Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

Elect this guy NOW

We need all of him in government we can possibly get.

A Virginia lawmaker’s fiery speech on gun rights triggered some Democrats in the state legislature to leave the floor in an “emotionally shaken” state on Friday and has since gone viral on Facebook.

The video of Delegate Nick Freitas’s hard-hitting speech has garnered over 12 million views on Facebook since it was posted by Conservative Review on Friday. Freitas is running in the Republican primary to challenge U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va).

In his speech, Freitas urged his fellow lawmakers to have an “open and honest debate” that relied on “data, facts, evidence, analysis, reason, logic, etc., etc.” (No wonder Democrats were triggered).

He pointed out that most mass shootings seem to occur in “gun-free zones” and that the shooters tend to come from broken homes.

“Wouldn’t it reasonable to test whether or not the efficacy of gun-free zones have actually achieved what their intended intent is?” he asked. “What sort of government policies have actually encouraged broken homes?”

“Whether it’s Chicago, New York City, Washington, D.C., and others that have incredibly strict gun laws and yet for some reason, hasn’t seemed to stop the gun violence in those particular areas,” Freitas said.

The fiery Republican mentioned some bills that were coming up for a vote this year to beef up background checks and ban bump stocks, but lamented that Democrats seem hellbent on “tearing apart or gutting the Second Amendment,” which he argued was one of the reasons why they couldn’t have an honest debate on guns.

“Because, quite frankly, I don’t think any of us on this side of the aisle believe you when you say that’s all you want to do,” he said. “It’ll be bump stocks, it’ll be background checks, it’ll be different kinds of background checks that register the guns, then after that, it will be ‘we have to ban assault weapons,'” he argued.

Another reason why it’s difficult to have an honest and open debate on gun policy, Freitas argued, is because Democrats are always comparing Republicans to Nazis and segregationists.

This is where Freitas really unleashed.

And know what? It WAS. It really, really was. Incredible as it may seem, the above excerpt was only the warmup. He covered all the damned bases once he got going too, using the gun issue as a launching pad for a righteous blast that ought to resound for all time as the pluperfect example of how to properly deal with such base, wormy scoundrels.

I would have cheerfully just reposted the whole damned article but for that danged fair-use thing; no fooling, it really is that good. Trust me, you do NOT want to miss a single word of it. If you aren’t standing up and cheering right out loud by the end, you should probably have your cardiac nurse apply a sizzling jolt from the paddles before it’s too late.

I repeat: we need more like Nick Freitas in government at every level, just as many of them as we can possibly get. The scarcity of hardy souls willing to confront liberal-fascists head on like this—pulling no punches, standing their ground, hitting them right between the eyes with unvarnished truth spoken plainly, bluntly, and without flinching or dissembling—is why we are where we are. We let the scheming termites get away with too much for too long in the name of a phony “civility” that was never reciprocated, a thing not respected as a noble trait but as a weakness to be exploited.

Bravo, bravo, a thousand times over and then some. I dunno, though, I can’t decide whether the reaction puked up by the sniveling, cringing, weeping Democrat-Socialist curs as they fled for their lives is pathetic or hilarious. Guess I’ll have to embrace the healing power of “and” and go with both. This absolutely priceless gem of reflexive Progtard shitwittery in reaction shows how completely Freitas wrecked ’em:

According to the Times-Dispatch, Delegate Lamont Bagby said he viewed Freitas’ remarks as racial “dog-whistling.”

Of COURSE you did. Isn’t everything?

Bawl on, cupcake. Then scurry on off with the rest of the cockroaches before the bad man frightens you even worse.

Even Big Nick’s explanation of why he rained Hell on the shitweasels is awesome:

In an appearance on Fox and Friends Monday, Freitas explained why he went off on the Dems, saying that the rhetoric from the other side had gotten “completely unacceptable” and that he had just gotten tired of it.

You ain’t just whistling Dixie there, brother. A whole lot of us have.

If Freitas ever has to buy his own beer in a bar again for the rest of his life, then we’ll know for sure there really ain’t no justice in this world.


Truth hurts

Oh, this is just too, TOO rich.

Pointing out inaccuracies in your opponent’s arguments is a cynical ploy to stop discussion. Or so I gather from Adam Weinstein, who just published a Washington Post op-ed taking gun control critics to task for “gunsplaining”—Weinstein’s name for when one is “harangued with the pedantry of the more-credible-than-thou firearms owner” after one makes some incidental factual error about guns, such as calling AR-15s “high-powered” or confusing clips with magazines.

We ARE more credible than thou, you fucking douchebag. As I always say: the libtards’ argument isn’t really with us. It’s with reality. Kinda tough on them. I do not give a single, solitary, trifling damn. Not even one.

“Gunsplaining,” Weinstein declares, “is always done in bad faith. Like mansplaining, it’s less about adding to the discourse than smothering it.”

When one side’s position is based entirely on ignorance, fear, dishonesty, and sinister ulterior motives regarding the subject at hand, what you’re having ain’t much of a discourse. And…”bad faith”? You SURE you want to go there, gun-grabber?

The rest of the article is a good enough rebuttal, and worth reading. But it’s at best unnecessary. At this point, I maintain that the only “discourse” we need to be having with the fascist, gun-grabber Left consists of this: NO. You ain’t getting them. Not now, not ever. You want a fight over it? You’ll get one, for sure and certain. In the meantime, go fuck yourselves.

Period fucking dot. Full stop, end of story.

Your move, assholes.



Hoo, BOY. I never even thought of this.


Well, I mean, DUH. As I recollect, there was WAY more snickering and joke-cracking over it from Progressivists than there was dismay, sympathy, or outrage. From Democrat Socialist politicians, a loud silence was about the extent of it. Which backs up the adaptation of my longstanding contention about Trump once more: it’s not the guns they hate, not really. It’s not even the gun violence. It’s US.

As I said at the time: he was no nutjob, or no more so than the rest of them. There was nothing all that extraordinary about him. He was a mainstream Dem-Soc Progressivist. He just had balls enough to actually go out and do it—something a lot of them have come right out and fantasized openly about of late.

If there truly is a meaningful distinction to be made between them and the cucks/NeverTrumpTards/Vichy GOPers, that would have to be it: the GOPers don’t actually want us dead, and aren’t likely to come at us guns a-blazing…literally. Or not yet, at least.

Swiped from Aesop.


Kill ’em all

I originally put this up as an update to an earlier post, then had some further thoughts I wanted to slide in there. So I’m breaking it out into its own post. Yeah, I know, it’s confusing. But what the heck.

This is what it’s REALLY all about.

After every attack, the clamor for “common sense” gun control begins by political hacks, talk show hosts and celebrities who don’t set foot outside their homes without an armed guard. None of these “common sense folks” seem to know the first thing about guns. And none of them care. 

Gun control isn’t a policy. It’s a moral panic. Like prohibition, it’s a xenophobic reaction to a different culture that shares the same country with them. Guns have come to embody a rural conservative culture in the minds of urban leftists the way that alcohol once embodied foreign immigrants to prohibition activists and the way that drugs represented urban decadence to rural America. 

It’s why the “common sense solution” talk quickly gives way to broad denunciations of a “national gun culture”, of “white privilege”, of rural folk “clinging to their bibles and guns”, of American militarism and toxic masculinity, and of all the things for which guns are merely a symbol to the leftists who hate them. 

A cultural critique is very different than a common sense solution. It isn’t guns that the left wants to ban. It’s people. It was never really about banning guns. It was always about the culture war.

Yep. Just as I’ve said repeatedly about Trump, when all is said and done we’re left in the same place: it ain’t so much Trump they hate, and pretty much the same with guns. It’s US. I mean, how could they not? We obstinately persist in committing what for them is the one truly unpardonable sin: we resist them.

At least half the country refusing to knuckle under means that the Left’s authority is less than total—a good bit less, in fact. And that just flies all over them. For one thing, this mulishness screws up their whole world-socialism project, which by definition must be global in order to succeed. In the bigger picture it amounts to a practical rejection of their claim to innate superiority, in the wake of which all sorts of cherished delusions come plunging down to earth.

Why, it is simply INTOLERABLE!

Think of how deeply it must gall them: our pig-headed stupidity causes their socialist fantasy to crash and burn, whereupon we constantly natter at them about how their ideology always fails, when its failure is caused not by any flaw in the ideology but by…YOU STUPID PEOPLE!

It’s why some of them, starting with Obama’s pal Bill Ayers, have openly declared that millions of us will probably have to be marched off to the camps and murdered in order to finally get the dodo off the ground.

I asked, “well what is going to happen to those people we can’t reeducate, that are diehard capitalists?” and the reply was that they’d have to be eliminated.

And when I pursued this further, they estimated they would have to eliminate 25 million people in these reeducation centers.

And when I say “eliminate,” I mean “kill.”

Twenty-five million people.

I want you to imagine sitting in a room with 25 people, most of which have graduate degrees, from Columbia and other well-known educational centers, and hear them figuring out the logistics for the elimination of 25 million people.

And they were dead serious.

I can recall at least two other such admissions during Obama’s Reign Of Error, which a cursory Duck-Duck-Go-ing doesn’t unearth. But I strongly suspect such sentiments are far from rare among the more dedicated of these Leftard fanatics; mass slaughter is baked right into the totalitarian cake, a feature, not a bug.

And why wouldn’t THAT be? Gulags, concentration camps, killing fields—all have sooner or later gone hand in hand with every attempt to establish Lefty Utopia, every single time. Attempts will be made to bring those who resist the Glorious Destiny the Left has so selflessly planned for them to “enlightenment.” But there will always be those who refuse to submit—always. Since Proggy superiority is an undeniable confirmation of a right to rule one might call Divinely established (if one was allowed to believe in God), these stubborn souls are warped, depraved, probably insane. They are by definition Enemies Of The State.

For Lefty, it isn’t such a long jump from there to the notion that these resisters are not quite human, underdeveloped throwbacks to an unenlightened era. They are not redeemable or salvageable. Forces for chaos and disruption, they represent a serious threat to harmony and order in fledgling and fragile Leftopia. They are a drag on the wings of the Noble Ideal, a potential failure point that could bring the whole construct tumbling down, to the detriment of all.

Dovetailing nicely with this diseased thinking is the dismissal of the importance of the individual, the primacy given to the Needs of the Many. It isn’t even a jump at all from there to the elimination of such troublesome, perverse lunatics; it’s a necessary step, a requirement upon which success depends absolutely. Tolerance or forbearance in dealing with destructive saboteurs such as they can only inflict great harm on the Many. It would be the closest thing to real evil their depraved ideology can ever imagine.

Yeah, I know. Ironic, that.


Playing rough

This. This right here, dammit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


What’s in a name?

I get sorta annoyed with Steyn sometimes, I truly do. I mean, every third week or so I pronounce his latest column one of his best ever, and then…he goes and does another one.

So this time I ain’t even gonna say it.

Most of the news bulletins I’m exposed to are on the radio, as I’m tootling around hither and yon. So it took me a while to discover that what the media call “peace activists”, “anti-racists” and “anti-Nazis” are, in fact, men and women garbed in black from head to toe, including face masks. Thus, as I pointed out on the radio last month, the violence on American streets derives from today’s paramilitary wing of the Democrat Party – antifa – working itself up over yesterday’s paramilitary wing of the Democrat Party – the Ku Klux Klan. Both have stupid pseudo-exotic self-romanticizing names and, as many commentators have observed, both have strict dress codes intended to conceal their identities. From white sheets to black bandanas is a mere fashion evolution: the purpose is the same – to do ugly things one could not confidently do with one’s face known to all.

Yet, as disturbing as antifa is, its romanticization by the respectable classes is even worse. My swaggeringly obtuse compatriot Warren “Catsmeat” Kinsella tweeted:

‘Antifa’ is short for anti-fascist. The only ones who should oppose antifa are fascists.

To which Charles C W Cooke responded:

Exactly. This is why I don’t understand anyone who is critical of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

Good rejoinder, I guess, but it ain’t as if a “liberal” like Kinsella would ever really BE all that critical of any Worker’s Paradise, now would he?

But you’d be surprised how far a name can take you. Why, only a fascist would be anti-antifa! As Todd Gitlin explains in The New York Times:

Despite the spurious rhetoric of equivalency, supporters of antifa have, to date, killed no one.

Operative qualifier, of course, being that very slippery “to date.” Not through any lack of trying, either.

Whether or not “fascism” can be defeated through speech, Donald Trump surely can: All you have to do is make better arguments at stump speeches and TV debates and campaign rallies and county fairs, and he’ll lose. That’s how it works in systems of self-government. But, as part of its general disdain for “speech”, the left now brands anyone it doesn’t like as “fascist”, and therefore illegitimate, and ripe for a bloody good hiding: Trump, Scalise, Ann Coulter, Charles Murray, the liberal Middlebury professor who made the mistake of inviting Murray and so had to be put in hospital pour encourager les autres, reporters with cellphones, cameramen whose cameras are carelessly pointed towards antifa’s energetic efforts to kill no one “to date”.

Meanwhile, the police stand around and watch. Administrators of publicly funded colleges dislike having to pay lip service to free speech, and are happy to have antifa’s shock troops on hand to send the message loud and clear. Municipal governments cannot, yet, be as openly hostile to dissent as college campuses are, but in Charlottesville the authorities were plainly resentful at a judge’s order commanding them to re-instate the neo-Nazis’ rally permit, and they determined to circumvent it. So they surrendered the streets to the “anti-fascists”, and then drove the “fascists” into their path: The good cops in effect decided to leave it to some informally deputized bad cops. The selective rule of law is one of the most unsettling features of contemporary America, and there will be a lot more of it in the years ahead.

There’s gonna be a lot more of other types of unpleasantness in the years ahead, too—a good many of them types that the fascist Left and their black-clad and hooded goon squads ain’t gonna like much. But what the hell; they called this tune, so it’s only right that they end up dancing to it too.


“Lots of cant, no solutions”

Schlichter uses the Loser Right’s lamentations over the Arpaio pardon as his jumping off point:

What will bring the Rule of Law back? How do we get to the Conserva-Eden we are expected to act like we already reside it? Perhaps another statement of principle? Maybe another post on some unread conservajournal? I know – how about more complaining about how frustrated conservatives are uncouth and should just sit there and take whatever fascist garbage the left dishes out?

I always thought it was conservative to punish wrongdoers. The other side abandoned the Rule of Law, so I would think that they might – maybe – learn a lesson by experiencing the consequences of their bad choice. But apparently punishing wrongdoers is now off the table because some other principle, of which I was unaware during nearly four decades inside conservatism, requires we never ever retaliate. 

So, my finger-wagging True Con friends, what’s your plan? How do we go from liberals abandoning the Rule of Law, and such ancillary and associated components of a society based on liberty like free speech and free enterprise, to a liberty-based society operating under the Rule of Law? “Elect more True Cons!” isn’t a plan; it’s an aspiration, and not much of one. I don’t need another cliché, or another citation to general principles, or some variant of my new favorite, all-purpose get-out-of-having-an-actual-plan-free card, the old “We’re better than this” line.

See, I reject the notion we are ever somehow morally obligated by conservative principles to lose to liberals. If I have to swallow something awful, I’ll take half a loaf any day over an entire loaf of liberal dung like Felonia von Pantsuit. I think the new rules are terrible, and they are antithetical to everything I’ve worked for since before many of my Fredocon critics were a tinge of regret growing in their mommies’ bellies the morning after. But I refuse to sit back and allow libs to be victorious because I won’t dirty my hands fighting fire with fire. If that makes me not conservative enough for some, I can live with that. I can’t live with leftist tyranny.

I think you want to rely on the power of conservative ideas and sort of hope they spontaneously erupt into a conservative paradise via a right wing Big Bang without you actually having to fight for them. After all, fighting is messy and unseemly, and you also have to ally yourselves with…those kind of people, if you know what I mean, and I think you do. It’s so embarrassing having to explain them to your liberal peers. Many of these misbegotten normals are baffled by fancy sandwiches and stuff.

Before you give me more grief for allying with the Republican in the White House – you know, that guy your party elected – I’m going to need your plan. See, we need real solutions, and my solution is fighting back hard and ruthlessly.

Works for me. In fact, I’m coming closer and closer to embracing the “kill ’em all, let God sort ’em out” approach as the only practical and effective way to get them off our necks, and I don’t care even a little bit whether Conservatism Inc is good with that or not. Denying the enemy the head of Sheriff Joe, as Kurt puts it, is but a single step in the right direction along a long, hard road. There are a lot more of them ahead of us, and as we continue putting one foot in front of other, the plaintive bleating of the irrelevant Loser Right will fade to a barely-heard background hum. Which is all to the good if you ask me.


Defense and offense

He’s right, and you know it.

The monuments under attack are, of course, only symptomatic in the larger scheme of things. The Left’s whole effort is aimed at detaching the young from the history of these United States, especially its founding principles, its seminal struggles, and the words and characters of those who articulated them.

The “Antifa” and “Black Bloc” thugs attacking peaceable patriotic gatherings have the same end in view. There’s no way to separate a people from its history if they’re allowed to talk about it, or any element of it…especially the Founders’ emphasis on freedom of expression.

They who believe it’s sufficient to be prepared to defend themselves are sadly mistaken. No one has ever won a war by doing nothing but playing defense. The Right must seize the initiative – go on the attack.

The notion horrifies many decent persons. Yet it is so. Two questions then arise:

  • What will finally make us rise to the occasion, if anything?
  • When and where will it arrive?

It is not enough to stay abreast of the news and deplore the trends in progress. It is not enough to speak out against them. It is not enough to attend a rally or two in defense of freedom of expression or the preservation of historic monuments. It is not even enough to attend such rallies armed and ready for the eruption of violence. Those are all defensive measures: necessary but sadly insufficient.

The one and only remedy is to go on the offensive.

The first, absolutely indispensable step is infiltrating the opposition. We must learn the individual identities of those who gather to suppress us, and we must pursue them individually, just as they strive to pursue us. If they have gatherings, some of ours must be present. If they don’t, we must tap their communications and monitor them ceaselessly. The information we can gather that way is beyond price.

Once we know who they are, it’s a short step from there to learning where they will be. That gives us what we’ll need for what must follow: charges, against both the individuals and the groups, of conspiring to violate others’ civil rights. That’s a federal criminal charge that can’t be dismissed. According to our family lawyer, a police commander who tells his subordinates to disregard such complaints is himself guilty of misfeasance – for instructing his men to commit nonfeasance — so make sure all such complaints are properly witnessed.

Even if those charged ultimately escape prison sentences, they’ll suffer from the experience of having to defend themselves against the charges. As the saying goes, “the process is the punishment.” It might be enough to deter them all by itself.

If the so-called forces of order prove unwilling to do their sworn duty, then it will be time to discuss more direct measures. But we’re more likely to reach that point if we continue to be passive before the assaults upon us.

Sound harsh? Scary? After all, you wouldn’t like to be spied upon or hounded into court to defend yourself against the weight of the criminal law. But what they’ve been doing to us is far worse…and as I wrote above, it’s getting them what they want, so we can’t expect it to stop.

Sue them, dox them, boycott their businesses, hound their employers until they lose their livelihoods. Mock them, verbally abuse them, harass them ceaselessly and without mercy. And yes, beat the living hell out of them when it proves necessary. Turn their tactics back on them; get in their faces, punch back twice as hard. Let them get a taste of being on the receiving end of a little Gramsci and Alinski themselves.

I consider Francis a good friend, although we haven’t met face to face yet. I know him to be a reasonable, humble man, a decent, God-fearing man. But I also know him to be a man of commitment, honor, and courage. He isn’t one to advocate this lightly. But neither is he one to shrink from it. He’s right, their despicable tactics have worked well for them so far. If we’re to have any hope of throwing off their tyrannical yoke, that can’t go on being the case. They need to begin to feel some pain from it—real pain, enough to make them think very carefully before attempting it again.

In fact, a good friend and neighbor of mine was just on the receiving end of it himself, to wit:

A disturbing photo posted by Robby Hale, the singer of a Charlotte punk band that has sparked controversy in the past with its misogynistic and homophobic lyrics and other antics, was making the rounds on Sunday. It shows the singer holding a burning cross.

In the wake of the Charlottesville tragedy involving white supremacists and the death of a counter-protester, Hale’s actions have caused a palpable ripple through the local music scene.

The three other members of Scowl Brow — Rick Contes, Joshua Taddeo and Daniel Biggins — reached out this morning and said, “Language like that is disgusting and unacceptable and does not represent the entire band.” (UPDATE: The three members have since announced their departures from the band.)

Josh Higgins of Refresh Records wrote in an email this morning that Scowl Brow has been dropped from the label. “The message that this image conveys is one that I find truly disgusting and do not condone nor wish associated with myself, Refresh, or any of our other artists,” Higgins said. “We support equal rights for all, full stop.

“As of Friday, we have terminated our relationship with Scowl Brow and have begun the process of removing merchandise and music from our website and digital platforms,” Higgins added.

For full disclosure and transparency, even Creative Loafing was aware of Scowl Brow’s deplorable lyrics as recently as 2014, when the paper ran a review that failed to take a direct critical stance on it:

“[Hale’s] also not afraid to give a frank perspective,” the CL critic wrote, “even if it’s far from politically correct. ‘Tell me what the hell is going wrong in this town, every day there’s more pussy hipsters around/You never know who’s straight or who’s off suckin’ some dudes,’ Hale sings on ‘Mediocre My Ass.'” The critic went on to characterize the lyrics as “honest.”

CL was tipped off to Hale’s photo at 11:30 a.m. Sunday by Brett Green of Charlotte’s Mineral Girls, and we immediately contacted Hale by Facebook Messenger. He has yet to return our message. We will be updating this story as it develops.

I’ve known Robbie for several years now, and have shared a stage with him once or twice. He’s a regular old hard-working blue-collar guy, an aspiring musician who has had his career hopes derailed by the blight of political correctness. Never yet have I heard him utter a word that was even remotely racist or hateful in any way.

Robbie is pretty much apolitical, and he’s certainly no Bible-thumping right-winger. In fact, he’s disinterested in politics and pretty contemptuous of religion in general and Christianity in particular. My views on that differ, and we’ve had some long discussions about all that at my house which were enjoyable for both of us.

Rob is a very talented guy, and Scowlbrow’s shows are famous for being pretty rowdy and raucous. Some of his lyrics are provocative, sure—direct and in your face. Which, if I remember correctly, was once considered a virtue in rock and roll. Obviously, that only applies if you’re getting in faces approved by the Progressivists who dominate the music biz.

There’s more to the story, of course. There always is.

UPDATE: Hale contacted CL Sunday afternoon and said the photo in question has been taken out of context.

“That was a piece of a burning pallet I picked up out of a bon fire, and the racist (Facebook) comment was not of my own,” Hale said. “This Nazi stuff wasn’t happening when that picture was taken.”

When asked what message he was trying to get across in the photo, Hale commented that he was just “drunk and being an asshole. I wasn’t being a racist. I’m not a fucking racist. Some of my fucking best friends are black.”

Happily, Robbie informs me that he has now availed himself of the services of a good lawyer. In light of that, I jokingly asked him yesterday what the incoming new management of Creative Loafing was planning in the way of changes to the paper, which is your typical Leftist muckraking weekly alterna-rag. He laughed about that, but I swear, I hope he sues them right out of existence. The last couple of days I’ve been half expecting a crowd of SJW idiots to show up here at the complex to protest, maybe even a Black Lives Matter/antiFA goon squad, but nothing so far. The trusty ol’ Mossberg pump remains loaded just in case, awaiting further developments.

So, in sum: thanks to the local Progressivist thought police and the meddlesome douchebag who tipped them off (possibly as part of an old personal grudge, who knows) to a years-old photo that amounted to nothing more than some silly PBR-fueled goofing around and meant nothing whatever to anybody at the time, Robbie has had his whole life upended. Scowlbrow is hugely popular around these parts and just returned from two weeks of touring, their first time out on the road. Now his label has dropped him, they’ve yanked their CDs and merch from the shelves, and there’s a rupture between him and his bandmates that is probably irreparable.

This is how they do it, people. This is how they operate. Think of all the normal, ordinary people out there who have had their lives shattered by these loathsome crawly things for the crime of Wrongthink: Masterpiece Cakeshop. Memories Pizza. Hell, even a guy as rich and powerful as Brendan Eich wasn’t immune to the malignant pressure from the Fascist Left.

In the end, though, they’re nothing more than bullies. And everybody knows the best way to deal with a bully, which assuredly does NOT involve either running away or turning the other cheek. As Francis knows: they won’t stop. They will NEVER stop. They are going to have to BE stopped.

I repeat: sue them, dox them, scorn them, hound them. Punch back twice as hard. Either that, or kiss your country goodbye for good. No war was ever won by staying on the defensive.


The Deep State McMaster coup

Daniel names names.

One of McMaster’s first acts at the NSC was to ban any mention of “Obama holdovers.” Not only did the McMaster coup purge Harvey, who had assembled the holdover list, but his biggest target was Ezra Watnick-Cohen, who had exposed the eavesdropping on Trump officials by Obama personnel. 

Ezra Watnick-Cohen had provided proof of the Obama surveillance to House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes. McMaster, however, was desperately working to fire him and replace him with Linda Weissgold. McMaster’s choice to replace Watnick-Cohen was the woman who helped draft the Benghazi talking points which blamed the Islamic terrorist attack on a video protest. 

After protests by Bannon and Kushner, President Trump overruled McMaster. Watnick-Cohen stayed. For a while. Now Ezra Watnick-Cohen has been fired anyway. 

According to the media, Watnick-Cohen was guilty of “anti-Muslim fervor” and “hardline views.” And there’s no room for anyone telling the truth about Islamic terrorism at McMaster’s NSC. 

McMaster had even demanded that President Trump refrain from telling the truth about Islamic terrorism. 

Another of his targets was Rich Higgins, who had written a memo warning of the role of the left in undermining counterterrorism. Higgins had served as a director for strategic planning at the NSC. He had warned in plain language about the threat of Islamic terrorism, of Sharia law, of the Hijrah colonization by Islamic migrants, of the Muslim Brotherhood, and of its alliance with the left as strategic threats. 

Higgins had stood by Trump during the Khizr Khan attacks. And he had written a memo warning that “the left is aligned with Islamist organizations at local, national, and international levels” and that “they operate in social media, television, the 24-hour news cycle in all media and are entrenched at the upper levels of the bureaucracies.” 

Like Harvey and Ezra Watnick-Cohen, Higgins had warned of an enemy within. And paid the price. 

McMaster’s cronies had allegedly used the NSC’s email system to track down the source of the memo. The left and its useful idiots were indeed entrenched at the upper level of the bureaucracy. 

Higgins was fired.

Treacherous, scheming termites, rotting the foundation of American representative democracy from within. This is one hell of a fine piece of true investigative journalism from Greenfield, and you really must read all of it.

If Trump doesn’t realize by now just what kind of a war he’s in—and the sleazy, slimy, sneaky nature of his oleaginous enemy—he really is as stupid as the Left always said. But I don’t buy it for a second. The Swamp awaits, Donald; get to draining. There is no advantage at all to be gained by waiting. Or none that I can see, anyway.

Update! Steyn on the broader coup attempt:

The Deep State isn’t just deep, it’s broad and bloated – and it decided last November that it would not accept the result of a perfectly lawful and proper election. So it doesn’t care about putting the Turnbull transcript all over the press, because, while the Australian Prime Minister may recognize Donald Trump as the President of the United States, the Deep State does not. So anything goes.

From November to January we had three months of blather about the “peaceful transfer of power”, but that is in fact precisely what the losers have denied the winners: Instead, they weaponized the transfer. Do you think, after last week, the Aussies regard this as a normal “transfer of power”? What we are witnessing is a slow-motion coup against a duly elected government by people determined to use whatever they have to hand – national-security leaks by the permanent bureaucracy, money-no-object fishing expeditions by hopelessly conflicted prosecutors, domestic surveillance of political opponents by Obama officials, and indifference to most of the preceding by a GOP congressional leadership that has no interest in seeing Trumpism succeed.

If they prevail, they will be teaching the electorate a very dangerous lesson: you can vote for change all you want, but you ain’t gonna get any. And that leads nowhere good.

True. But if they’re really determined to drag us all to that nowhere-good place, it’ll be no more than just if it ends up being one hell of a lot worse for them. Careful what you wish for, libtards, lest it come back to bite you in the ass—good and hard.


Got Moslems?

Got problems.

It’s easy to blame and ban inanimate objects. And it avoids any discussion of the perpetrators. 

Newham is the London borough with the highest number of acid attacks. It also has the second highest percentage of Muslims in the UK. 398 acid attacks occurred in 5 years in the area named as “the most ethnically diverse district in England and Wales”. 33% of Newham consists of non-UK passport holders. 

But surely that’s some sort of random coincidence.

Except that the place with the third highest number of acid attacks is Tower Hamlets. Tower Hamlets is a Muslim no-go zone. It has one of the smallest native British populations in the country. 35% of the population is Muslim. Most of those are Bangladeshis with a healthy sprinkling of Somalis.

There were 84 acid attacks in what has been dubbed “The Islamic Republic of Tower Hamlets”. 

Also, entirely by coincidence, Bangladesh has the highest rate of acid attacks in the world. But if anyone suggests that these two statistics are related, the Met police will investigate them for hate crimes.

Fifth on the acid list is Redbridge where the native British population fell by 40,844 in a decade. The last census showed British and Irish natives fleeing Redbridge while Pakistanis and Bangladeshis stormed in. The Christian and Jewish population fell while the Muslim population rose 11%. So did the acid attacks. 

Pakistan has one of the highest rate of acid attacks in the world. It lags behind Bangladesh. But fortunately Redbridge boasts a diversity of both Pakistanis and Bangladeshis. And acid attacks. 

But surely this is yet another unfathomable coincidence. Like 2 + 2 equaling 4.

London is experiencing a splash of the acid test of diversity. That burning feeling on your face is the thrilling sensation of corrosive multiculturalism eating away at British communities. 

Banning guns, knives, drain cleaner, plungers and ostrich feathers won’t address the problem. The fallacy of gun control, knife control and acid control is that inanimate objects don’t kill people. 

Guns don’t shoot themselves. Knives don’t unsheathe in broad daylight and stab pedestrians. Bottles of acid don’t knock on cars and then splash the occupants when they roll down the window. 

Immigration imported acid attacks to the UK the way that it imported gangs of Muslim men stabbing waitresses in eateries while shouting, “This is for Allah”. 

Allah and acid are both imports from the Muslim world. 

Murders in London, like murders in most major American cities, are driven by gang violence. Behind the shootings, stabbings and acid attacks are gangs. Many of those gangs are made up of first and second generation migrants and settlers from the Muslim world. The UK’s prisons bulge with Muslim convicts. And these criminal gangs naturally feed recruits into Islamic terrorism as they do in Iraq and Syria. 

Banning drain cleaner won’t stop acid attacks. Drain cleaner control is no solution. Migration control is.

“Allah and acid are both imports from the Muslim world”—both having been inflicted on the Western world by its idiot “liberals.” Again: to end the scourge of barbaric Islam in civilized nations, we’ll have to end the scourge of Progressivism first.


It ain’t just Trump

It’s us.

Left unaddressed: How is it possible to hate a man like this and not hate those he represents? Issue advocacy voters elected Donald Trump because what he pledged in his campaign resonated with their values and the direction they’re determined to see the country move in.

The hatred is not just reserved for the president, as demonstrated after the shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise and others during practice for a charity baseball game by an (“alleged”) leftist loon and Bernie Sanders supporter. And the excuse-making, finger-pointing and outright rejoicing by (“confirmed”) leftist loons drives home the point that the “suspect” is not alone in his malevolent hatred of all things not “progressive.”

“[I]t is clear that we have a divide, a major divide in America that does not seem surmountable,” talk radio host Rush Limbaugh observed. “It does not seem reparable. It does not seem like it is possible or even likely to find any common ground, when many Americans think that their number one enemy is the other political party, which is a fact on the left. Scary times.”

Ah, but the REAL question is: is it desirable to find “common ground” with those who seek to rob us of our birthright of freedom and enslave us? As I’ve said so many times here: if you wish to compromise with the Left, which of your basic rights and liberties are you willing to give up? Free speech? The 2A? Trial by jury of your peers? The Ninth and Tenth both are already dead letters, and the Progtards want ’em all.

Compromise? Been way too much of that already, if you ask me. Especially if by “compromise” you mean “rolling over and giving the Left what it wants, and getting absolutely NOTHING in return,” that is. Which, up till now, is what it ALWAYS means.

“Draining the swamp means not only ejecting Trump from the presidency, but also bringing himself and everyone assisting in his agenda up on charges of treason,” Huffington Post commentator Jason Fuller declared, confirming that assessment. “They must be convicted (there is little room to doubt their guilt). And then—upon receiving guilty verdicts—they must all be executed under the law.

“Anything less than capital punishment—or at least life imprisonment without parole in a maximum security detention facility—would send yet another message to the world that America has lost its moral compass,” he elaborated in a lunatic screed that was approved by the editors and only pulled down after they were embarrassed by the outraged backlash.

If you were a Trump supporter, that’s you Fuller is talking about. That’s what he and those like him really want for you, for any family members who agree with you, for your friends and neighbors, and essentially for all in “red state/flyover” America. They want it for everyone who has committed the heresy of rejecting “progressivism” and instead chosen to support a Constitution delegating limited powers and declaring rights off limits from government encroachment.

This type of Killing Fields precursor is the kind of “thought” put out on a leading “progressive” opinion website, one with millions of regular readers, and one that garnered all kinds of supportive comments. The answer to Los Angeles Riots catalyst Rodney King’s plaintive “Can we all get along?” plea becomes clear.

What do you think? Is getting along possible with people who want you tried for treason or simply killed outright?

And I repeat: forget “possible”—is it even desirable? Did anybody ever think to ask the Jews in the middle of the Holocaust if a way might not be found to “get along” with Hitler?

When some “entertainer” symbolically executes Donald Trump, or some “pundit” makes excuses for it and reverses the blame, we need to ask ourselves what it is about the man they hate so much. The answer is the policies he says he stands for. That means they hate those who agree with those policies. He’s the symbol, an avatar of sorts, for all those who chose the vision of America he articulated over what Hillary Clinton offered.

Precisely so. It is by no means all about Trump; that’s what frustrates them so, it’s what has driven them over the edge. It’s US: those of us who voted for Trump, who want to see the swamp drained and the Deep State dismantled, who want to see the status quo upended for real this time. Those of us who still support him and ignore every successive manufactured scandal and conjured-up misstep or gaffe, no matter how loud they scream about it. WE’RE the real target of the Hater Left; Trump is merely a figurehead in a way, an icon. Ultimately, it’s US they really intend to destroy.

We are not now and will never be onboard with the Progressivist program of top-down tyranny, of unyielding central control not just of the economy, but of our very lives, down to the most infinitesimal detail. Our rejection of that control is (correctly) seen by them as not just a repudiation of their politics, but a denial of their assumed right and fitness to rule over us; since, as they’ve always said, the personal is political for them, it amounts to a direct denial of their supposedly superior intellect, a dire insult hurled right at their sense of self.

These aren’t people who can agree to disagree, make their case as best they can, and should they lose, walk away to fight another day with respect and tolerance granted to their opposition. It simply is not in ’em; unlike those of us who don’t grant politics a central role in our very self-identity and have no wish to, politics is who they are. For them, the personal is political, sure enough…but the political is also personal, too. How could it be otherwise, for people whose most intense desire is for an all-powerful State directing our every move? Maybe Mussolini said it best: “All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.”

And if you think it’s a coincidence that they cleave so entirely to a phrase coined by a long-dead, raddled old fascist dictator, well, you don’t know them well enough, bub.

Given all that, who could be surprised that they truly, sincerely want to kill us? Far from being a transgression, it would have to seem almost like a moral imperative to them.

I need to throw in a quote from the Coulter column mentioned above, too:

After a Bernie Sanders supporter tried to commit mass murder last week — the second homicidal Bernie supporter so far this year — the media blamed President Trump for lowering the bar on heated political rhetoric by calling his campaign opponents cruel names like “Crooked Hillary” and “Lyin’ Ted.” 

As soon as any conservative responds to Trump’s belittling names for his rivals by erupting in a murderous rage, that will be a fantastically good point. But until then, it’s idiotic. Unlike liberals, conservatives aren’t easily incited to violence by words. 

What we’re seeing is the following: Prominent liberals repeatedly tell us, with deadly seriousness, that Trump and his supporters are: “Hitler,” “fascists,” “bigots,” “haters,” “racists,” “terrorists,” “criminals” and “white supremacists,” which is then followed by liberals physically attacking conservatives. 

To talk about “both sides” being guilty of provocative rhetoric is like talking about “both genders” being guilty of rape. 

Nearly every op-ed writer at The New York Times has compared Trump to Hitler. (The conservative on the op-ed page merely called him a “proto-fascist.”) If Trump is Hitler and his supporters Nazis, then the rational course of action for any civilized person is to kill them. 

That’s not just a theory, it’s the result. 

Liberals know damn well that their audience includes a not-insignificant portion of foaming-at-the-mouth lunatics, prepared, at the slightest provocation, to smash windows, burn down neighborhoods, physically attack and even murder conservatives. But instead of toning down the rhetoric, the respectable left keeps throwing matches on the bone-dry tinder, and then indignantly asks, “Are you saying conservatives don’t do it, too?” 

No, actually. We don’t.

Not yet, we don’t. But I expect that to change before a whole lot longer; there would seem to be no other way of stopping them. And even the most timorous of curs will take being beaten for only so long before he decides to bite back.

They’re fascists, plain and simple. They’re filled with hate; they recognize no ethical or practical limits on their behavior, and they are undeniably prone to violence when they are hindered, thwarted, or even verbally contradicted. They intend to rule us, and they are not bothered in the least by the prospect of killing us in job lots if they have to. They assume that if they dispense with the most recalcitrant among us, the more meek of us will then be cowed into going along at last. If not, well, the meek can all join us in the Killing Fields.

We’re going to find out if that assumption is correct. It is NOT going to be pretty.

Hey, it’s not as if their ideological brethren haven’t done it before, you know.


Wanna get nuts, libtards? Fine, let’s get nuts!

Jesse James lays the understatement of the year on us:

With the recent developments in the current plot to depose Trump, the president must now take a different tack to see the end of his term. The incestuous relationship between Robert Mueller and James Comey precludes the possibility of the former having any untainted findings or decisions. The legacy media has now morphed itself into some demented Fifth Column super-PAC that produces assassination porn and is in no small part responsible for the recent attempt on GOP Congressmen. I find it difficult to believe that they would be any sort of bulwark against purely political findings by Mueller. The tattered remains of the political norm inside the Beltway were shredded when Comey admitted to leaking faux ‘memos’ to the press in order to push for a special counsel, and a Maddow acolyte took Loretta Lynch’s words to heart and tried to kill ‘conservatives.’ The majority of the public has finally been introduced to the true nature of Washington politics, the law is what you can get away with and the truth is only what you can prove. The naive moral equivalency argument and the laughable assertion that the office or process must be respected or in any way preserved under the current climate must be shelved by the Trump administration if it is to survive.

To say the very least.

The argument among constitutionalists and the perennial ‘never-Trump’ wing of the Grand Old Cuck party is that somehow by a unilateral show of force by the executive branch the office and delicate balance of the respective branches will be upset. The argument given relies on the condition that an out of control Trump would set in motion a series of events that would be significantly worse than our current situation. I fail to see how the threat of a derailed government is worth consideration if we are already there. The entire fetid organization is  a case study on dysfunction, the political violence, Congress in rebellion, a politicized judiciary and the state coffers empty in the majority of the populated regions of the US. The prisoner’s dilemma the cucks and communists are attempting to convince the public of doesn’t hold water. Why should anyone participate in this farce if the consequences for not doing so are no worse than continuing to support a fiction only slightly less believable than Bigfoot. Trump should act as things are, he is the de facto leader of a one faction in a cold civil war. Rather than continuing to participate in the theater of the Beltway, both he and the remnant of traditional Americans would be better served if he wielded every ounce of his power against ‘the resistance.’ If the Democratic Party seeks to be the Boxcar Party™ and truly be a government in exile, then the Trump administration should treat them as the seditious clear and present danger they are.

Bingo. If they want a fight, they should by God get one—and we ought not bother a moment with worrying about whether or not we’re fighting “fair.” As with the Muslims, I want them trembling at the very idea of trying to further subjugate us. We’ve let them get away with far too much, for far too long.

Don’t know why on earth I haven’t thought to bookmark and blogroll Jesse already, but that’s all fixed now.

(Via WRSA)


Deep State dinner theater

Good line. I’ll be using it again, I expect. Although it could be argued that it amounts to making way too light of what actually is a serious attempt at a coup, an overthrow of a duly elected President for no cause other than the Democrat Socialist Party refuses to recognize the right of the people to have any say in how they’re governed.

Further to my observations on Deep State dinner theatre, the “Russia investigation” show goes on, undeterred by the lack of any evidence of actual crime: The more obvious the absence of any crime to investigate, the bigger the investigation gets. As I’ve said before, in Hitchcockian terms, this is a thriller without a MacGuffin: instead, it’s one big MacNuffin – unless you count the “collusion” between government bureaucracies and the Hillary campaign in surveilling their political opposition before the election, or FBI honcho Jim Leaky leaking material to The New York Times to get his buddy Bob Mueller appointed as “Special Counsel”.

That last one worked – notwithstanding calls for a Special Counsel to investigate the Special Counsel over his ties to the FBI Director who wanted the Special Counsel. This is a very Washington creature-feature: the Blob feasts on nothing. So at the Deep State dinner theatre Mr Mueller is now casting an army of extras. With the usual money-no-object lavishness of the world’s premier five-star swamp, the Special Counsel has appointed, to date, 14 lawyers to his “investigation”, “with more still to come”. In a fascinating column, my old colleague Andrew McCarthy puts this prosecutorial football squad in perspective:

Andy was the lead counsel in the prosecution of the Blind Sheikh for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. It led to a nine-month trial of twelve defendants. The Government somehow managed to pull that off with three prosecutors plus an appellate lawyer.

A couple of years before that, Andy was on the “Pizza Connection” Mafia case – a 17-month trial of 22 defendants. In that one, he was the junior member among five government lawyers, and many of his peers thought the size of the prosecution team was “excessive”.

But McCarthy’s column contains an even more sobering context for Bob and his Fantastic Fourteen:

Does it seem strange to anyone else that, by comparison, the president of the United States has managed to get—count ’em—three appointees confirmed to Justice Department positions in five months?

So in one month Mueller has managed to put five times as many people on the DoJ payroll as Trump has since January.

Well, naturally. I mean, Mueller is an integral cog in the machinery of what he considers to be the only “legitimate” government of the former USA: the Deep State. Trump is a mere elected President; what sort of right to any authority could HE possibly have? Why, he’s not even a professional politician, for Christ’s sake! But there’s a larger issue here, and Mark knows what it is:

Recently I had occasion to speak with an FBI agent myself in connection with a matter rather closer to home for me than the Kremlin. After a couple of hours of going over all the details, I leaned back in my chair and said, “What do you think’s really going on here?” And the G-Man, who was actually a G-Woman, replied that, in her experience, you could investigate someone for two or three years and never know the answer to that question. So you nail them on mail fraud. And we all had a good laugh and went on our merry way.

But I confess I feel a little queasy about that. If you investigate someone long enough, you may not get the goods on them, but you’ll certainly get some goods. And so much of American justice seems to involve designating the guy you’re gonna get, and then figuring out afterwards what it is you can get him on – Al Capone for tax evasion being merely the most celebrated example thereof. But there are a zillion lesser examples and Jim Comey has made his own famous contribution to the pantheon: He got Martha Stewart banged up in the Big House for lying to the FBI in a matter for which there was no underlying crime.

Incidentally, why is it a crime for Americans to lie to the FBI but not for the FBI to lie to Americans? As when Comey testified – just a month ago – that Huma Abedin had forwarded hundreds of thousands of emails to the laptop of her sex-fiend husband. Like so much Comey grandstanding, it was a great story – but it wasn’t true:

The problem: Much of what Comey said about this was inaccurate. Now the FBI is trying to figure out what to do about it.

If Martha Stewart or Scooter Libby had done that, “what to do about it” would be easy: They’d be headed to the slammer. But, when the FBI Director makes false statements under oath in a matter for which he is giving expert, prepared testimony, he gets to skate.

If I have one large disappointment with Trump so far, it’s that he hasn’t been aggressive enough in fighting these assholes. They’re certainly not pulling their punches, and the “liberal” media is going to trash him no matter what he does or says. He’s never going to catch a break of the smallest kind from any of these Deep State vermin; they certainly shouldn’t be catching any from him. Play hardball with ’em, Donald—rough ’em up, let ’em know they’ve been kissed, as the military types say. I guarantee your supporters will LOVE it.


War to the knife

Turn it all back on the fascist Progtard bastards. Every last bit of it.

“Invent a weapon,” Jordan Peterson said on Tuesday, “and your enemies will have it within one generation.” He was talking about Gamergate feminist Brianna Wu, who was learning the hard way that YouTube’s Restricted Mode was hurting the gays it was supposed to protect. You may be thinking, “Wu who?” right now, but you should be saying, “Woo-hoo!” because Peterson’s observation is profound. Not only are the bots turning on their creators, we are too. We’ve taken Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals and turned it into our guidebook. We are the Social Justice Warriors now, and we’re way better at it than they ever were.

Right now, a man in a MAGA hat is suing a bar in New York called The Happiest Hour for booting him out solely because he loves Trump. Getting kicked out of bars is pretty common for people in MAGA hats above the Mason–Dixon line. The old right would venerate the entrepreneur and quietly take the high road out of the bar. Not anymore. Since the lawsuit was announced, Trump supporters have been flooding the bar. One MAGA woman was just paid $150 to get lost.

The new right wing does more than just get petty when the going gets rough. We appropriate. When you attack us, we turn it into a slogan. Hillary’s “basket of deplorables” made us into The Deplorables. Her “fake news” now defines all the news that lies about us. We even got her freaking out about a green frog. Since then, we’ve convinced them that everything from an “OK” gesture to a bobbing purple dove to a glass of milk is a secret Nazi code. It’s so easy to turn them into a dizzy Chihuahua frantically chasing his own tail that it’s almost cruel—almost.

There are times I think we go a little too far down the SJW rabbit hole. I didn’t like trying to get Samantha Bee fired for saying someone had a Nazi haircut, but I understand where they were coming from. Similarly, calling the horror movie Get Out racist against whites seemed a bit much, but maybe I was wrong. Attacking MTV for their “2017 Resolutions for White Guys” got it taken down and Dear White People started with 184,068 dislikes on YouTube and evolved into a Netflix boycott.

This is the part of the article where we begin to get what editors call “example exhaustion,” but I’m still not tired of winning. When Kyle Chapman was maced at a recent pro-Trump rally, he reached into his bag and grabbed the gas mask he had packed for that very occasion. Then he put on a helmet, grabbed a stick, and started bashing the “antifascists” who had just attacked him. What could have been yet another example of lunatics abusing us with no repercussions blossomed into an inspiring meme where #BasedStickMan is Photoshopped into countless heroic situations. I’m told by the organizer of that rally he was inspired by the Proud Boys charging headfirst into my NYU talk and pounding the crap out of the masked anarchists who pepper-sprayed me. We were told to take the back door, but we refused because we’re done with being ashamed. The Deploraball that happened a few weeks before this was another example of us stealing back the culture, and I’m not just talking about the name. When some kid in a ski mask said, “You wanna go?” I said, “Yeah, I do wanna fucking go” and punched him in the face. “Conservative men never punch people in the face,” Ann Coulter told me after she heard the story. She was thrilled. Living under “the tyranny of clichés” is really just being bullied by betas and I’m almost embarrassed it took us so long to stoop to their level.

Yeah, well, in the end, we’re all coming to realize that winning disgracefully actually beats losing gracefully. Especially when it’s our liberty and our God-given rights as the stakes.

A genteel insistence on fighting fair when your opponent is a dirty, sleazy, conniving scumbag willing to use every nasty, unfair, and/or illegal trick in the book against you is a recipe for one thing, and one thing only: defeat. Does anybody seriously think they’ll suddenly discover magnanimity, honor, and integrity once they’re well and truly victorious? Hell no; they’ll go right on as long as we allow them to until they’ve crushed us entirely, humiliating and scourging us as grotesquely as possible, allowing us not the slightest shred of dignity or hope. Then they’ll turn right around and blame us for the whole fracas, and see to it that we’re harshly punished for starting the whole thing.

Thanks, but…nope. Maybe it’s time to let them be the ones who fear to speak their minds in public for a change; let them have their longstanding assumption of general agreement with their position turned into a reluctance to be outed as a Leftist at all. Let them worry about finding themselves suddenly surrounded by a hostile group eager to slam them bodily to the pavement, or getting a swift sucker-punch in the mouth at one of their little protest melees. Let them get locked up for incitement to riot when they get beat down by ten or twelve fed-up, aggressive counter-demonstrators; let them lick their fucking wounds in the hospital, and then go straight to jail from there. Let them get their cars overturned and burned, their businesses destroyed, their homes picketed, their livelihoods lost for daring to dissent from traditional American beliefs.

And let them cry, cry, cry about it the unfairness of it all too. When they do, let them be mocked for it.

Yeah, I know, I know; its un-American, and it’s depressing as all hell to contemplate the prospect, too. But America was lost a long time ago; this is the world they’ve made, and now we have to live in it, until such time as we can find a way to unwind the skein of authoritarianism they’ve bound us with, if we even can. So why shouldn’t we see to it that they have to live in that world, too?

It’s ugly, and it’s awful, and we all hate it. But it’s becoming more and more apparent that they’re never going to rediscover the value of free speech, of tolerance for dissent, of decency and civility, until they’ve been made to suffer themselves for having deprived others of those things with impunity. I’ll say it again: if we’re truly going to take our country back, it’s probably going to come down to a shooting war before all is said and done. That being the case, we’d better resign ourselves to finding a scrappy, fiery, and vicious Sherman right away, rather than pinning our hopes on the admirable qualities of a man like Lee, a product of an earlier era whose virtues and values have been bypassed and trampled by a more brutish reality.

All they ever had to do was just leave us the hell alone. They wouldn’t…or couldn’t; the realization of a totalitarian, authoritarian dream always and forever requires the subjugation of all, by definition. So let them reap the whirlwind, to the fullest extent we can manage. When up against foes such as these, the smart thing isn’t to hope for eventual generosity and forbearance from your vanquishers; the smart thing is to do whatever is necessary to make them profoundly regret ever daring to fuck with you in the first place, and to make sure they’ll think long and hard before ever even contemplating such a thing again.

As my dad always said: ain’t no such thing as a fair fight, son. They are in none but a strictly geographic sense our countrymen, and until they stop treating us as enemies, we dare not treat them as if they were friends.



A scenario. And a warning.

This is entirely a piece of fiction. And a cautionary tale. Hopefully it stays that way, but I wouldn’t put chips on that square. If it gets your panties all twisted, too fucking bad. Get over it.

It took about twenty minutes to type out, and I haven’t even been thinking about this much.

If I can come up with this off the cuff, so can five hundred thousand other people. Some already have.

Bet your ass on that.

And if you’re one of the erstwhile protesters, many of them wouldn’t be as merciful towards you and yours as I was in this little tale. You ARE betting your ass on that, every time you show up for another piece of street theatre. And when it actually happens, 100:1 they’ll see that YOU get the blame for it. Win-win.

So, contrary to all experience thus far, you all could grow the fuck up, knock your silly shit off, and just suck it.

Or keep pushing your luck.

Call the toss in the air, kids.

I keep saying it, and I’ll keep right on saying it: careful what you wish for, Libtards. You’re already in way over your heads, and you don’t even seem smart enough to know that much. But the truth is: real Americans having put up with your shit this long should in NO way be taken as a guarantee that they’re going to put up with it forever.

(Via WRSA)


“Genocide, racial hate, America was never great”


It wasn’t quite a repeat of the UC Berkeley riots Wednesday night, but so-called anti-fascist protesters clashed with police outside New York University, where Gavin McInnes was invited to speak by the NYU College Republicans. McInnes confirmed other reports that he was pepper-sprayed at the event.

If it maybe isn’t quite time to start killing them yet, it’s certainly time to start beating the hell out of them, looks like. And make no mistake: eventually the time is going to come when people DO start killing them…because they’re not going to stop until they’ve killed some of us.

I’ve always said that nobody really wants civil war and all the horror that will ensue. But it’s becoming more and more apparent that I was wrong about that; obviously, the Left DOES want it. They’re not going to be nearly so happy about it as they seem to think when they finally get it, though.

A classic intellectual exercise, updated: would it have been moral to kill Hitler as a youth, knowing what was to come if you didn’t? If so, then on some level it would have to be hypothetically moral to strangle some of these vicious little Hitler Youth in the crib, so to speak, before they, umm, ripen to full fascist flower too, no? For now, it still comes down to this:

These people are sick fanatics, and if you disagree with a fanatic, they will automatically assume you are some sort of competing fanatic. Therefore, no fate is too awful to befall you. Since Trump is Literally Hitler, anyone who voted for him is Literally a Brownshirt and thus sorely deserves being beaten into mental retardation and lifelong incontinence.

For some reason, sucker-punching a man while he was looking the other way and then fleeing the scene like a scared rabbit is being celebrated by many leftists as an act of courage and heroism.

To my knowledge, neither Richard, Gavin, nor I has ever so much as recommended, much less committed, physical violence against those who merely disagree with us politically. To me that suggests that we are far more secure in our beliefs than anyone who wishes to silence (or punch) us for harboring diverse opinions.

Which no longer matters in the least. Moral superiority and an unrequited tolerance for dissent has never yet prevented anyone from being assaulted by these pusbags. And it never will. Personally, I’m all done with arguing the finer points of Righty morality versus Lefty depravity with anybody, and have been for a good while. It accomplishes nothing worthwhile: you can’t reason a bunch of malevolent brats out of a position they never reasoned themselves into in the first place. Moral superiority makes for a truly shitty, flimsy, and ineffectual shield against fascist violence anyway, and that’s always been the case. Plenty of decent people have gone down under a flurry of blows trying to use that shield for protection. You might ask Kenneth Gladney sometime about how well it works.

It also suggests that if they aren’t willing to have a debate and only want to assault, that is a declaration of war and they should be knocked back so hard that their eyeballs fly clear across the county line.

Due to the current legal and prevailing cultural climate—which dictates that any white person who doesn’t have a problem with being white is a Nazi who deserves being beaten in public—I would only suggest defensive violence, because the courts will not be kind to you.

But if you’re going to retaliate violently, do it with an exclamation point. Do it with the crushing finesse of the Belgian soccer hooligan who decked a fat leftist who wouldn’t get out of his face. Do it with the decisiveness of the highly outnumbered European traditionalists who mopped the floor with Antifa antagonists who foolishly thought they wouldn’t fight back last summer in Sacramento.

Never throw the first punch—but always throw the last.

Indeed. But I repeat: the time is coming when at least some of us, sick and tired of acting as passive punching bags for sub-sentient Leftist scum again and again and again and again, will start preemptively punching first. Doesn’t matter if anybody likes it, doesn’t matter if anybody wants it; sooner or later, given continual Leftist escalation, it WILL happen. Once it does, it’s not going to be nearly as big a step as some might think from there to actually, actively hunting them. And once that step is taken, the main point of interest is going to shift from “should we or shouldn’t we” to the more practical concern of merely establishing a bag limit, if any—because by then, the time for delicately arguing over the morality of eliminating people who are already trying to eliminate you is going to be long past.

I repeat yet again: careful what you wish for, Lefty scum. Lest you get it, good and hard.

The election of Donald Trump was one of the last, desperate shots across the Left’s bow, reminding them of our decades of polite requests to leave us the hell alone. They have chosen to double down on the hate and escalate the fascist violence instead. Sooner or later, self-preservation will override philosophical debate and render questions of morality irrelevant. No matter how it all shakes out in the short term and case by case, this can only end badly for the fucktard Left.

Well, so be it; couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of assholes, if you ask me. Years ago, the Clash sang: “It’s brawn against brain, and knife against chain.” The Left needs to remember how that particular verse wound up, before it’s too late to matter.


That 70s show!

It was the worst of times, it was…the worst of times. Now on endless rerun, in an urban area all too near you.

If at any point in 2017 Trump supporters are harmed or harrassed like the rally in Chicago, expect Righties to get very interested in forming street defense leagues: goons and headhunters to make Black Bloc spit teeth. And they’ll be purely defensive. For a while. But they’re human. So then they’ll think about getting proactive.

Bluntly: this is dangerous. The people who do it for the Left are literal Communists. What kind of Righties will it draw? Oh, I dunno, I’m guessing people who’re comfortable with violence, who don’t mind breaking norms or being arrested…

…if you’re now thinking, “Oh shit,” well, guess what? So am I.

If streetfights start happening on a regular basis on American streets, our democracy will corrode very quickly. We’ll see rapid radicalization at both poles, meaning normalization of political extremists.

Mainstream Lefties happily go to protests they favor that are organized by the literal Stalinists of ANSWER & the Worker’s World Party. Why? The commies are really good at getting people signs and making sure there are enough port-a-potties. When you’re great at organizing signs & port-a-potties, Lefties overlook that you’re into an ideology that murdered a hundred million people.

So how far would this go? Would mainstream Nazi-hating Righties be ok w/ literal Nazis on the streetfighting squads that keep them safe?

I dunno; how’d you feel about folks who voluntarily get their bodies between your peaceful gathering and a crowd trying to intimidate you?

Lefties could keep that very human thing from happening. But they’d have to de-escalate. And they won’t. Mellow out on college campuses? Quit disrupting righty events? No chance. It’s too much fun. So the hard Left is going to do more to normalize literal Nazis in America than anyone since Charles Lindbergh.

The Right is not big enough or organized enough to really destroy Lefty Institutions. Like the Left, they’ll be looking to intimidate people out of the game and take away enemy tools. Example: Institutional and media bias means radical Leftist tactics are accepted, which means radical Leftist tactics become normalized. Ergo, the only way the Right can delegitimize Lefty tactics is to use them, at which point they’ll become The Worst Things Ever Done By Man. My guess is the Right will start using Leftist tactics against members of Leftist Institutions: “This is what you ordered. Eat it.”

Some of this could actually be constructive for campus civility. For instance, I’ve long argued that if a Righty speaker is disrupted on a college campus, then campus Righties should *disrupt every single Lefty speaker for the remainder of the school year.* Of course, Righties can’t get away with what Lefties get away with, so no swarming, no intimidating people, no pulling fire alarms. What Righties can get away with: standing up and chanting, at the top of their lungs, “THIS IS WHAT YOU DO TO US.” In multiple stages, for maximum distraction. Leaving peacefully, of course. The bad news is that’s about as cheerful as these face-offs are going to get. They can and probably will get much nastier.

This is a very small bit of a very long post, but it’s well worth a look—especially if you weren’t around back in the 70s and don’t know the backstory of the radical Left’s ascension, or were and have forgotten. The nice thing is, if Trump follows through on locking up the Crybully Left’s rent-a-mobs for 10 years as he ought to, he’ll end up short-circuiting a whole lot of this admittedly grim stuff.

One thing I know for sure: the idiot Left is going to keep right on with their inane protests against Trump. They will do so until they begin to be made to hurt from it—until there’s a concrete price to be paid for trying to overturn or politically cripple a legitimately elected president. At that point, most of them will go the fuck home and do their sniveling in private. Or on Facebook.

Today’s Hard Left isn’t that of the 70’s: there are a lot fewer real hardcases among ’em, and a lot more pampered brats used to pushing as hard as possible right up until things get too difficult or uncomfortable for them, at which point they fold up like a cheap accordion and slink home to Mommy. So the key is going to be very simple: punish them when they go past legitimate, peaceful protest and tip over into rioting, destruction, and mayhem. The only reason their nonsense has gone as far as it has is because it was allowed to.

Trump said in his inauguration speech that “it stops today.” Hold fast to that, President Trump. That’s really all you gotta do.

(Via Vox)


What it looks like

Know what I hate most about Trump? The way he keeps cozying up, trying to make an ally of the monster Putin. It’s…it’s…why, the man is MAD, I tell you! He’s crossed over from being an amusing sort of lunatic, to a dangerous one. Far too dangerous and unpredictable to ever be president, I can tell you that.

“If they bomb EVEN one city in Russia, I swear, in half an hour every muslim will die” Vladimir Putin

Wow. A national leader, with his country’s best interests first and foremost in mind, threatening annihilation against its avowed enemies. Refusing the course of humiliating defeat, of abject, self-flagellating cowardice, of ongoing tolerance of intolerable acts threatening not just individual lives but his nation’s security and internal peace and stability, entire. Instead of rolling over, exposing his belly, and pleading for endless negotiations and bootless diplomacy, he states it flat: mess with us, and die. Don’t believe for a second we can’t do it; most especially, that we won’t. We will not take your making all-but-overt war on us lying down—meekly, humbly, quietly. Try to do us harm and suffer, unto not just your death, but the death of ALL your kind.

Put another way: if you smite me, I will return more powerful than you can possibly imagine.

Add to that the hilarity of Democrat Socialists expressing horror at the mere thought of dialogue and perhaps even useful alliance with this guy—because he’s an AUTHORITARIAN STRONGMAN, after eight years of Constitution-trampling executive orders and 80,000 new laws that were inflicted not by the legislative branch, but by the untouchable and unaccountable bureaucrats of the executive—and what you have is a truly beautiful and extraordinary thing.

I never respected the guy more, and can only wish we ourselves had someone in office as dedicated to maintaining his nation’s power, security, and general well-being even half as forcefully. Someone who could compete with this guy on his own terms, someone who would negotiate from a position not of contrite weakness, but of self-assurance and strength.

Oh wait. Come January, we will. Sorry, guys; my bad.

No, it ain’t necessary to like Putin, to admire him, to support every move he makes, agree with everything he does. Not to look into his eyes and call him Pooty-Poot, even. But as regards Islam and what tolerating it might earn you, he has the right idea top to bottom. We can ally with him on the one thing and maybe rid the world of this scourge after fourteen hundred years of atrocity and outrages against human decency, while reserving the right not to endorse him when he does something we don’t like. We can share resources and strive together to achieve a common goal—one that, despite our differences, is both a worthy and a truly liberating and ennobling one.

See, this used to be known as working to promote your own national interest, and it used to be SOP for national leaders, a given, just baked into the cake. Cooperate when it works in your favor; resist or even thwart when it does not. When you have no perceivable national interest beyond seeking some nebulous betterment of mankind even when that slice of mankind is not interested in it, just leave it the hell alone.

If it seems a little weird or off to you, it’s understandable; we’ve seen nothing remotely like it for at least eight years now.

(Via Bill)


All you’ll ever need to know about the Charlotte riots

Is right here, captured in a single picture.

“A book,” my ass. Click on the link Sundance provides for the backstory, if need be. But the bottom line remains: #BlackLiesMurder is based entirely—ENTIRELY—on falsehoods, from Ferguson right up through last night. It’s a fine example of how the Left operates, from top to bottom, start to finish.

The amusing thing to me is how careful local news has been to call the rioters “protesters,” which presents a few questions for them: what exactly did the truckers who were stopped, threatened, intimidated, and looted on I-85 night before last have to do with police shootings, pray tell? What did those drivers passing by near downtown last night who had bricks, traffic cones, and other debris heaved off of overpasses at their cars do wrong that their lives should be put in jeopardy by these animals? A more revealing question might be: why do these riots always seem to take place near a Wal Mart, which then ends up looted as if THEY had anything to do with anything?

Screw these vermin. Any sympathy I had for them and their cause—and there was some initially—is now long gone. I’ll take a few bad cops over unhinged, vicious savages any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.


What a mess

All against all—and that ain’t the half of it.

The debacle that is U.S. Syria policy is today on naked display.

NATO ally Turkey and U.S.-backed Arab rebels this weekend attacked our most effective allies against ISIS, the Syrian Kurds.

Earlier in August, U.S. planes threatened to shoot down Syrian planes over Hasakeh, and our Iraq-Syria war commander, Lt. Gen. Stephen Townsend, issued a warning to Syria and Russia against any further air strikes around the city.

Who authorized Gen. Townsend to threaten to shoot down Syrian or Russian planes—in Syria?

When did Congress authorize an American war in Syria? Is the constitution now inoperative?

Well, I mean, like, DUH.

Follows, an attempt to make sense of the impenetrable, chaotic hash that pretty much characterizes the result of any application of sanity and reason to the Muddle East (not a typo). But remarkably, Buchanan comes up with an approach that actually makes sense:

How does the U.S. protect its interests while avoiding a deeper involvement in this war?

First, recognize that ISIS and the al-Nusra Front are our primary enemies in Syria, not Assad or Russia. Geostrategists may be appalled, but the Donald may have gotten it right. If the Russians are willing to fight to crush ISIS, to save Assad, be our guest.

Second, oppose any removal of Assad unless and until we are certain he will not be replaced by an Islamist regime.

Third, we should assure the Turks we will keep the Kurds east of the Euphrates and not support any Kurdish nation-state that involves any secession from Turkey.

America’s best and wisest course is to stop this slaughter that is killing a thousand Syrians a week, use our forces in concert with any and all allies to annihilate the Nusra Front and ISIS, keep the Kurds and Turks apart, effect a truce if we can, and then get out. It’s not our war.

This seems fine and all to me—especially the “get out” part—but I still prefer nuking the whole shitpit from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.

(Via WRSA)


Pleasepleasepleasepleaseplease let this happen!

I think I just came in my pants a little.

Over the last three months, Trump watchers have noticed that former House speaker and 2012 Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has been consistently advocating on Trump’s behalf in the media, on Capitol Hill, among K Street power brokers, and on social media. In fact, Gingrich has morphed into Trump’s unofficial ambassador for GOP peace and unity, while also seeking converts in hostile territory.

Gingrich is the most recognized and respected member of the GOP establishment who is defending the insurgent candidate — even as Trump rails against that same establishment. But now, it has become apparent that Gingrich is waging an active campaign to become Donald Trump’s running mate.

These days, any Trump World speculation is incomplete without comments from Roger Stone — Trump’s high-profile, long-time, on-again-off-again unofficial consigliere who was called “Donald Trump’s Donald Trump” in a recent Politico interview. When I asked Stone about a Trump-Gingrich ticket he said, “Newt has been enormously helpful defending Trump against the establishment” and that he “should be on Trump’s short list.” Most tellingly, Stone told me that “Newt is a revolutionary, and Trump is leading a revolution.”

Curious about Gingrich’s reaction to Stone’s “revolution” comment and to his name being mentioned on the Times’ VP list, I reached out to the former Speaker. This is what he said:

It is an honor to be mentioned. We need a new Contract with America to outline a 100-day plan to take back Washington from the lobbyists, bureaucrats, unions, and leftists. After helping in 1980 with Reagan and 1995 as speaker I know we have to move boldly and decisively before the election results wear off and the establishment starts fighting us. That is my focus.

His answer speaks volumes. In the Times article Gingrich is quoted as saying that “it would be very hard for a patriotic citizen to say no” and that “very few people pass up the chance to be a heartbeat away from the presidency.” I think it’s safe to say that Newt is actively developing a new Contract while awaiting Trump’s call.

If Trump wants to shore up his “true conservative” credentials, I can’t think of anyone better. If he feels he needs the assistance of a career politician with experience negotiating the treacherous swamps of Mordor On The Potomac to actually get things done, I can’t think of one more acceptable to me. If he wants an attack dog who won’t shy away from confronting the Praetorian Media and going after Hillary as his lieutenant, I can’t think of one more bellicose and tenacious. And if he wants someone to crank liberal-fascist nightmares way past ten, thereby causing them to soak their fever-dream sheets in both piss and flop-sweat, Newt would have to be the man. This caveat strikes me as needless worry-warting:

There is an obvious downside, however, of a Trump-Gingrich ticket: With gender issues shaping up to be a yuuge factor in the general election, Newt’s three marriages are sure to raise red flags that Team Clinton will joyfully exploit.

Does anybody really think it likely that the Clintons will be eager to be forced into the position of having to be seen lecturing America on the secrets of a joyous, healthy, harmonious marriage? I can’t see it, although their bald-faced, sleazy brazenness does at least admit the possibility. Even so, I can’t see them being very successful with it; absolutely nobody who isn’t already a rabid Clintonista is going to buy a word of it. If nothing else, it opens up way too many avenues of stinging counterattack against them, avenues I’m quite sure Trump is already planning to exploit anyway. An attack like that would amount to just giving him another reason to jump in with both feet and stomp away relentlessly—as if any were needed—rather than just giving them a swift, sharp kick and moving on to something else.

Bill is already on this, saying “If manipulating Congress and nullifying or at least controlling the iron rice bowl Old Guard is the name of the game, though, there is no better player than Newt Gingrich.” More:

The only real power the Veep has is all potential power – one heartbeat away, and all that. And that is why I think I prefer Newt in the Veep slot rather than, say, White House Chief of Staff, which is a different sort of job, much more nuts and bolts. The real power of the CoS is that he controls access to the President and runs the palace bureaucracy.

Newt is more a manipulator, thinker, and big picture guy with enormous political skills – just the sort of man Trump will need as his ambassador to the Congressional leadership and others. Newt knows where bodies are buried. Hell, he even buried some of them. He’s as at home in the halls of Congress as a shark is in a school of tuna.

He will be Trump’s Speaker to Animals. His nominal tie-breaking votes will be mostly trivial. But the fact that he’ll be shepherding the Trump administration’s plans through Congress to fruition will easily make him the second most powerful politician in D.C. – after Trump himself, of course.

As for that one heartbeat deal? Hell, Newt has already spent years being just two heartbeats away.

Your mileage may vary on all this, naturally. But speaking purely for myself: I like it. I like it a lot.


Revenge of the GOPe

Toe the line, take what we give you and like it. Or else.

Seen by many as the veritable pin-up girl for every conservative, red blooded, American male, the Fox News Channel (FNC) has at least for the time being dropped one of the more popular on air personalities. As reported by Josh Feldman of the Mediaite news portal, and also by Chris Ariens of TVNewser, both on Apr. 27, 2016, fan favorite Andrea Tantaros has at least for now been taken off the network’s schedule.

Born Andreana Kostantina Tantaros to a Greek immigrant father and an Italian-American mother, the girl who was raised with a strong work ethic and even a stronger love of country was no stranger to controversy during her six years at Fox News. Yet as cited, FNC has released the following rather terse announcement to TVNewser, “Issues have arisen regarding Andrea’s contract, and Fox News Channel has determined it best that she take some time off. She is still under contract with the network.”

While not cited by FNC as a reason for her extended vacation, Tantaros recently claimed during a taping of Outnumbered that certain GOP Establishment-types were coming down hard on her for supporting Donald Trump; “They have been doing this. Specifically, Charles Cooke, who is a writer for National Review, he tweeted out that I should give my job to somebody else. Also, I saw a tweet, it was a meme by Kevin Williamson of National Review trying to make me seem stupid. There’s a girl talking about biorhythms, or something. So I’ve gotten my fair share as well from folks on the right and the left and in the media calling me stupid and Trump supporters as well… Exactly I should give up my job according to men in the Republican Party.”

As with the Left, if it’s war they want, then it’s war they damned well ought to get.

Update! War to the knife.

With that in mind everyone must ask themselves what would those interests, who ultimately control all of these outcomes, do to retain power? When there are trillions at stake, how much would they spend to retain control?

Think about it.

I don’t mean just casually consider it; I mean actually reset your mind and think about what would an enterprise do to retain control over even one trillion dollars.

  • Example #1 – Last night a report from the Daily Mail outlined a scandalous claim, a lawsuit. Only there’s a problem. The person (claimant) doesn’t exist. The lawsuit was self-filed. No attorney was used, referenced or mentioned. The entity filing it listed an abandoned address. The accompanying telephone number is non existent. No-one, including the FBI who hold custody of all associated records, has ever heard of this person or anyone outlined in the aforementioned article. This article updates today with a litany of corrections, qualifiers, and walk-backs. The re-write doesn’t even bear the slightest resemblance to the original construct. It disappears and reappears – loin cloth.

    So how does this happen? No, not how does the lawsuit appear, that’s easy – anyone can walk into any courthouse and file a civil lawsuit. No, how does a mainstream media publication end up putting themselves so far out on (an) ungrounded and completely fabricated construct?


Read the rest. And…think. Nobody should be expecting the GOPe to go gently into that good night. They worked hard for those iron rice bowls, and they intend to keep ’em, and keep ’em filled with all the DC boodle they can scoop up two-handed. The pushback is going to be hard, it’s going to be relentless, and it’s going to be every bit as sleazy and underhanded as anything George Soros ever dreamed up. Funny how they never could seem to find the energy to fight against Obama even half as hard. Guess they never considered him to be as much of a threat. Why, one might almost think they’ve been just playing a game, doing a little kabuki-theater dance, all along.

Nah, that couldn’t be right.


It’s going to get worse

Told ya it was coming. But just wait till some random nut tries to act on it. As they will, again and again.

A new viral rap song that encourages the assassination of Donald Trump and calls for riots if he wins the presidency is being celebrated by the music media.

Entitled ‘F**k Donald Trump’, the track was performed live in front of 20,000 people at the Coachella music festival this past weekend by hip-hop artists YG and Nipsey Hussle.

The lyrics for the song openly invoke death threats against Trump and vow to stage violence if he takes the Oval Office.

A sample:

All the niggas in the hood wanna fight you
Surprised El Chapo ain’t tried to snipe you
Surprised the Nation of Islam ain’t tried to find you

Have a rally out in L.A., we gon fuck it up
Home of the Rodney King riot, we don’t give a fuck

You built walls? We gong prolly dig holes
And if your ass do win, you gong prolly get smoked
F**k nigga, f**k you!

When me and Nip link, that’s Bloods and Crips
Where your L.A. rally? We gon crash your shit

Violent, illiterate, moronic thugs threatening to assassinate a duly-elected president–openly, brazenly, with full-bore Moron Pride and gangsta swagger and no fear of repercussion, from the Secret Service or anyone else. Ladies and gents, I give you your modern Democrat Socialist Party, in the very flesh.

One wonders what the reaction would have been if a group of hillbillies from Alabama had made a music video for a song in which they threatened to kill Hillary Clinton.

No, one doesn’t; one wouldn’t waste one’s presumably valuable time, because one already knows quite well, thanks. And one doesn’t even bother speculating what would have resulted had the KKK done likewise for President Jugears.

You guys know I’ve said many times that nobody should really want another civil war, for all sorts of reasons. But I never claimed there would be NO positive aspects to one. Open season on parasitic criminal-minded leeches like this, with no bag limits, would have to be one of them.

(Via Nemo)


On war

Total war, that is.

A war is not won until the enemy, the loser, knows that he’s been beaten, that he has absolutely no chance in Hell of prevailing and that any further resistance will not only not lead to any sort of future possible, fantasy land victory, it will also lead to further horrors, humiliations and pointless suffering. If you leave as much as a shred of a hope that there is a future possibility of turning the table around, then you haven’t won. You’ve just gained a truce.

It’s as simple as that.

WWII as the last war this country actually fought like we meant it is a great example. Germany knew they’d been beaten. Not because they’d lost a bunch of battles and the allied troops were marching at will through Germany itself, but because Germany had thrown everything, EVERYTHING they had at the allies for 6 long years and it hadn’t changed the outcome. Nothing Germany could produce had been able to stop that, and Germany was way ahead in everything technologically, they’d thrown every available German into the grinder down to pre-teens and septuagenarians, they were united as very few, if any, countries had ever been before, and they still couldn’t stop it.

Japan had watched two major cities get obliterated in as many days and, for all that they knew, we could keep on obliterating all of their cities in the same way until there was nothing left.

THOSE are the factors that ended those wars decisively, not any number of won battles, no matter how decisively any of them were won.

What won those wars was the simple message that “we have destroyed/killed x% of you. We can keep on doing so until that x reaches 100, and there isn’t a single thing you can do about it. And unless you surrender, UNCONDITIONALLY, we WILL do so.”

That is the only message that wins wars and makes them stay won.

More on Japan specifically:

Unconditional surrender was not particularly popular among some Allied leaders, especially Churchill and several notable American generals such as Eisenhower. It was heavily debated throughout the conflict, and still remains one of the most controversial policies of the war. Steven Casey in Cautious Crusade has a whole chapter dedicated to the politics of unconditional surrender, and notes that historians have long debated over FDR’s motives and the effects. Generally, it’s believed that his fear was that if militant entities and institutions were allowed to remain postwar, future conflict would be inevitable, invoking the memory of the 1918 armistice with Germany. FDR himself explained, “unconditional surrender means not the destruction of the German populace, nor the Italian or Japanese populace, but does mean the destruction of a philosophy in Germany, Italy, and Japan which is based on the conquest and subjugation of other people.” (Casey, 118). The Allies would avoid any uncertainty, decisively and completely winning the war, or it would keep fighting. It has been asserted that the move was also to keep Stalin from attaining any negotiated peace during a time when the US had yet to open a second front and casualties on the Eastern front were extreme (the announcement had taken place merely a few days after the conclusion of the Battle of Stalingrad). Truman, taking office in April 1945, believed that to go back on the demand of unconditional surrender would be a sign of weakness both to the American people and to the Japanese government, providing fuel for those who wished to continue the war. Critics believe unconditional surrender was a significant boost to Axis propaganda, leading them to fight more fanatically, and lengthened the duration of the war both in the European and Pacific theaters. Upon hearing of it, Nazi propaganda minister Goebbels exclaimed, “I should never have been able to think up so rousing a slogan.” (Fleming, Written in Blood)

The means for which this surrender was to be achieved was total war – the complete mobilization of a nation’s resources, including the conversion of its industry and drafting of citizens. The intention is not to just destroy the enemy military forces, but also to destroy their ability to make war. This leads to an incredibly blurred line between combatants and civilians. For instance, in order to destroy Japan’s ability to make war, factories in densely populated urban centers were targeted. By extension, civilians in industrial areas could themselves even be viewed as “legitimate” targets. By the end of the war, cities were being routinely bombed into submission in an effort to break the will of the government and people to fight.

Hasegawa notes that the use of the bomb was the best possible outcome to Truman, solving the problem of unconditional surrender, invasion, and Soviet interference. For the Japanese, news of the bomb led to complete disarray. Asada states that many in the army and Japan’s R&D board denied that an atomic bomb had been used, or even that it was possible that one could have been developed so soon. Information from Hiroshima was limited, as the infrastructure had already been significantly damaged even before the 6th. However, both Asada and Hasegawa note that by that evening, and certainly by the following day, little doubt remained. Asada argues that acceptance of American technological superiority helped the army “save face” and “smoothed their acceptance of surrender” – a minister tried to persuade the military by pleading, “if we say we lost a scientific war, the people will understand” (Asada, 197).

On August 9th, the USSR declared war on Japan and Soviet armor poured into Manchuria. Coupled with the use of the atomic bomb, this utterly crippled the hope of continuing the war effort. Though Japanese forces mounted a strong defense, they were quickly pushed back. Yet, the supreme council still held on to hope that it could negotiate with the Soviets, refusing to officially declare war. Though the Prime Minister and other civilian leaders now openly declared that Japan should surrender, military leaders wished to continue the fight. Even after the bombing of Nagasaki on August 9th, the supreme council still tried to push for maintaining the position of Emperor, and there was a 3-3 split for three other conditions: war criminal trials would be conducted by the Japanese, self-disarmament, and that occupation (particularly of Tokyo) should be avoided or limited wherever possible. (Hasegawa 204, Frank 291). The short span of time between bombings as well as Allied threats were made to give the impression that the US already had a stockpile of the weapons when in actuality it only had the two. A third would have come “sometime after August 19, and then the fourth bomb in the beginning of September,” (Hasegawa 298). It was only until the morning of the 10th that the Foreign Ministry sent telegrams saying it would accept the Potsdam Declaration and unconditional surrender after Hirohito himself demanded the war’s end. Even then, there was an attempted coup by a segment of the military leadership, which invaded the imperial palace and nearly killed the Prime Minister, as well as other senior officials. On August 15, the emperor officially announced the surrender worldwide. Many pockets of Japanese soldiers still continued to fight, and many military officers chose suicide over surrender. By 1947, a new constitution was written, and while the emperor was maintained as ceremonial figurehead, the Empire of Japan was formally dissolved.

Whether it was the use of nuclear weapons or Soviet invasion that more forcefully led to surrender has been hotly debated between historians. Hasegawa places greater emphasis on the Soviet invasion, suggesting that Japan would likely have stood steadfast under multiple atomic bombings as it had done in the face of firebombing. Asada directly references and disputes his account, claiming that nuclear weapons and the threat they posed to the homeland reflected a much more “direct” impetus to end the war rather than the invasion of Manchuria, and offered an easier way out for the leadership. Further, they came as a complete surprise to Japanese leadership, whereas eventual conflict with the USSR was expected. Frank’s account, and most other anti-revisionist historians support this thesis.

It’s worth noting that the term “unconditional surrender” originated after the battle for Fort Donelson with Grant’s subordinates Andrew Foote* (“No sir, your surrender will be unconditional!”) and CF Smith (“I’ll make no terms with rebels with arms in their hands — my terms are unconditional and immediate surrender!” and, more famously, “No terms to the damned Rebels!”). The total-war idea came to full deadly fruition later with Sherman, of course.

What’s most interesting to me about it all, though, is how Grant and Sherman are almost universally revered and lionized as American heroes now, while modern-era “hard war” men like Curtis LeMay are regarded by many as somehow monstrous, executors not so much of victory as of atrocity. Is that a function of the unique horror of nuclear weapons, or of merely being farther removed in time? Does it maybe say more about us than it does about them?

Either way, in light of our ongoing (and so far unsuccessful) struggle with Islam–a perhaps even more fanatical and dedicated foe than Imperial Japan–it’s all worth thinking about very damned carefully, I’d say.

*NOTE: I should maybe mention that, since Foote was a Navy man, he was more a colleague of Grant’s and not a subordinate. Wouldn’t want to slight my fondly-appreciated Squid readers out there, who are legion–and way tougher and meaner than me, too. Ahem.




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

Subscribe to CF!
Support options


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