come to think of it, communists always are whining about unfairness. They always are nattering about the ills of money. Communists tend to do a lot of their best work on “committees,” as well.

Should college football bowl matchups hinge on an intricate computer program? Should Alabama and Texas be playing in the championship game? Should TCU or Boise State be ignored? I have no clue. What I do know is that schools and fans, not some Commie committee in Washington, should be the ones making those sorts of decisions.

23.) Jack Kelly:

The key thing to remember about Mr. Obama’s aides is that he chose them. Shaking up a troubled presidential staff is mostly an exercise in reshuffling deck chairs on the Titanic because each administration takes on the characteristics of its chief. There is a reason why Richard Nixon’s chief aides were conspiratorial; that so many in the George W. Bush administration were mediocre; that so many in the Clinton administration were corrupt.

Deck-chair shuffling continues, in part, because members of the president’s party find it safer to criticize the king’s courtiers than the king himself; in part because they retain illusions about the president. (He’s really a good guy on our side. He’s just been let down by corrupt/incompetent/inexperienced aides. All will be well if a few heads roll.) But policy won’t change unless the president changes.

After a start nearly as bad as Mr. Obama’s, President Clinton made a successful mid-course correction. But Mr. Clinton was more interested in holding onto power and in having sex than in advancing any particular policy. Mr. Obama is more ideological, and thus less inclined to make a major shift toward the center.

Mr. Clinton also had had 10 years of executive experience as governor of Arkansas and a circle of intimates that wasn’t restricted to radicals and Chicago political thugs. Only Barack Obama can keep Barack Obama from becoming Jimmy Carter. But he doesn’t seem so inclined.

22.) Jeff Jacoby:

More government control is not the cure for what ails American schools. The empowerment of parents is. No teachers’ union, no school board, no secretary of education, and no president will ever love your children, or care about their schooling, as much as you do. In education as in so much else, high standards are important – far too important to hand off to the government.

21.) Frank J. Fleming:

There’s an old expression I just made up: There’s no liberal in a bear attack. In matters of life and death, like a bear ripping apart your house, there is no time to morally preen and pat yourself on the back for how smart you sound. Back in the day, life was pretty brutal for everyone, so there just weren’t any liberals. Unserious people starved to death or were mauled by giant sloths. With death lurking around every corner, people had no time for useless worries like whether warming the ozone would kill unicorns or whatever.

Liberals have only one piece of wisdom to add to any discussion about war: “This war is just like Vietnam!” That’s it. Nothing else. Every war is Vietnam, and Vietnam is very bad. That’s all they know. I’m not even sure how they protested wars before Vietnam (“This war is just like 1812!”). And to distract from the fact that they have one argument, they also have the non sequitur of calling people chickenhawks.

And if someone was in the military, they’ll say he is still a chickenhawk because he’s not in it now. And if someone is in the military now, then if he believes so much in the war, why isn’t he over fighting it just this instant? And even if someone were to meet a liberal’s impossible standards for having the right to argue for a war, it would be completely pointless to engage them on the subject, because all one could ever get out of them is, “This war is just like Vietnam!”

20.) Mike Adams:

[S]omeone was offended by an anti-pornography article I had written. The offended party retaliated by signing me up for a subscription to Playboy and having it sent to my office. I gave the Playboys to a lesbian professor as a show of good will. Sometimes it’s better to extend an olive branch than to offer a fig leaf.

And that’s what gave me the idea to sign Bill Ayers up for the NRA. I found all of the information needed to fill out that application on the University of Illinois – Chicago website. Within weeks, issues of the NRA’s “American Rifleman” magazine will go right to his office. Signing him up cost my organization www.DrAdams.org a mere $35. It was money well spent in the spirit of reconciliation.

For years, liberals have been denying that Ayers is a terrorist while falsely accusing NRA members of being terrorists. Now that Bill is in the NRA, Leftists will have no choice but to admit the following: Bill Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist!

19.) Ralph Peters:

We have become largely a white-collar, suburban society in which a child’s bloody nose is no longer a routine part of growing up, but grounds for a lawsuit; the privileged among us have lost the sense of grit in daily life. We grow up believing that safety from harm is a right that others are bound to respect as we do. Our rising generation of political leaders assumes that, if anyone wishes to do us harm, it must be the result of a misunderstanding that can be resolved by that lethal narcotic of the chattering classes, dialogue.

History is no longer taught as a serious subject in America’s schools. As a result, politicians lack perspective; journalists lack meaningful touchstones; and the average person’s sense of warfare has been redefined by media entertainments in which misery, if introduced, is brief.

By 1965, we had already forgotten what it took to defeat Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, and the degeneration of our historical sense has continued to accelerate since then. More Americans died in one afternoon at Cold Harbor during our Civil War than died in six years in Iraq. Three times as many American troops fell during the morning of June 6, 1944, as have been lost in combat in over seven years in Afghanistan. Nonetheless, prize-hunting reporters insist that our losses in Iraq have been catastrophic, while those in Afghanistan are unreasonably high.

Instead of agonizing over a fatal mistake made by a young Marine at a roadblock, we must return to the fundamental recognition that the greatest “war crime” the United States can commit is to lose.

18.) Tony Blankley:

Our president has let it be known that he is an admirer of Abraham Lincoln’s — as well he should be, as are we all. He should take the time to read Old Abe’s speeches and public letters. Honest Abe was exactly that. He would make his cases with meticulous and honest presentations of facts. He would describe his opponents’ arguments honestly and fairly and then knock them down by genuine reason harnessed to a profound sense of morality. Lincoln wasn’t fast and clever; he was slow and honest, and he carved out a place in the pantheon for the ages. He also noted that “you can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.”

17.) Dick Morris and Eileen McGann:

The Senate Finance Committee bill includes a broad provision taxing all manner of medical devices. This tax includes such frivolous luxuries as pacemakers, stents, artificial heart valves, defibrillators, automated wheelchairs, mechanized artificial limbs, replacement hips and knees, surgical gurneys, laparoscopic equipment and the like.

The medical device industry had its day at the White House, as did the insurance industry, the drug makers, the nurses and the doctors. But, unlike all these other groups, the medical device industry refused the deal. This posture enraged the tyrants in the White House, who vowed to punish the industry with cuts imposed by Congress. The result was a decision by the revenue-hungry Senate Finance Committee to extract billions in funds from the industry.

So, the result will be that virtually every piece of advanced surgical equipment will be subject to a price increase to meet the levy from Washington. No matter that these devices often make the difference between life and death and that, in effect, taxing them raises the cost of vital treatments. The vengeful White House will have its pound of flesh from the medical device industry for daring to be independent and refusing to knuckle down to administration pressure.

This tax, imposed in a spirit of haughty arrogance, falls on totally inappropriate objects. Valves, prosthetic limbs, pacemakers, hearing aids and such are essential therapies that make life longer, better and less painful. To tax them makes no sense — except in the world of sharp elbows and interest group politics that grips this take-no-prisoners and show-no-mercy White House.

16.) Michael Barone:

Card check would give coercive union organizers the chance to impose on large swaths of the private-sector economy the burdens the UAW imposed on the Detroit automakers. It would set up tollgates to channel the money of consumers as well as taxpayers to the Democratic Party. You can see how that would be good for union leaders and Democrats. But good for America?

15.) Dennis Prager:

There is only one good thing about the Obama administration’s attempts to nationalize most health care and to begin to control Americans’ energy consumption through cap-and-trade: clarity about the left. These attempts are enabling more and more Americans to understand the thinking and therefore the danger of the left.

It is dishonest to argue that the right wants to impose its values to anywhere near the extent the left does. This can be demonstrated to a fifth-grader: Who wants more power — those who want to govern a big state or those who want to govern a small state?

The president of the United States and the much of the Democratic Party embody these left-wing principles. Right now, America’s only hope of staying American rather than becoming European lies in making these principles as clear as possible to as many Americans as possible. The left is so giddy with power right now, we actually have a chance.

14.) Rich Lowry:

At this rate, when Obama writes his post-presidential memoir, it will be titled: An Audacious Presidency, or How I Saved America from That Bastard Bush. His presidential library will have a special fright-house wing devoted to Bush’s misrule. He will mutter in his senescence about 43, like the Ancient Mariner about his albatross. Obama’s perpetual campaign against Bush is graceless, whiny, and tin-eared. Must the leader of the free world – if Obama still accepts that quaint formulation – always reach for the convenient excuse?

When Obama first burst on the scene, he seemed to respect the other side. That refreshing Obama is long gone. Now, he impugns his immediate predecessor with classless regularity, and attributes the worst of motives – pure partisanship and unrestrained greed – to those who oppose him. Their assigned role is to get the hell out of his way.

The acid test of the White House inevitably exposes a president’s character flaws: Nixon’s corrosive paranoia, Clinton’s self-destructive indiscipline, Bush’s stubborn defensiveness. Obama in the crucible is exhibiting an oddly self-pitying arrogance. It’s unbecoming in anyone, let alone the most powerful man on the planet.

13.) Byron York:

This rally, which about 300 people braved the rain, wind, and 45-degree temperatures to attend, was a small-town, homemade affair. There were no Washington activists, no Fox News stars, nobody from outside the local area. It began with the Pledge of Allegiance and a capella renditions of “My Country ‘Tis of Thee” and “America the Beautiful.” It ended with “God Bless America.” There were lots flags and patriotism and quotations from the Founding Fathers.

This is not a rich place. According to the census, the median household income in Winchester is $44,808, significantly less than the statewide Virginia median of $59,575, a number that includes the affluent suburbs of Washington. Less than one in four adults here has a bachelor’s degree or higher. And with the economic downturn, particularly in the housing business, many are in rough situations.

“I started out with three or four workers, and it’s down to me,” Ken Hersh, the painting contractor, told me. “I had my sons working with me. It’s bad when you have to tell your sons to find another job.”

“You laid off your sons?”

“I laid off my sons. That’s bad.”

Cheryl Lancaster, the homemaker, told me her husband “sells evil corporate jets.” She explained that his job gave her a different perspective on the populist outcry against corporate CEOs and their private planes. “You know how a lot of companies were getting slammed on that, but I think of all the people the jet companies employed,” she said.

You can think what you like of the tea parties, and the media coverage of the tea parties, across the country. Here in Winchester, Tax Day was a serious and well-meaning affair. For the people here, there are principles at stake in this fight, and, as much as they can, they intend to stand up for what they believe.

(TO BE CONTINUED. COUNT ON IT…)

Share

The List (Part 2)

More from Right Wing News’ Top 25 Conservative Columnists of 2009:

12.) International Ladies’ Man, Dr. Walter E. Williams:

“The dilemma Congress always faces, when it messes with the economy, was aptly described in a Negro spiritual play by Marcus Cook Connelly titled “Green Pastures.” In it, God laments to the angel Gabriel, “Every time Ah passes a miracle, Ah has to pass fo’ or five mo’ to ketch up wid it,” adding, “Even bein God ain’t no bed of roses.” When Congress creates a miracle for one American, it creates a non-miracle for another. After that, Congress has to create a compensatory miracle. Many years ago, I used to testify before Congress, something I refuse to do now. At several of the hearings, I urged Congress to get out of the miracle business and leave miracle making up to God.”

“How can political commentators, politicians and academics get away with statements like “Reagan budget deficits,” “Clinton budget surplus,” “Bush budget deficits” or “Obama’s tax increases”? Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution reads: “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.” A president has no power to raise or lower taxes. A president cannot spend a dime that Congress does not first appropriate. That means that credit for a budget surplus or blame for budget deficits rests on the congressional majority at the time.”

“Where in the U.S. Constitution does it authorize Congress to force Americans to buy health insurance? If Congress gets away with forcing us to buy health insurance, down the line, what else will they force us to buy; or do you naively think they will stop with health insurance? Which way is our nation heading, tiny steps at a time? Are we headed toward more liberty, or are we headed toward greater government control over our lives? I think the answer is unambiguously the latter — more government control over our lives. Are there any signs on the horizon that the direction is going to change?”

11.) David Limbaugh:

It’s the Republican Party that’s in trouble, not conservatism. The GOP’s shrinkage can’t be because it’s too conservative. George W. Bush, our most recent Republican president, was hardly an extreme conservative. His most outspoken critics today include wide swaths of conservatives who decried his failure to rein in federal spending and control illegal immigration, among other things.

And the GOP’s 2008 presidential candidate, John McCain, was hardly a staunch conservative, either, lest he would never have been the liberal media’s favorite Republican. McCain didn’t lose because of any extreme conservatism. Nor did Obama win because he was honest about his liberalism, which he denied every time he was confronted about it.

10.) Karl Rove:

“Yes,” he said. “I’m a pretty good orthopedic surgeon. When my younger son is deployed to Iraq next March, I would like to be working as a Navy medical officer, but they won’t let me because I am 61 years old. Will you give me an age waiver, Mr. President?” Mr. Bush pointed to me. Dr. Krissoff and I exchanged business cards and he promised to fax me his application.

I checked him out on the way back to Washington. His reputation was that of an outstanding trauma and sports medicine surgeon. He was also a marathon runner and a really fine person.

Two days later, I placed Bill’s application on the president’s desk before he met with Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs. I made sure Gen. Pace had the file when he left. He promised to get back soon with an answer. I told him that he would have to get back to someone else: The next day was my last day at the White House. One of the last things I did before turning in my badge was to write Bill Krissoff to wish him well.

A day later, I was in West Texas for the start of dove season. While waiting for the next flight of birds, I realized I hadn’t written Mrs. Krissoff. So I sat down that night at the Gage Hotel in Marathon and did. She had already lost her oldest son. Her younger son was preparing to deploy to Iraq. Meanwhile, her husband wanted to give up their comfortable life, career and friends so he could honor their sons by joining the military at age 61. And she had given her full, heartfelt support.

Watching the smoke rise from the Battle of Bunker Hill, Abigail Adams wrote her husband John, who was away at the Second Continental Congress in Philadelphia. While she and others lived “in continual Expectation of Hostility,” Abigail wrote, “like good Nehemiah, having made our prayer with God, and set the people with their Swords, their Spears, and their bows, we will say unto them, Be not affraid of them.”

Christine Krissoff’s husband and sons, wrapped in prayers and armed with swords and scalpels, have served our nation with valor. So has she. So long as our nation produces families like the Krissoffs, America will remain not only the greatest nation on earth, but also the most noble in history.

9.) Robert Samuelson:

“Barack Obama’s quest for historic health care legislation has turned into a parody of leadership. We usually associate presidential leadership with the pursuit of goals that, though initially unpopular, serve America’s long-term interests. Obama has reversed this. He’s championing increasingly unpopular legislation that threatens the country’s long-term interests. This legislation is a monstrosity; the country would be worse for its passage. What it’s become is an exercise in political symbolism: Obama’s self-indulgent crusade to seize the liberal holy grail of “universal coverage.” What it’s not is leadership.”

“Consider the Environmental Protection Agency’s recent proposal requiring permits for large industrial facilities emitting 25,000 tons of greenhouse gases annually. New plants or expansions would need permits demonstrating they’re using “the best practices and technologies” (whatever they might be) to minimize six greenhouse gases. Permits would be granted on a case-by-case basis; the proposed rule is 416 pages of dense legalese. How could this promote investment and job creation, except for lawyers and consultants? Government erects many employment obstacles: restrictions on oil and natural gas drilling; unapproved trade agreements; some regulations. But reducing these barriers would require the Obama administration to choose between its professed interest in more jobs and its many other goals — a choice it has so far avoided.”

8.) Charles Krauthammer:

When John F. Kennedy pledged to go to the moon, he meant it. He had an intense personal commitment to the enterprise. He delivered speeches remembered to this day. He dedicated astronomical sums to make it happen.

Today the manned space program will die for want of $3 billion a year — 1/300th of last year’s stimulus package with its endless make-work projects that will leave not a trace on the national consciousness.

Obama’s NASA budget perfectly captures the difference in spirit between Kennedy’s liberalism and Obama’s. Kennedy’s was an expansive, bold, outward-looking summons. Obama’s is a constricted, inward-looking call to retreat. Fifty years ago, Kennedy opened the New Frontier. Obama has just shut it.

7.) John Stossel:

If competition is a discovery process, the congressional bills would impose the opposite of competition. They would forbid real choice.

In place of the variety of products that competition would generate, we would be forced “choose” among virtually identical insurance plans. Government would define these plans down to the last detail. Every one would have at least the same “basic” coverage, including physical exams, maternity benefits, well-baby care, alcoholism treatment and mental-health services. Consumers could not buy a cheap, high-deductible catastrophic policy. Every insurance company would have to use an identical government-designed pricing structure. Steven Horwitz:

“By what method exactly will the officials know how to allocate resources? By what method will they know how much of what kind of health care people want? And more important, by what method will they know how to produce that health care without wasting resources? In markets with good institutions, profit-seeking producers can get answers to these questions by observing prices and their own profits and losses in order to determine which uses of resources are more or less valuable to consumers.”

Profit is the key to competition. Anyone who claims to favor competition but looks down at profit has no idea what he is talking about.

6.) Michelle Malkin:

The two most important questions for society, according to the Greek philosopher Plato, are these: What will we teach our children? And who will teach them? Left-wing celebrities have teamed up with one of America’s most radical historians to take control of the classroom in the name of “social justice.” Parents, beware: This Hollywood-backed Marxist education project may be coming to a school near you.

On Sunday, Dec. 13, the History Channel will air “The People Speak” — a documentary based on Marxist academic Howard Zinn’s capitalism-bashing, America-dissing, grievance-mongering history textbook, “A People’s History of the United States.” The film was co-produced and bankrolled by Zinn’s Boston neighbor and mentee Matt Damon. An all-star cast of Bush-bashing liberals, including Danny Glover, Josh Brolin, Bruce Springsteen, Marisa Tomei and Eddie Vedder, will appear. Zinn’s work is a self-proclaimed “biased account” of American history that rails against white oppressors, the free market and the military.

Zinn’s objective is not to impart knowledge, but to instigate “change” and nurture a political “counterforce” (an echo of fellow radical academic and Hugo Chavez admirer Bill Ayers’ proclamation of education as the “motor-force of revolution”). Teachers are not supposed to teach facts in the school of Zinn. “There is no such thing as pure fact,” Zinn asserts. Educators are not supposed to emphasize individual academic achievement. Ann Pelo disparages “a too-heavy focus on academic skills” in favor of “social justice and ecological teaching” for preschoolers.

Teaching for Change’s objective, in Obama-esque fashion, is to train students not to achieve actual proficiency in core academic subjects, but to inspire them to “become active global citizens.” Today’s non-achieving aspirants are tomorrow’s Nobel Peace Prize winners, after all.

5.) Victor Davis Hanson:

Whereas past executives shaded the truth, Barack Obama trumps that: on almost every key issue, what Obama says he will do, and what he says is true, is a clear guide to what he will not do, and what is not true.

1. Obama now rails against a pernicious Washington and its insiders: ergo, Obama controls Washington through both houses of Congress and the White House, and wants to expand Washington’s control…
2. Obama bashes the Supreme Court on weakening public efforts to curb campaign contributions. Therefore, we know Obama has done more than any other president in destroying public campaign financing by being the first presidential candidate in a general election to refuse public funds — in confidence that he could raise a record $1 billion, much of it from big moneyed interests on Wall Street. […and from overseas, which he also blasted the Court about!–ed.]
3. Obama calls for a freeze on government spending and deplores deficits. Hence, we know that…the Obama record budget deficits that will continue to grow well over an annual $1.5 trillion a year — as Obama piles up the greatest budgetary shortfalls in any four-year presidential term in history.

4.) Jonah Goldberg:

For many people, the idea that he is a Muslim fanatic, motivated by other Muslim fanatics, was — at least initially — too terrible to contemplate. How else to explain the reflexive insistence after the attack that the real culprit was post-traumatic stress disorder? The fact that PTSD is usually diagnosed in people who’ve been through trauma (hence the “post”), and that Hasan had never seen combat, didn’t seem to matter much. Apparently the “P” in PTSD can now stand for “pre.”

A few months ago, an anti-Semitic old nut named James von Brunn allegedly took a gun to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum to get payback against “the Jews” and killed a black security guard in the process. In response to this horrific crime, the leading lights of American liberalism knew who was to blame: Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and the GOP. One writer for the Huffington Post put it succinctly: “Thank you very much Karl Rove and your minions.”

The fact that Von Brunn was a 9/11 “truther” who railed against capitalism, neocons, and the Bush administration didn’t matter. Nor did the glaring lack of evidence that Rove et al. ever showed antipathy for the museum. It was simply obvious that Von Brunn was the offspring of the “right-wing extremism (that) is being systematically fed by the conservative media and political establishment,” wrote columnist Paul Krugman.

If only Hasan were a fan of Glenn Beck!

We have a real problem when much of the political and journalistic establishment is eager to jump to the conclusion that peaceful political opponents are in league with violent extremists, but is terrified to consider the possibility that violent extremists really are violent extremists if doing so means calling attention to the fact that they are Muslims.

3.) Mark Steyn:

The Reuters headline put it this way: “Pirates Pose Annoying Distraction For Obama.”

So many distractions, aren’t there? The sub-headline of the Reuters story suggests the unprecedented pace at which the mountain of distractions is piling up: “First North Korea, Iran — now Somali pirates.”

Er, okay. So the North Korean test is a “distraction,” the Iranian nuclear program is a “distraction,” and the seizure of a U.S.-flagged vessel in international waters is a “distraction.” Maybe it would be easier just to have the official State Department maps reprinted with the Rest of the World relabeled “Distractions.” Oh, to be sure, you could still have occasional oases of presidential photo-opportunities — Buckingham Palace, that square in Prague — but with the land beyond the edge of the Queen’s gardens ominously marked “Here be distractions . . . ”

As it happens, Somali piracy is not a distraction, but a glimpse of the world the day after tomorrow. In my book America Alone, I quote Robert D. Kaplan referring to the lawless fringes of the map as “Indian Territory.” It’s a droll jest but a misleading one, since the very phrase presumes that the badlands will one day be brought within the bounds of the ordered world. In fact, a lot of today’s badlands were relatively ordered not so long ago, and many of them are getting badder and badder by the day.

[I]f the United States Navy hanged some eyepatched peglegged blackguard from the yardarm or made him walk the plank, pious senators would rise to denounce an America that no longer lived up to its highest ideals, and the network talking-heads would argue that Plankgate was recruiting more and more young men to the pirates’ cause, and judges would rule that pirates were entitled to the protections of the U.S. constitution and that their peglegs had to be replaced by high-tech prosthetic limbs at taxpayer expense.

Meanwhile, the Royal Navy, which over the centuries did more than anyone to rid the civilized world of the menace of piracy, now declines even to risk capturing their Somali successors, having been advised by Her Majesty’s Government that, under the European Human Rights Act, any pirate taken into custody would be entitled to claim refugee status in the United Kingdom and live on welfare for the rest of his life. I doubt Pirates of the Caribbean would have cleaned up at the box office if the big finale had shown Geoffrey Rush and his crew of scurvy sea dogs settling down in council flats in Manchester and going down to the pub for a couple of jiggers of rum washed down to cries of “Aaaaargh, shiver me benefits check, lad.” From “Avast, me hearties!” to a vast welfare scam is not progress.

As my colleague Andrew McCarthy [who belongs on this list!–ed.] wrote, “Civilization is not an evolution of mankind but the imposition of human good on human evil. It is not a historical inevitability. It is a battle that has to be fought every day, because evil doesn’t recede willingly before the wheels of progress.” Very true. Somalia, Iran, and North Korea are all less “civilized” than they were a couple of generations ago. And yet in one sense they have made undeniable progress: They have globalized their pathologies. Somali pirates seize vessels the size of aircraft carriers flying the ensigns of the great powers. Iranian proxies run Gaza and much of Lebanon. North Korea’s impoverished prison state provides nuclear technology to Damascus and Tehran. Unlovely as it is, Pyongyang nevertheless has friends on the Security Council. Powerful states protect one-man psycho states. One-man psycho states provide delivery systems to apocalyptic ideological states. Apocalyptic ideological states fund non-state actors around the world. And in Somalia and elsewhere non-state actors are constrained only by their ever increasing capabilities.

When all the world’s a “distraction,” maybe you’re not the main event after all. Most wealthy nations lack the means to defend themselves. Those few that do, lack the will. Meanwhile, basket-case jurisdictions send out ever-bolder freelance marauders to prey on the civilized world with impunity. Don’t be surprised if “the civilized world” shrivels and retreats in the face of state-of-the-art reprimitivization. From piracy to nukes to the limp response of the hyperpower, this is not a “distraction” but a portent of the future.

2.) Ann Coulter:

Being ranked one of the worst presidents by “historians” is like being called “anti-American” by the Nation magazine. And by “historian,” I mean a former member of the Weather Underground, who is subsidized by the taxpayer to engage in left-wing political activism in a cushy university job.

At the time, historian Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. dismissed Reagan as “a nice, old uncle, who comes in and all the kids are glad to see him. He sits around telling stories, and they’re all fond of him, but they don’t take him too seriously” — and then Schlesinger fell asleep in his soup.

Even liberal historian Richard Reeves blanched at Reagan’s low ranking in 1989, saying, “I was no fan of Reagan, but I think I know a leader when I see one.” Reagan changed the country, Reeves said, and some would say “he changed the world, making communism irrelevant and the globe safe for the new imperialism of free-market capitalism.” In Reeves’ most inspiring line, he says Reagan “was a man of conservative principle and he damned near destroyed American liberalism.”

Soon after he took office, President Reagan famously hung a portrait of President Calvin Coolidge in the Cabinet Room — another (Republican) president considered a failure by historians. Coolidge cut taxes, didn’t get the country in any wars, cut the national debt almost in half, and presided over a calm, scandal-free administration, a period of peace, 17.5 percent growth in the gross national product, low inflation (.4 percent) and low unemployment (3.6 percent).

Unlike some recent presidents with Islamic middle names, he didn’t run around comparing himself to Lincoln constantly. Putting preposterously overrated presidents like John F. Kennedy or FDR in the same category as Reagan or Washington is like a teenage girl ranking the Jonas Brothers with the Rolling Stones and the Beatles as the three greatest bands of all time.

Liberals may call him a “war criminal,” but historians have inadvertently paid Bush a great tribute this week by ranking him as a “below average” president. I can only dream that, someday, no-name, left-wing historians will rank me as one of the all-time worst columnists.

1.) Thomas Sowell:

They say talk is cheap. But in fact it can be devastatingly expensive. Among the generation of Germans who were enthralled by Hitler’s eloquence, millions paid with their lives and their children’s lives for empowering this demagogue to lead them to ruin and infamy.

Do not for one moment think that we are either intellectually or morally superior to those Germans who put Hitler in power. We have been saved by our institutions and our traditions — the very institutions and traditions that so many are so busy eroding or dismantling, whether in classrooms or court rooms or in the halls of Congress and the White House.

Talk matters for good reasons as well as bad. Anyone familiar with the desperate predicament of Britain in 1940, when it stood alone against the Nazi juggernaut that had smashed whole nations in weeks or even days, knows how crucial Winston Churchill’s command of the English language was to sustaining the national will, which was the margin between survival and annihilation.

Unfortunately, people on the make seem to have a keener appreciation of the power of words, as the magic road to other power, than do people defending values that seem to them too obvious to require words. The expression, “It goes without saying. . .” is a fatal trap. Few things go without saying. Some of the most valuable things in life may go away without saying — whether loved ones in one’s personal life or the freedom or survival of a nation.

Barack Obama is today’s most prominent example of the power of words. Conversely, the understated patrician style of country club Republicans is no small part of their many problems. It is no accident that by far the most successful Republican politician of our lifetime — Ronald Reagan — was a man who did not come from that country club background but someone who was born among the people and who knew how to communicate with the people.

Words can shield the most blatant reality. Legislation to take away workers’ rights to a secret ballot, when deciding whether or not they want to be represented by a labor union, is called the “Employees’ Freedom of Choice Act.” The merits or demerits of this legislation have seldom been debated. Who could be against “freedom of choice”?

The Obama administration’s new budget, with deficits that make previous irresponsible deficits look like child’s play, has a cover that says “A New Era of Responsibility.” You want responsibility? He’ll give you the word “responsibility.” Why not? It costs nothing.

Wow–now I see why I’m not on the list this year. But I’ll keep on trying. Congrats to all those fine authors.

Share

“The Panel”

WHICH DOESN’T EXIST

“But without this procedure, I’ll be dead before Christmas.”

You try to keep the anger out of your voice. The last thing you want to do is offend them. But the politicians promised you—they promised everyone—there would never be panels like this. They made fun of anyone who said there would. “What do they think we’re going to do? Pull the plug on grandma?” they chuckled. The media ran news stories calling all rumors of such things “false” or “misleading.” But of course by then the media had become apologists for the state rather than watchdogs for the people. […]

“I’m only 62.”

He smiles politely.

“Look, it’s not just about me,” you argue desperately. “My daughter’s engaged to get married next year. She’ll be heartbroken if I’m not there for it.”

“Maybe you should have thought of that before you put on so much weight,” says the medical officer. “I mean, you people have been told time and again . . .”

But the chairwoman is uncomfortable with his censorious tone and cuts him off, saying more gently, “Perhaps your daughter could move the wedding up a little.”

Read it.

Share

How our system works 101: Remedial Democracy for Liberals

Yeah, I know I’m wasting my time here. But what the hell.

1) Winning an election does not mean that you then get your way without opposition on any half-baked scheme you care to dream up
Incredible as it may seem to you, when your opponents foolishly decide to run a weak, lame candidate who doesn’t represent their views and has in fact spent a large portion of his career undermining them, and they consequently stay home or vote for other candidates in droves to protest that ill-conceived choice, your opponents’ ensuing defeat does not mean that they must then cease to speak out on issues that concern them, or that they have forfeited the right to work to defeat measures they strongly disapprove of. In fact, whether you win the election honestly; by fraud and corruption; or because of your opponents’ mistakes, this principle still applies. Contrary to what you seem to think, we the people elect a president every four years, not a dictator, and Constitutional rights to free speech and dissent are not voided by election results. Nor are they voided by our tone of voice when we petition our representatives. Shouting is free speech too, and is sometimes necessary when it becomes clear that we’re being given the runaround.

2) Yes, it’s still fascism when your side does it
Those of you who complained vociferously — and with scarcely anything at all in the way of just cause — about Bush’s “destroying civil liberties” because he took a few unusual measures specifically targeted at the nation’s enemies in a war — whether you agreed with that war or not — are not allowed to gleefully applaud nakedly oppressive actions taken by subsequent presidents against their domestic political opposition simply because you don’t like them, and do like the president in question. Well, you’re allowed to, of course (see point #1 above), but you shouldn’t; it’s at best unseemly, and you will almost certainly be disappointed by the results.

3) In America, we have representatives, not rulers
Well, ideally we do, although that principle has been put under some pretty severe stress of late. But be that as it may, those representatives have an obligation and a duty to listen to ALL their constituents, not just you. We are not necessarily bound to respect them; they must earn our respect by being good stewards of the public trust. They, however, ARE required to respect US — all of us, and not just those who agree with them. Calling us Nazis and terrorists, deflecting pointed questions with dishonest talking points, and running away or using various subterfuges to dodge hard questions and protesters justly angry at being ignored are not good ways to earn that respect. Quite the opposite, in fact.

4) Election victories≠unchallengeable “mandates”
Very seldom in this country does the election of a certain candidate — of either or any party — mean that the electorate supports every single program the victor wishes to enact. Did you think Bush’s overwhelming ’04 victory meant that he was perfectly free to forcefully confront Iran, as many of us hoped he would, and that it was incumbent upon you to sit silently by while he did that and worse? If so, why were so many of you out in the streets with “Bush=Hitler” and “No war for oil!” signs, then (although we did mock you for it, almost nobody seriously called for you to be silenced — in sad and sorry contrast to your own response to the protesters now — except when some of you crossed the line into sedition and treason)? Why didn’t you stay home and keep quiet instead, like you think you have the right to demand we do now?

Election wins in this country are temporary; usually, government programs enacted by those victors are forever. If you think some policy or program is a bad idea when your side is out of power, you probably ought not be cheering for the same thing or worse next time your side wins. Sooner or later, the other guys will be back on top again, and those expanded powers your guy glommed for himself probably won’t look so appealing to you then.

5) If you’re going to sloganeer as a susbtitute for serious discussion, you can’t complain when those slogans are turned against you
“Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.” “Speaking truth to power.” “Stop questioning our patriotism.” “Republicans are (pick any one, or all) Nazis/homophobes/racists/neanderthals/extremists/terrorists.” “George Dumbya Bush is (pick any one, or all) a chimp/moron/Satan/Hitler/fascist/religious nutjob/worse than bin Laden.” All that’s changed is the names of the players. Well, that, and the official government response to them.

Here endeth the lesson. Well, lesson one, anyway.

Update! Extra credit.

Share

Be True To Your School

WE TOLD YOU ABU GHARIB WAS A FRATERNITY PRANK

Via Betsy’s Page:

“In the last three or four months we have begun seeing detainees asking to stay in detention, usually to complete their studies,” Major General Douglas Stone told a news conference in Baghdad.

The US military offers a wide range of educational programmes to the 23,000 or so detainees — adults and juveniles — being held at its two detention facilities, Camp Cropper near Baghdad’s international airport and Camp Bucca near the southern port city of Basra.

Some parents of juvenile detainees, too, have asked that their children remain behind bars so they can continue their schooling, said Stone, the commanding general for US detainee operations in Iraq.

The first Gulag in world history with Pell Grants.

The school’s so good, Keith Olbermann is already jealous of their diplomas.

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



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