Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

Figure it out already, ferchrissake

Oh, how I tire of this.

Remember when wearing a MAGA hat meant you were certain to lose an election to Hillary Clinton? Remember the days before a red baseball cap became a symbol of all evil in the universe?

I’ve been typing words on the Internet to pay the bills for, I dunno, 12-13 years now. I spent eight of those years disapproving of a cult of personality centered in the Oval Office, and I’ve spent the past few years disapproving of the subsequent cult of personality centered in the Oval Office. I don’t like tribal groupthink, and I’m as immune to Trump’s charisma as I was to Obama’s, so in 2019 that means I have even fewer friends and admirers than usual.

But as we head into week 2 of the MAGA Kid Saga, I’m finding common cause with my Trumpkin brothers and sisters. Whatever our differences, I’ve always agreed with them that the media is astonishingly biased and corrupt. The abject shamelessness of our moral, ethical, and intellectual betters, the self-appointed gatekeepers of the truth, has never been more apparent than it’s been over the past week.

That’s Jim Treacher, of course, who’s a good writer and a funny guy. I corresponded with Jim a few times back in his independent blogger days, before he signed on with PJM. I don’t read him much anymore, and it pains me to have to call him out on his fervent dislike of Trump; I’d love to be able to say that this particular piece confirms that he’s rethinking his reflexive opposition to Trump and coming around, if slowly, to a more informed and intelligent understanding of what the Trump counterrevolution was really all about.

Unfortunately, I can’t. The obstacle disproving any wished-for removal of Jim’s NeverTrump blinders is in those “cult of personality” and “tribal groupthink” bits. Jim may believe he establishes his above-the-fray, impartial, reasonable-guy bona fides with them; he may sincerely believe they’re true and accurate descriptors of the Trump phenomenon and those who brought it about. But they simply aren’t so.

It may be that there are some folks out there who blindly worship Donald Trump; who will support him no matter what he might do or say; who hold him in a reverent awe akin to that of the most perfervid Elvis fans for their idol. But if there are, I’ve never yet run across one. What Jim fails to realize is that Trump was never any kind of idol or an object of blind worship for most of us who supported him from the beginning, and still do. We didn’t expect to agree with everything he tried to do. We knew he wasn’t either a perfect man, a perfect political leader, or a perfect president, and never would be.

What Trump actually was and is for most of us is a tool—more precisely, a weapon, to be used against our Deep State enemies in a last-ditch attempt to right the nation’s course via electoral means. Admittedly all tools, all weapons, have flaws and weaknesses. They can break unexpectedly on you; they can be incorrectly applied; they can be ideal for use in one particular circumstance or situation but useless in another, perhaps even damaging. So it is with Trump.

But after decades of being hoodwinked again and again by the Decepticons of Conservative Inc, he was quite clearly the only tool to hand for the near-insuperable job of reclaiming what’s left of our country from authoritarian/collectivist toils by peaceful means. Ted Cruz was never going to be able to accomplish a fraction of what Trump has; none of the other 16 Dwarves were even going to take an honest stab at it, much less actually do it. They were all going to drone right on about their commitment to fiscal responsibility, smaller government, prosperity, and strength and then quietly get on with what for them is Job One: yielding graciously to the Left.

The other thing Jim and the other NeverTrumpTards miss is that Trump’s rough-hewn, brash, confrontational personality—his eagerness to confront his (and our) shadow-government foes in open, down and dirty combat; his total insouciance regarding those foes’ opinions of him; his twisty, slippery rhetorical style; his unabashed and unapologetic commitment to winning if at all possible—are considered by them to be grave flaws: unserious, indecorous, and embarrassing. They long for a return to a bygone era of fastidious Come-Let’s-All-Reason-Together politics. They’re discomfited by the kind of bloody, bare-knuckle brawling Trump so enjoys and excels at.

Treacher and the rest can’t seem to grasp that those traits—rude crude, and socially unacceptable though they may be—are NOT flaws. Quite the opposite: they’re Trump’s greatest strength: absolute prerequisites for having any hope at all of achieving what we elected him to achieve. We wanted and needed a fighter, someone who fully realized that this is a war we’re in here—a particularly dirty one, against a sinister and deceptive enemy. We wanted and needed someone who wasn’t a polished, effete professional politician. A streetfight with a tooth-and-claw thug demands not a pugilist but another thug, an ear-biter and eye-gouger, somebody who gets what kind of desperate, no-holds-barred struggle we’re mired in and is willing to use the enemy’s own extreme tactics to go on the offensive, instead of remaining in the same old defensive crouch that got us where we are.

There ain’t no “cult of personality” to be found anywhere in the vicinity; this kind of struggle is too rough, too raw, too damned real to allow for such fripperies. We’re down to the nut-cuttin’ here, as the saying goes: there’s winning, and there’s losing, and that is absolutely ALL. Those who would let pious worries over “winning the wrong way” should get the hell out of the way and let the brawlers get on with it. In the end, “losing honorably” is still losing, and Trump supporters are fed up with that crap. If it takes a loud, coarse, obnoxious sort like him to put us back into the “win” column, well…hey, sorry and all, but personally I’m a-okay with it.

So go ahead and buy yourself that MAGA hat, Jim—there’s no shame in it. Or don’t, you can suit yourself. You’ve been good enough so far to express your distaste for Trump carefully, without shrieking or profane insults that I know of. But don’t kid yourself that there’s some other alternative remaining that will spare your dignity and halt the Progressivist onslaught too, or even slow it. There isn’t, like it or not; Trump and his supporters are the only game going now. I can assure you, though, that no amount of forelock-tugging disclaimers and “I can’t stand him either!” virtue-signaling, however heartfelt, will ever buy you a damned thing from Lefty. Not respect, not restraint, not accomodation, not cooperation. Not ever. Call it McCain’s Unlearned Lesson, maybe.

You should be able to see easily enough what the Left has in store for you after Covington, how very deeply they hate and despise not only the Covington Kids, Trump, and his supporters, but you too—you and every last one of us who dares to oppose or disagree with them. You shouldn’t kid yourself about that, either. We, however, will be happy to welcome you over to the Dark Side with us. You won’t have to recite any catechism or swear any oaths. You won’t have to agree with us every single time, or even keep silent about it when you do. No dress code, no minimum purchase, no credit check, no ID, no bag limit. If that still sounds like a “cult of personality” to you, I guess maybe we’re doing it wrong or something.


Light: seen

The Great Awakening continues.

I’m a Democrat, and it would be easier to accept my side’s version of unfolding events. It would certainly make my life easier when talking with my liberal friends. But facts are pesky things, and I’ve become increasingly aggravated by my own side. It seems the desire to win the 2016 election and Trump hatred has not only warped the Democratic political and media establishments, but exposed them for what they are.

Yes, Trump is intemperate, narcissistic, and the most unconventional president ever. But it appears that his opponents in our political and media establishments are far worse: they wanted to subvert democracy to save it from Trump; they wanted to thwart the will of Trump’s 63 million voters and not just undermine his presidency, but to concoct an investigation to impeach him and get him out of office.

Looked at this way, it appears that Trump’s election is vindicated for many reasons: There appears to be a deep state in this country comprising both Republicans and Democrats, which will not abide an outsider president.

She ain’t quite all the way red-pilled yet, but the very fact that she’s clear-headed enough to recognize some obvious truth when it hits her upside the noggin puts her head and shoulders over the great majority of her fellow Democrat Socialists, in terms of both intellect and integrity.

She’s quite brave too, committing such a brazen act of heresy right out in public like this. The usual wave of death threats, doxxing, attempts to get her fired, and violent attacks on her and her entire family will probably push her the rest of the way over onto the Dark Side, so my hat’s off to her.


Resist Trump!

Seriously, you guys.

There are two very sound reasons to push back hard against Trump every single time he strays from the programs and promises that got him elected. If the only reason you voted for Trump was to stop Hillary, you can quit reading now. You have no real reason to support or oppose him further, because he has already met your sole reason for supporting him. You can go back to sleep until 201620, in that case, whereupon you can decide which candidate you will be trying to stop at that point.

If, on the other hand, you voted for Trump expecting to get something more than a simple non-Hillary in the White House, read on.

You do Trump no favors by acquiescing to everything he does, because, well, Trump.

Read all of it. Bill is exactly right on this, of course. I’ve said all along that A) anybody who thinks that Trump is going to fix everything that ails America That Was all by himself is kidding themselves, and B) yes, he’s bound to do plenty I don’t like. His recent overture to Palestine and professed support for the “two-state solution” con-job without once either condemning or even mentioning their unswerving genocidal ambitions is the one that galls me most, I’d have to say, but there are others. I also don’t much like the whole “repeal AND REPLACE” approach to Obamacare either, for example. But as I’ve maintained since the abomination was passed, that ship has long since sailed, and is now over the horizon and out of sight: like it or not, America is now firmly committed to a government-run health care system, and that will never change short of actual revolution. And there ain’t just a whole ton Trump can do about it anyway, whatever his inclination might or might not be.

Trump’s fallible nature as a human being aside though, as Bill says, we do neither him nor ourselves much of a favor by not calling him out when we believe him to be wrong. Which shouldn’t inspire us to descend to rabid squabbling or nitpicking, mind. Speaking for myself, my reflexive tendency is always going to be to defend him against the Progressivist assault just as vigorously as I can; no matter how much I may dislike this position or that, it’s almost inexpressible how much better off we are with him than any conceivable Democrat Socialist alternative.

It might seem like a mighty fine line to walk, between constructive criticism and self-defeating attack—between remaining true to our most cherished principles and shooting ourselves in the foot. That line may not always be clearly visible, even. But it’s definitely there, and it’s gonna have to be walked. It’s what marks the difference between being a truly Loyal Opposition and the treasonous, coup-fomenting pack of rabid curs the Democrat Socialist Party has become.


True conservatism

What’s not to like?

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

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

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

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


“Why do Democrats hate their own presidents?”

Oh, that’s an easy one.

Grover Cleveland? Hah. He was the most conservative president prior to Harding and Coolidge.

Andrew Jackson? Pick me up off the floor. (Even though he went all Bernie Sanders on the banks. Most liberals today only know he didn’t like Indians.)

Thomas Jefferson? Nah—can’t have him. He not only owned slaves, but canoodled with one of them.

After that, most Democrats today would be hard pressed to name other Democratic presidents, and even if they could conjure up Martin Van Buren or James Buchanan, couldn’t tell you a single thing about their administrations.

In other words, today’s Democrats dislike all of their presidents. Why is that? I have a theory, but I’ll let you draw your own conclusions.

Like I said, easy: those earlier Democrats were part of an actual loyal opposition, now long gone, who didn’t reflexively despise America and its Founding values. The Democrat Socialist Party has now lurched so far Left that people like Cleveland, Jackson, and Jefferson would have been disgusted and repelled by it. Miserable, vicious tyrant Woodrow Wilson would probably feel right at home, though, except for the #(Only)Black(Criminal)LivesMatter crap.

(Via Maet)


Blast from the past

I said it then, and I’ll say it again now: Wilson was right.

On the night of September 9, 2009, a still highly popular President Barack Obama spoke spiritedly to a joint session of Congress. He had summoned the members of both parties to introduce his plan to transform American health care.

The promises he made that night were many and, to most in the television audience, at least, sounded fresh. “Nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have,” said the president. “Let me repeat this: nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.”

Simmering throughout this litany of disinformation was an obscure five-term South Carolina congressman named Joe Wilson. When Obama denounced as false the claim that this proposed health care system “would insure legal immigrants,” Wilson could hold his tongue no longer. “You lie!” he yelled.

He was the only honest man in the room that night. So naturally, he had to be pilloried for it.


Shock and awe: blind squirrel finds nut!


The consensus among decent people in favor of the immigration bill making its way through Congress is so firm that expressing dissent feels a bit like taking the floor to suggest we chop down the Redwood National Park. People don’t want to hear it, and they also think you’re a nut. That makes this article one of the hardest I’ve ever had to write. It’s not that I’m afraid people will get angry; it’s that I can’t imagine anyone on my side (liberal-fascist) (correction mine–M) is open to persuasion. And, despite the vastness and complexity of the issue, I have to be brief: the Senate hopes to be done with things this week.

The country I want for myself and future Americans is one that’s prosperous, cohesive, harmonious, wealthy in land and resources per capita, nurturing of its skilled citizens, and, most important, protective of its unskilled citizens, who deserve as much any other Americans to live in dignity. This bill threatens to put all of that out of reach, because it fails to control illegal immigration. The problem is not that it provides 11 million people eventual amnesty (I don’t object to that, in theory); the problem is that it sets in motion the next waves of millions.

Okay, I can’t correct all that without spending all day on this, and it frankly ain’t worth it. Onwards.

All in all, I became convinced that high levels of low-skill immigration are good for wealthy Americans and bad for poor Americans.  Far more important, high levels of illegal immigration—when you start to get into the millions, as we have—undermines unions and labor standards, lowers wages, heightens social tensions, strains state budgets, widens income inequality, subverts the rule of law, and exacerbates class divides. The effects go far beyond wages, because few undocumented workers earn enough to cover anything close to the cost of government services (such as education for their children) they require, and those services are most important to low-income Americans. In short, it’s an immense blow to America’s working class and poor.

Nothing but the plain truth–in the unlikeliest place imaginable, outside of the halls of Congress or a presidential press conference. And it isn’t just the acknowledgment of the truth about scamnesty, either: note as well the bitter admission that no one “on my side” is open to persuasion, despite the facts being what they so clearly are.

Honesty and truth. A willingness to consider dissenting opinion rather than reflexively attacking it. From a liberal-fascist. In TNR. Excuse me, is that a pig that just flew by? Only one choice of category for this one, folks, and consider my cap duly doffed as well.


Pigs take flight, man bites dog, Hell getting chillier, Democrat Socialists show signs of actual integrity

This is the first time I’ve been genuinely shocked by a news article in a long, long while.

When specific groups are targeted by a powerful government agency, it is more than just a “controversy.” When the former IRS head visits the White House 167 times and fails to explain why, it is more than just a “controversy.” When the IRS tax-exempt section director testifies before a congressional committee that she did nothing wrong but then takes the Fifth Amendment, it is more than just a “controversy.”

This is an outright assault on our free speech and religious freedoms, perhaps the most egregious ever. Attempting to dismiss it as random acts of low-level employees here is offensive and beyond reason.

We have proudly run on the Democratic ticket countless times. We each have been elected in campaigns where corruption was an issue: in one case, winning a special congressional election that the New York Times said helped impeach President Nixon in 1974, and in another in response to stories of special deals in setting property values in 1990.

This is not a partisan issue.

Shouldn’t be, no. And yet.

We encourage Congress to press on with a full and complete investigation of the IRS. We expect the result put the blame squarely where it belongs, and in so doing clear Cincinnati’s good name and reputation.

Two Democrat Socialists going rogue, blasting their own criminal conspiracy of a political party’s marrow-deep tendencies toward tyranny and corruption, and demanding the blame be put “squarely where it belongs” for once? Absolutely unprecedented. There simply has to be some sort of skullduggery or deception going on here, but damned if I can figure out where. I really don’t know what to make of this. There can be only one choice of category for this post: the most sadly underused one I have.

(Via Insty)


A first

Folks, better sit down for this one.

Even in these polarized times, there are some things politicians of both parties can agree. Price gouging, for example, is wrong. New York Attorney General Eric Scheiderman, a Democrat,wants you to know it. But this isn’t just for soft-hearted liberals. New Jersey’s notoriously tough conservative governor, Chris Christie, also put out a weekend press release warning that “price gouging during a state of emergency is illegal” and that complaints would be investigated by the attorney general. Specifically, Garden State merchants are barred from raising prices more than 10 percent over their normal level during emergency conditions (New York’s anti-gouging law sets a less precise definition, barring “unconscionably extreme” increases).

The bipartisan indignation is heartening, but there’s one problem. These laws are hideously misguided. Stopping price hikes during disasters may sound like a way to help people, but all it does is exacerbate shortages and complicate preparedness.

The basic imperative to allocate goods efficiently doesn’t vanish in a storm or other crisis. If anything, it becomes more important. And price controls in an emergency have the same results as they do any other time:  They lead to shortages and overconsumption. Letting merchants raise prices if they think customers will be willing to pay more isn’t a concession to greed. Rather, it creates much-needed incentives for people to think harder about what they really need and appropriately rewards vendors who manage their inventories well.

This is a perfectly reasonable and sound defense of a core free-market principle. It is well-written, carefully considered, and sensible. As such, you will never in a million years believe who wrote it. And that means that there can be but one choice as to which category I should use for this post.

Never thought I’d see the day. Truly, we live in an age of marvels.

(Via Glenn)


Prominent Democrat Socialist: Ryan not the very Devil Himself after all

What, did he have the horns and tail surgically removed or something?

Why is this important? Erskine Bowles has a long pedigree as a Democratic budget thinker — and presidential adviser. When Barack Obama needed to pick the co-chair for his deficit committee, which he roundly ignored in the end, he chose Bowles to represent his side on the panel.  Bowles served as Bill Clinton’s chief of staff, and earlier ran the Small Business Administration for Clinton. Ezra Klein predicted on Friday that Bowles would be the front-runner for Tim Geithner’s job at Treasury if Obama wins a second term.

Bear in mind this while you watch this clip, found by our good friend Morgen Richmond over the weekend — the Ryan budget came as an answer of sorts to the budget recommendations from the deficit committee, on which Ryan served with Bowles. Even though this is a competing plan, Bowles in September 2011 was impressed with it and with Ryan enough to call it “sensible,” “honest,” and “serious” — although Bowles still didn’t accept it as a substitute for the panel’s.

Of course, Ogabe never has given a damn about anything Bowles had to say before, so there’s no reason to think he’ll pay any attention to this either.


UNEXPECTED: These aren’t your grandfather’s Democrats

Can we maybe get this guy to run for President?

I think many of you will remember reading Joseph Schumpeter’s last great book in 1948 in which he said how this wonderfully creative civilization which we have produced in North America and Western Europe is going to come to an end—not in some great apocalyptic Armageddon in which one class takes over another class and destroys all classes. No. It will come to an end through the slow but steady conquest of the private sector by the public sector.

Private institutions really aren’t private anymore. Many are primarily supplied by government funds. Their private leadership is nominal, their fund-raising scarcely exists. And on the edges, it is thought to be inappropriate. As a matter of fact, the tipping point comes when it is clear that the government would prefer that you didn’t get any money which wasn’t governmental, because it’s not controlled.

Now, that’s happening here. Think of your own institutions and how much money you now get from public sources. I talked the other day with the head of Catholic Charities, the national organization, who reported that last year something momentous happened to Catholic Charities. For the first time, more than 50 percent of its budget came from government. More than half. In time, there cannot be any outcome to that encroachment save governmental control.

Have you all heard of the idea of tax expenditures? Do you know you’re a tax expenditure? And that every dollar that is deducted through a contribution to United Way is a tax expenditure? It seemed like a good idea to discover what the rich were getting away with, but it slowly transmuted. It took…about eight years…between the idea of “Let’s note what the expenditures are,” (namely, monies that are not paid in taxes by individuals because they’re used for other things) to the idea only now just surfacing that the government owns your income and permits you to retain a certain amount. That’s the real tax expenditure—what you are allowed to keep.

It’s right there between the lines. Do you know that you are allowed to deduct that money? Not that you gave it to a thoroughly respectable organization like the ASPCA; no, you were allowed to keep it. Well, if you’re allowed to keep it, then it wasn’t yours in the first place, was it? It belongs to the state. The state will consume it if you don’t fight back…Something of the most profound concern to American society is at issue, and that is our tradition of a plural, democratic society. It would be the final irony if, in the name of good purposes, government ended up destroying liberty in the society. But that can happen, and that is what seems to me is your job to make certain does not happen.

That was…wait for it…

Daniel Patrick Moynihan. In 1980.

Know why it is that I almost never get to use the category I chose for this post? Because there really ain’t no “loyal opposition” anymore.

We’ve come a long way, baby. A long, long way–in exactly the wrong direction.


Pinch me, I’m dreaming

A Democrat Socialist actually talking sense? A New York Democrat Socialist actually talking sense? A CUOMO ACTUALLY TALKING SENSE?!?

Unprecedented. Unlikely. Unpossible. And yet…

Cuomo said he was against extending a “temporary” income-tax surcharge imposed on high-income earners in 2009 and set to expire at the end of 2011, despite having to close a massive $10 billion budget gap.

Cuomo indicated that renewing the surcharge would amount to a tax hike, which would violate his campaign pledge not to boost taxes.

“The old way of solving the problem was continuing to raise taxes on people, and we just can’t do that anymore. The working families of New York cannot afford tax increases. The answer is going to have to be that we’re going to have to reduce government spending,” he said.

Democrats often exclude higher-income earners when they invoke the phrase “working families” during tax-policy discussions.

But Cuomo said working families includes higher-income earners.

“They work, too,” he said, noting that his opposition to tax hikes is “across the board.”

I checked, and this ain’t from the Onion or Weekly World News. Folks, now we know: we are truly, literally living in the End Times. Prepare yourselves…

(Via JWF)


They don’t make Democrats like they used to

And it’s a damned shame. Hell, used to be, they’d take great umbrage at being called socialists — and they’d actually have a leg to stand on when they did. Nowadays, they’re more hard-Left than ever before, and try to trick the voters into thinking otherwise by jumping into hyper-high-dudgeon mode if you so much as refer to them as “liberal,” which they wail about over and over again as being a “smear.” Of course, they have a point, although not in the way they’d like you to think: they’re about as liberal as Stalin, Castro, or Che were, in the truest sense of the word. Funny, that.

Okay, so maybe funny ain’t the word.

(Via Bill)


This Dude is so Ignorant, I Can’t Even Think of a Catchy Title


PERHAPS the most insidious byproduct of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, has been a reflexive sanctification of the military. To put this in bumper stickerese: Support the Troops.

Well, I have an ugly confession to make: I don’t support the troops – at least not unconditionally. When somebody tells me they serve in the military, my first impulse isn’t to say, “Thank you for your service!” like those insufferable chickenhawks on talk radio.

My first impulse is to say, “I’m sorry to hear that.” Because I am. I’m sorry to know that the person I’m talking to might someday be maimed or killed on the job, or might someday kill someone else. Or refuel a plane that drops bombs on buildings.

Absolutely…because we all know that freedom and liberty spring forth peacefully and gently from the loins of Gaia…There’s no need for war and conflict. Our enemies would respond better to a nice hug and some milk and cookies.

From George Orwell’s Notes on Nationalism:

(v) PACIFISM. The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to the taking of life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point.

But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists whose real though unadmitted motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration of totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writings of younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States.

Moreover they do not as a rule condemn violence as such, but only violence used in defence of western countries.

The Russians, unlike the British, are not blamed for defending themselves by warlike means, and indeed all pacifist propaganda of this type avoids mention of Russia or China.

It is not claimed, again, that the Indians should abjure violence in their struggle against the British. Pacifist literature abounds with equivocal remarks which, if they mean anything, appear to mean that statesmen of the type of Hitler are preferable to those of the type of Churchill, and that violence is perhaps excusable if it is violent enough.

After the fall of France, the French pacifists, faced by a real choice which their English colleagues have not had to make, mostly went over to the Nazis, and in England there appears to have been some small overlap of membership between the Peace Pledge Union and the Blackshirts.

Pacifist writers have written in praise of Carlyle, one of the intellectual fathers of Fascism.

All in all it is difficult not to feel that pacifism, as it appears among a section of the intelligentsia, is secretly inspired by an admiration for power and successful cruelty. The mistake was made of pinning this emotion to Hitler, but it could easily be retransfered.

Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.

Douchebags, such as Steve Almond, wallow like piggish eloi in the freedoms and liberties secured by violent men, but can’t bring themselves to show any respect for those men–dare I say even masturbating with gleeful schadenfrude whenever there are reports of isolated misdeeds at the hands of the cruel wolves we call soldiers. They fall over themselves to be the first to pity our enemies when we’re at war. They are the last to commend our troops for willingly putting their lives on the line so others have a better chance at prosperous futures…

Almond and his ilk deserve neither liberty nor safety…

(via QandO)


Hoping you won’t notice the change

The Last Sane Democrat nails it again:

Senator Obama this morning said that he wants a foreign policy that is “tough, smart, and principled.” This afternoon, I ask: was it tough when Senator Obama voted to order U.S. forces to retreat from Iraq on a fixed timeline—regardless of the recommendations of our military commanders, regardless of conditions on the ground? Was it smart when Senator Obama opposed the surge and predicted that it would fail to improve security? Was it principled when Senator Obama said that he would order U.S. troops to retreat from Iraq, regardless of the humanitarian consequences for millions of innocent Iraqis—even genocide? Was it tough and principled when Senator Obama said he would be open to changing his plan for Iraq after going there and talking to General Petraeus—only to change that position a few hours later after being heatedly criticized by organizations like I say respectfully, the answer to all of those questions is no.

It’s neither tough, nor principled, nor smart, as Lieberman says; it’s calculated and political –just like everything else this greasy, grubby megalomaniac says or does. And it’s all going right down the memory hole, if empty-suit Obama has anything to say about it.

Now that’s “change we can believe in.”

Update! Wishful thinking from Captain Ed:

Obama won’t talk to the generals first because he knows that they will laugh him out of the room if he suggested that we could win the war by retreating. Even the Iraqis, who want to establish their sovereignty, want to have a continuing American partnership for at least the next several years, especially with an increasingly hegemonic Iran next door.

After his reversal on FISA reform and to a lesser extent with public financing, though, Obama cannot afford to reverse himself on Iraq, regardless of how wrong events proved him to be. The Left nearly pitched him overboard this month during the FISA vote, and any weakening on Iraq will prove fatal to his presidential aspirations. It could even result in losing the nomination, if the floor-vote momentum gains ground, as it surely will if Obama departs from his impossible 16-month Iron Timetable.

Not a chance, Ed. The hard-core Left has nowhere else to go; the in-the-tank, thrill-up-the-leg liberal media will pull out all the stops to portray his politics-as-usual vacillation and narcissistic ambition as courageous, strong, and heroic; and the bleating-dupe cultists will follow anywhere their Savior leads and ignore all evidence of his feet of clay. They’ll all fall worshipfully in line behind their revered Pied Piper, and the sound of their lockstep marching will echo throughout the land. Count on it. It’s one reason McCain’s courting of the mushy middle is so frustrating and idiotic; he’s alienating the (former?) Republican base by sucking up for votes he hasn’t a hope in Hell of ever getting.


Final warning

Didn’t have a lot of time on my hands for posting this last week, and likely I won’t have a whole lot these next couple of days either, but no way can I pass up mentioning this gem, from the last real Democrat extant:

Well, I say that the Democratic Party changed. The Democratic Party today was not the party it was in 2000. It’s not the Bill Clinton-Al Gore party, which was strong internationalists, strong on defense, pro-trade, pro-reform in our domestic government. It’s been effectively taken over by a small group on the left of the party that is protectionist, isolationist and basically will –and very, very hyperpartisan. So it pains me. I’m a Democrat who came to the party in the era of President John F. Kennedy. It’s a strange turn of the road when I find among the candidates running this year that the one, in my opinion, closest to the Kennedy legacy, the John F. Kennedy legacy, is John S. McCain.

There’s a lot I could and would like to say about this, but I’ll just leave it at two simple thoughts for now: one, he’s wrong about the Clintonistas being “strong on defense;” Bill Clinton did more damage to the US military than any President in history with his draconian and feckless “peace dividend” cuts in budgets, equipment, and personnel (except US Grant, who, while leading the Union army to final victory in 1864 and ‘5 fed men relentlessly into Lee’s meat grinder in fruitless head-on assaults on stoutly entrenched, if numerically inferior, forces at Cold Harbor and several other places – and no, he wasn’t President at that time, so it hardly counts here); and two, I don’t know how much more plainly he could have said what I’ve been saying all along about McCain: that he surely doesn’t merit consideration as any sort of conservative. Although really, I guess a present-day JFK would be about as conservative a candidate as any of us has any right to expect from the two major parties now. More:

What has happened to the party I’ve spent my life working in? I can remember when Democrats believed that it was the duty of America to fight for freedom over tyranny. It was Democratic President Harry Truman who pushed the Red Army out of Iran, who came to the aid of Greece when Communists threatened to overthrow it, who stared down the Soviet blockade of West Berlin by flying in supplies and saving the city…

But don’t waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking, America is the problem, not the solution. They don’t believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy.

This straightforward (and for the most part correct) warning is sneeringly dismissed by Scherer as an effort by Lieberman to “exact revenge” on the fools, liars, hard-core socialists, America-haters, appeasers, and general brigands whose blind folly drove him from the party. Figures.

Back soon as I can be, folks.


Gambit and speculation

Joe Lieberman: the last real American Democrat?

Lieberman to endorse McCain
Surprising, and yet not surprising at all. He finally gets his revenge on the left, something he’s been flirting with publicly since January and which now comes not so much as an early Christmas gift to the nutroots than as a flaming bag of dog crap left on their collective porch. They won’t miss him: No Democrat wants the endorsement of the party’s last true hawk, least of all the suspiciously hawkish Hillary, which is why Bill Clinton will forgive him for not backing her despite BJ having gone to bat for him against Ned Lamont. No surprise that Liebs would go with McCain, either, as not only have the two of them been putting out jointly authored op-eds on Iraq for the past few months but periodic statements like this make the aforementioned flaming bag burn that much more brightly.

No fan of McCain, I, not by any stretch. McCain has only a slightly better chance of snagging the Republican nomination than I myself do, I think. But if the Stupid Party nominates Huckabee, a Lieberman/McCain independent ticket might begin to look very attractive indeed, to a lot of people. Or if not entirely attractive, at least the most palatable alternative to the now-major parties’ two-sides-of-the-same-worthless-liberal-coin choices, anyway.



Great quote from the Hot Air comments, and one that I really don’t know how I’ve thus far overlooked, given how much reading on the Civil War I’ve done over the years:

“Congressmen who willfully take action during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged.” – Abraham Lincoln.

Scumbag Harry Reid, he’s looking at you, pal. And once more, the honorable and distinguished Lonesome Joe Lieberman provides the loyal oppo counterpoint.


Pro and con (man)

Hitch nails Saint Jimmeh to the cross:

Many people in retrospect think Bush did a good job in assembling a large multinational coalition, under U.N. auspices, for the emancipation of Kuwait from Iraqi occupation. But Jimmy Carter used his prestige, at that uneasy moment, to make an open appeal to all governments not to join that coalition. He went public to oppose the settled policy of Congress and the declared resolutions of the United Nations and to denounce his own country as the warmonger. And, after all, why not? It was he who had created the conditions for the Gulf crisis in the first place—initially by fawning on the shah of Iran and then, when that option collapsed, by encouraging Saddam Hussein to invade Iran and by “tilting” American policy to his side. If I had done such a thing, I would take very good care to be modest when discussions of Middle Eastern crises came up. But here’s the thing about self-righteous, born-again demagogues: Nothing they ever do, or did, can be attributed to anything but the very highest motives.

In the Carter years, the United States was an international laughingstock. This was not just because of the prevalence of his ghastly kin: the beer-sodden brother Billy, doing deals with Libyan President Muammar Qaddafi, and the grisly matriarch, Miz Lillian. It was not just because of the president’s dire lectures on morality and salvation and his weird encounters with lethal rabbits and UFOs. It was not just because of the risible White House “Bible study” sessions run by Bert Lance and his other open-palmed Elmer Gantry pals from Georgia. It was because, whether in Afghanistan, Iran, or Iraq—still the source of so many of our woes—the Carter administration could not tell a friend from an enemy.

Sure enough. Seems to be a quite prevalent trait among addlepated Democrats these days — and unfortunately, there’s certainly no danger of a shortage of those. But they aren’t all bugfuck nuts, as difficult to believe as that may ordinarily be:

Let me restate the case for this Iraq war from the U.S. point of view. The U.S. led an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein because Iraq was rightly seen as a threat following Sept. 11, 2001. For two decades we had suffered attacks by radical Islamic groups but were lulled into a false sense of complacency because all previous attacks were “over there.” It was our nation and our people who had been identified by Osama bin Laden as the “head of the snake.” But suddenly Middle Eastern radicals had demonstrated extraordinary capacity to reach our shores.

As for Saddam, he had refused to comply with numerous U.N. Security Council resolutions outlining specific requirements related to disclosure of his weapons programs. He could have complied with the Security Council resolutions with the greatest of ease. He chose not to because he was stealing and extorting billions of dollars from the U.N. Oil for Food program.

No matter how incompetent the Bush administration and no matter how poorly they chose their words to describe themselves and their political opponents, Iraq was a larger national security risk after Sept. 11 than it was before.

Plainspoken common sense…from a Democrat! Hold me up, somebody, I feel faint. As others have already said today, the Dems nominated the wrong Kerr(e)y back in ’04.

Do I even have to say it?


Not A Dinar’s Worth of Difference

Here’s an interesting article which explains how the Democrats and the Syrians are both using each other to ‘Get Bush!’–a perfect symbiotic circle of parasites.

“One Damascus-based researcher explained that in March a group of Democratic operatives asked for a briefing in preparation for Pelosi’s Syria trip. “I explained that they were walking into a minefield,” he told me. “The regime is causing trouble throughout the region, and then there are plenty of human rights issues with their own imprisoned dissidents. And all they said was, Yeah, Yeah, Yeah.” In other words, don’t bug us with the details, we’re all about Bush.

Another source explains that Syrian activists believe Pelosi’s trip gave the Asad regime much needed breathing room. “Whether there is a real connection or not, political dissidents note that Anwar al-Bunni was sentenced to five years in prison in the wake of Pelosi’s visit.””

I guess we could complain to Human Rights Watch–if they weren’t so interested in unionizing Wal-Mart instead of actual, you know, human rights.

Nevermind that Syria sponsors terrorists. Nevermind that Syria is smuggling jihadists into Iraq to attack our soldiers. And nevermind that Syria assassinates the democratically-elected leaders of Lebanon whenever the whim strikes them.

Today’s Democrats would happily sit down and sip tea with Lee Harvey Oswald if they thought there was some political advantage in it.

The President:

“There are also American citizens, many of them in high places, who, unwittingly in most cases, are aiding and abetting the work of these agents. I do not charge these American citizens with being foreign agents. But I do charge them with doing exactly the kind of work that the dictators want done in the United States. These people not only believe that we can save our own skins by shutting our eyes to the fate of other nations… Americans never can and never will do that.”

That’s what the President said–President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, that is.

When the Italians allied themselves with Germany in World War II, Chuchill quipped “It’s only fair. We had to have them in the last war.”

And it’s only fair that liberal Democrats and dictators have joined together in a mutual tick-checking exercise. We had to to have them in the last war–Vietnam. It’s your turn to take them, Bashar.

Pathetic–and now, professional–losers.


The loyal opposition speaks out

As reasonable, sane liberals become harder and harder to find out there, one of the finer examples of the breed stands up to be counted:

I’m a liberal Democrat (pro-gay marriage, pro-choice, pro-progressive taxation, pro-equal rights, pro-environmental regulation, pro-public schools) who supported and supports the war in Iraq. As I tell my liberal friends “Did I miss the part where it was progressive not to fight medieval religious fascists?”

I’ve been waiting for four years for the White House to start really explaining the war to the American people, and to do anything sensible at all to maintain the political capital necessary to keep America in the fight – to keep us from withdrawing because the war is too messy, or too long, or just plain makes us feel bad.

During that time I was blogging about the war and issues around it at Winds of Change.NET, felt I was doing my part, and hoped that the leadership of the country would wake up and realize that public support for hard things – like wars – must be earned and maintained.

I’ve given up, and decided that it’s up to each of us to start doing more. To that end, I’ve decided to start a PAC that will offer support to Congressional candidates of either party who support a foreign policy that doesn’t involve wishing problems away. Not necessarily support for the invasion of Iraq, or blind allegiance to White House policies – but some plan that’s better than taking our ball and going home, leaving the country to become a bloodbath. All I ask is that they have some clue as to what we should do about violent radicalism in the Islamic world other than surrender, withdraw, and hope for the best.

As you have no doubt guessed by now, that’s Armed Liberal Marc Danziger talking. Marc, along with WoC originator and guiding light Joe Katzman, is an old friend of ours around here. Though we may not agree on everything — progressive taxation comes to mind from his list above, although I’m with him on more of the rest than he probably knows or suspects — we agree on enough. Go check out his worthy effort, and support it if you’re able. If there’s ever been a hope for a truly loyal opposition in these ever-darkening days, it’s to be found in the hearts of decent Americans like Marc.


What’s The Story on “O”


Leon Wieseltier of The New Republic has a good op-ed on that kooky “Obamania” fad that all the cool kids are hepped-up on right now.

Mr. Wieseltier is a member of the Decent Left–and , yes, Virginia, there is such a thing. For example, one detected the faintest ghostly whispers of that near-moribund august tradition when Tom Harkin, Jesse Jackson and Ralph Nader all opposed the state-ordered starvation of a handicapped woman by a hemlock-addicted night-court judge in Meglo Village, Florida.

Anyway, he would like to vote for a black presidential candidate, but is skeptical that Obama is the guy. I, too, would like to vote for a black presidential candidate; Justice Clarence Thomas. But the finest jurist in America has done nothing to deserve such a horrible, horrible fate, so we’ll just leave it alone.

Some excerpts:

“For a start, I hold Obama’s suavity against him. Since I am myself not unsuave, I know how much it accomplishes with how little. Charm is not a political virtue.

Eloquence is another matter: Obama’s deployment of the language is downright musical in this rhetorically impoverished age. But his lyricism is too smooth, too swift, too immune to anxiety or surprise. He is not only thoughtful, he is pre-thoughtful.”

I had the exact same pre-thought when Obama told us he was the new Lincoln.

“Obama dislikes polarization. I like it. I think it is one of the marks of an engaged citizenry. Obviously it can also become a kind of democratic decadence; but often polarization is simply your name for my refusal to assent to your opinion.”

Hear, hear. We don’t need more mindless obstructionism from the Left, whose bi-polarized ice-caps are already melting on their Gaza strip clubs.

What we need is Reagan’s “banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors, which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people”. Let Europe have the interchangable Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum parties in which all issues of public concern are removed from public discourse. We already have the world’s most over-priced, gold-plated 435-member debating society. Maybe they could make some time for some “binding” debates for a change.

“[Obama] is also reviving another old Clinton homily, the one against “cynicism.” … “Cynicism” is not an argument, it is an aspersion. Its subject is not ideas but motives. … Moreover, I don’t see how America can suffer from polarization and cynicism at the same time. Polarization represents an intensity of involvement.”

Since I cannot comment on the phrase ‘Clintons Against Cynicism’ in an uncynical manner, let’s just move on.

dot.cyn. heh.

“And then there is Obama’s decision to run on his life – or, on his journey. Obama’s books are both autobiographies. Two autobiographies!”

And no legislation. Indeed, Obama has a long track record for such a short career of bravely voting “Present” on contentious issues.

On Pigment as Politics:

“…Obama has been promoting the multiplicity of his origins as a qualification for leadership. This strikes me as little more than identity politics, but with a cunning refinement: Instead of being representative of one thing, he is representative of all things. He is typical of everybody, the most racinated American of all.

In America, you can be heroic for being typical. But I do not see how your grandfather can make you a hero.

And there is something unsavory about the new rage for genealogy: Insofar as it aims to supply a biological foundation for identity, it is race science for a pluralist society. I am less interested in Obama’s roots than in his branches. The genealogy of a democrat is as irrelevant to a liberal order as the genealogy of an aristocrat.”

On National Security:

“Until the fall of the Soviet Union, I voted in general elections on foreign- policy grounds. …Then, for a bizarrely lucky decade, I permitted myself a fuller calculation at the polls. Now I am a bit of a security simpleton again.

…But the foreign-policy inclinations he presents are vague and platitudinous and sanguine about the reasonableness of the world. …

Nobody ever charmed anybody out of a nuclear weapon.”

Or in the words of the bumpersticker, “You Can’t Hug A Child With Nuclear Charms”.

Yet Obama insists we should stop President Bush and talk to Iran–instead of stopping Iran and talking to Bush. Because Obama’s politics are just so “large”, don’t you know. Like Lincoln’s.

Prove it, sonny.


Patriotism, Protestors, and…Poop.

Yeah…real patriotic:

Perhaps the most disturbing scene of the afternoon, however, involved the man who pulled down his pants in front of women and children and defecated on a burning U.S. flag. This disgusting act actually elicited cheers from some members of the crowd, but we hope that the emotion it produces in the community is one of revulsion.

I’ll probably get lectured, ridiculed, fisked, and flamed for saying this, but at this point, I don’t care…I’m blinded by the RCOB and I pray to see every last one of these malcontents forced to line up and explain their actions to each and every soldier who has fought for their country…then promptly be castrated with nail clippers–thereby removing them from the gene pool.

Dissent for the sake of Dissent does not promote the cause of freedom…it prompts people to question it.

Yes, we have many freedoms in this country, but just because you can do a thing, doesn’t mean you should do a thing…

Burning U.S. soldiers in effigy, or desecrating the flag, then having the gall to turn around and state that soldiers fight for those freedoms, or that the flag represents those freedoms, is presumptuous, and downright disingenuous…no matter how you try to spin it.

These soldiers deserve more respect from us citizens…

I won’t presume to know all the reasons why people sign up for military service.

Some, probably out of a sense of duty, while others are looking for direction.

Maybe some are looking for excitement…or some just need to earn money for college…

But I will presume to believe, in my heart, that no one signs up just so they can die in a war–any war–and NOT A DAMN ONE OF THEM sign up to fight to preserve the freedoms of an individual who will choose to repay that sacrifice by squatting like a F**KIN’ dog and crapping on Old Glory. If i’m wrong, I’m wrong…so be it. This is one belief that I won’t give up on and won’t mind lying to myself about…

Burning the flag is anger laced with self-loathing and hatred.

Crapping on the flag is not patriotic.

It’s not dissent.

It’s pure, unadulterated sickness.

Anyone who would do such a thing does not love this country OR its citizens.

Anyone who supports such an act is no better.

(via Michelle)


Teddy Ate Them

I love Rich Karlgaard’s question here.  I really think the answer is in the title to this post.

Really, play it straight here, have you seen any lately?

You have to go far to find a Democratic presidential candidate who even remotely resembles JFK in his embrace of capitalism.

You don’t have to go far at all because they don’t even exist.  They’re sort of like Nessie or Sasquatch.  Every so often you get a sighting, but it never really pans out.  The Democratic party went socialist after Tet ’68 and they haven’t come back yet.  The prognosis isn’t good either.

I’m expecting “socialism with an American face” after 2008.  In fact, that side of the political fence has been approaching near Stalinist levels of repression for years.  Right, Randy?




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

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

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

Subscribe to CF!
Support options


If you enjoy the site, please consider donating:

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

Image swiped from The Last Refuge

2016 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards


RSS - entries - Entries
RSS - entries - Comments


mike at this URL dot com

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

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

All original content © Mike Hendrix