Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

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)

Share

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.

Share

The peasants are revolting!

I have a slight problem with this.

The BLM, and in particular its regional office in Oregon, has engaged in a long pattern of attempting to squeeze private landowners off their property and gobbling up real estate adjacent to federal holdings. In the case of the Malheur bird preserve, this has included abusing water management in order to flood private lands and make them useless, so the owners in desperation agree to sell. But the Hammond family have been a holdout among local ranchers, to such an extent that their property is surrounded by federal lands and they have dealt with the BLM blockading roads leading in and out of their ranch.

In that environment, it’s sadly less than surprising that the BLM and the federal government threw the book at the Hammonds over a pair of fire-related incidents in 2001 and 2006 and found a way to put them in prison. Hammond père and fils were actually convicted under a significantly inappropriate federal anti-terrorism statute carrying a five-year minimum sentence, and the trial judge was so offended by the idea of five years for what they actually did that he refused to impose it — giving Dwight a three-month sentence and Steven a year.

The judge, Michael Hogan, was so lenient likely out of a sense of shame that he allowed the prosecution to go forward in the first place. For the “terrorism” in question was a pair of incidents where the Hammonds started fires on their own land only to have those fires cross into the bird preserve and touch small amounts of federal grassland. In both cases the fires were put out by the Hammonds themselves; the 2006 fire was actually lit as a back-burn intended to protect Hammond property and their ranch-house from a wildfire started by lightning strikes, and it was successful in doing so.

Hogan also ran a fairly kangaroo-court style proceeding, giving the prosecutors six days to present their case and the defense just one. A jury confused and exhausted by the trial acquitted the defendants on most of the 19 charges. The judge brokered a plea agreement in the case, in which the Hammonds agreed not to appeal the case and also — this is key — to agree to a right of first refusal for the BLM to buy their property.

Dwight and Steven Hammond served the sentences Hogan imposed, and went home to the ranch in an effort to keep it alive.

And meanwhile, Oregon’s horrifically unqualified U.S. Attorney at the time, a leftist moonbat named Amanda Marshall — raised in a commune and reared on Grateful Dead concerts and socialism and plucked for the job out of a child advocacy sinecure in Oregon’s state bureaucracy in a pristine example of runaway affirmative action by the Obama administration — refused to accept the sentences or the plea agreement. The Department of Justice actually appealed the case and managed to get a ruling from the 9thCircuit Court of Appeals imposing the mandatory five-year sentence. And in stupidity typical of the 9th Circus, the court reasoned that violating the spirit of the principle of double jeopardy (not to mention the plea agreement) was justified in this case, as Jacob Sullum notes, because other more absurd results based on mandatory minimum sentences were not overturned.

The Hammonds reported Monday to serve out their newly increased sentences, when they shouldn’t have served a day. Their case should create maximum blowback against the shocking abuse and affront to the senses this tyrannical federal government commits on a constant basis, and the taxpayer-funded troglodytes responsible up and down the chain ought to be named, shamed, and hounded off the public teat.

But what the Bundy brigade is doing isn’t going to work. They’re just provocative enough to fire up the Left and create demands for their blood, but not enough to actually create the credible threat of making it impossible for Obama’s government to govern. As such, what effect they do produce is likely negative consequences to themselves — perhaps dire ones.

And martyrs to the cause of limited government are not what that cause needs. What it needs is the ability to, Saul Alinsky-style, make it impossible for the federal government to carry out the abuses it conjures through nonviolent but highly provocative organized action capturing the public’s imagination and properly casting the Federal conjurers as villains.

If that means giving the Bundys, or somebody just as committed but significantly more capable, a copy of Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals, great.

Okay, McKay did an excellent job with this article and all, up to that point. Yes, this despicable tyranny is unfit to govern a free nation; it should be resisted at every possible turn and ultimately hamstrung, if not brought down outright and replaced with a government based on and limited by the US Constitution. It would be far preferable if these things were brought to pass by non-violent means.

None of these things are even remotely likely to happen.

That said, though–what? Is McKay seriously, literally suggesting that the answer to the Hammonds’ problem is to give them a copy of Rules For Radicals? Really? How exactly does that work? Will that remove even one of the BLM roadblocks? Will it give the swarms of federal bureaucrats and lawyers sent hither a second’s pause as they go about their sworn business of harassing the people and eating out their substance? Is it supposed to make their bosses, both “elected” and unelected, stop and think about what the Constitution really means, and dedicate themselves to its restoration?

Alinsky, along with his kindred spirit Gramsci, were undeniably true men of diabolical genius. Their prescriptions for destroying Constitutional governance and replacing it with a Marxist tyranny have been successful probably beyond their own nefarious dreams. But it took decades to do it, and the Hammonds–and many others suffering under the yoke of American tyranny–don’t have decades. The Hammonds are going to jail now, for the heretofore unimaginable crime of managing their property as they see fit, without doing harm of any kind to a living soul.

If they’re to be reprieved, it won’t be by sitting in jail poring over a book, with an anxious eye always kept towards avoiding giving offense to Leftists. It will be accomplished by bold men with guns defying illegitimate federal authority, rendering it ineffective by daring it to suppress them by force right out in the open, so that people can no longer deny the true nature and identity of the enemy.

Learning the stratagems of that enemy is always a good thing; understanding their goals and how they aim to achieve them is a useful aid in defeating them, sure. But unless we’re to sit back and essentially do nothing while they pick us off one by one, winnowing any potential resistance a bite at a time and keeping the numbers of that resistance down to a manageable level, the time for that is long past. We are now well into the Burning Times, and the matches were all struck long ago.

Yes, a fair argument can still be made for holding back, marshaling our forces and educating a benighted populace as to the nature of the struggle, and of the necessity for it. But I doubt very much if people like the Hammonds–already eye to eye with the Beast, its talons already digging into their throats–are much interested in making it now.

We should concern ourselves with what liberal-fascists think of our actions in the struggle against their usurpation of our God-given rights no more than we should the Moslems. To hell with them. It’s war, or very nearly so; just about the only thing missing so far is artillery, and once the Waco/Ruby Ridge line has been crossed again (as the Left is already bloodthirstily urging in this case, while still advocating for giving violent jihad a free pass) the step to artillery becomes very short indeed–a matter of when, not if. And if you think this government would hesitate to take it, you’re dreaming. They haven’t spent years giving tanks to all those small-town cop shops for nothing, you know.

To hell with them. More power to the Hammonds and the Bundys. I wish them every success, and I hope they can do their bit to stop despotism without any of their own blood being shed in the process. They’re on the front line in the fight against tyranny–not later, not someday, right the fuck now–and they should be applauded and supported by all true Americans, not scorned and denounced from the (ahem) rear echelons.

(Via Ed)

Update!We don’t trust them, and you shouldn’t either.” Another via WRSA that you definitely need to read, especially if you think the Obama junta “wouldn’t dare” do anything you can think of to preserve and expand its dictatorship. Note, too, that Oathkeepers is NOT in favor of the Bundys’ actions here, and given that their reasons for that (including that the Hammonds are NOT supportive of the Bundys’ actions here either) seem to be good ones, I may have to rethink the gist of this whole post myself.

Share

Mask: dropped

He’s right, they should do just that. Be honest, for once in your miserable, parasitic lives.

REP. KEITH ELLISON (D., MINN.): I mean, 27 children were mowed down. Isn’t that enough for us? One of our colleagues, Gabby Giffords — shot in the face.

BILL MAHER: Then why doesn’t your party come out against the Second Amendment? It’s the problem.

ELLISON: Bill, I sure wish they would. I sure wish they would.

MAHER: Really? Because I never hear anybody in the Democratic party say that. What they say, ‘I am also a strong supporter.’

Which, as we all know, is just another of their countless self-serving lies.

Come and take them, you cowardly twerps. Anytime you think you’re ready, I assure you that we are.

Share

Just say no: the Dogshit Yoghurt Fallacy and the Nice-Guy Trap

Refuse the shit sandwich.

Quite a few people, I imagine, would be shocked to hear a moderate ex-minister from Tony Blair’s New Labour administration sounding so “unreasonable”. After all, aren’t we always being told by the experts that elections are won in the “centre ground”? That moderation in all things is the wisest policy? That everyone has a right to their opinion? That compromise and negotiation rather than dogma and ideology will always achieve the best results?

I have at least two problems with people who cleave to this kind of woolly centrism. The first is that they’ve probably not thought hard enough ever in their lives to form a worthwhile opinion on anything. And the second is that they’ve clearly never experienced what it’s like to be on the front line of the war on cultural Marxism.

And the conclusion I’ve long since reached is that there are some people out there who you’re simply never going to reach through logic or sweet reasonableness or basic courtesy. These people will always hate me – and those who think like me – as a matter of fundamental principle. It’s an ideological clash of total opposites: tyranny v liberty; poverty v prosperity; hysteria v reason; the state v the individual; misery v happiness.

So in what way, may I ask, would it be a sensible policy to halve the difference between those two extremes in order to reach some kind of “reasonable” consensus?

It’s what I call the ‘Dogshit Yoghurt Fallacy’.

On one side of the argument are those of us who think yoghurt works best with a little fruit or maybe just on its own. On the other are those who believe passionately that what yoghurt really needs is the addition of something more earthy, organic, recycled – like maybe a nice scoop of dogs hit.

Now you can call me a dangerous extremist if you like, for refusing under any conditions to accommodate the alternative point of view. Or you could call me one of those few remaining brave souls in a cowardly, compromised world still prepared to tell it like it is: that dogs hit into yoghurt simply doesn’t go, no matter how many expert surveys you cite, nor how eco-friendly it shows you to be, nor how homeopathic the dosage.

Francis takes it a step further:

Indeed. Or, as I’ve said on more than one occasion: If you pour a cup of wine into a barrel of sewage, it remains a barrel of sewage, but if you pour a cup of sewage into a barrel of wine, it becomes a barrel of sewage.

The great Marshall Fritz, founder of the Advocates for Self-Government, made that point equally colorfully. In response to those who categorically decried “extremes,” he would ask, “How AIDS-free would you like your blood transfusion to be?”

Compromise is potentially constructive only when it’s strictly about means: i.e., when the two sides angling toward a compromise sincerely agree on the end to be sought, and are both willing to allow that they might be wrong about what means would best serve that end. Under those conditions, everyone involved will be watching the outcome and judging the means applied by that standard alone. When the ends are opposed to one another, compromise must disserve one or the other. It cannot be any other way.

If your end is political liberty — the maximum possible freedom from coercion or constraint for peaceable persons — there’s absolutely no reason to “dialogue” with persons whose end is an expansion of State power. Compromising with statists means promoting their end, which is the exact opposite of your end. Yet many a freedom-minded person will feel a tug toward such a “dialogue,” and the ideal of compromise, despite the clarity of the above. This is the Nice-Guy Trap in action.

Hidden beneath the Nice-Guy Trap is a pair of steel jaws that can snap any principle cleanly in half. This is so obvious as to be tautological: He who compromises on principle has surrendered it to some other end.

Or had none in the first place, as Francis argues in the rest of the post. Which you should read.

Share

His way or the highway

His Pluperfect Majesty speaks.

President Obama likes to invoke his predecessors in the Oval Office, as all Presidents do, but in one sense he is unlike the others: Presidents traditionally try to reach a rough domestic consensus if they are faced with going to war abroad. Mr. Obama wants to smooth everything over abroad so he can get back to his favorite pursuit of declaring war at home.

At least that’s how it’s gone the last week, as Mr. Obama all but wrapped up that ghastly business in Syria and turned his attention to the real enemy—Republicans. Backed by the good offices of Vladimir Putin and the assurances of Bashar Assad, United Nations inspectors will now remove Syria’s chemical weapons from the battlefield. Congress doesn’t even have to vote on it, and the American people can forget the recent unpleasantness. Peace in our time.

Which means it’s now safe for Mr. Obama to begin the war he really wants to fight. The President spoke Monday afternoon at the White House in remarks pegged to the fifth anniversary of the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the financial panic of 2008. But the financial crisis was merely an excuse for Mr. Obama’s real purpose, which was to demand unconditional surrender from his domestic opposition.

Mr. Obama did at least once or twice suggest he’s willing to compromise, sort of. He said he’ll call off his domestic strikes if Republicans agree to a framework for political and fiscal disarmament, including another tax increase on top of the one extracted as recently as January.

“As far as the budget goes,” the President warned, “it’s time for responsible Republicans who share these goals—and there are a number of folks out there who I think are decent folks, I’ve got some disagreements with them on some issues, but I think genuinely want to see the economy grow and want what’s best for the American people—it’s time for those Republicans to step up and they’ve got to decide what they want to prioritize.”

With malice for all, and charity toward none. Perhaps to honor Lincoln’s memory, Mr. Obama will suspend habeas corpus for those indecent folks who genuinely want what’s worst for Americans.

Soon enough, bub. Soon enough. But just like America itself–which was embroiled in a war with Muslim terrorists for twenty years before deigning to actually fight back, albeit even then only feebly and half-heartedly–the supposed “opposition” party refuses to notice the scrawny runt yapping at their ankles and kick him to the curb for good. Which means that he’s free to continue biting hunks out of them with perfect impunity, and that the country will continue to bleed from the wounds he’s inflicting.

Journalism 101 update! Read it, learn it, live it, lest your official Federal Journalism License be revoked and you be imprisoned for Crimes Against The State:

The Media Stylebook…
…dictates when Obama refuses to negotiate or compromise, we call that “steely,” “masterful,” and “commanding.” Possibly even “panty-dropping.”

When Republicans do it the media style guide demand it be called “hostage-taking,” “terroristic,” “partisan,” and “ideologically extreme.”

Please update your records accordingly.

Yes sir, I surely will, sir. Thank you, sir. Please, sir, I’ll just be moving along now if I may, sir. *tugs forelock, shuffles on back to J-school*

Share

Is it time to start shooting them yet?

Soon. Very soon. All too soon, really, but there it is.

Kedzie told me he is concerned if the thugs that beat him are not caught, other people may be hurt for simply having signs in their yard supporting particular candidates. When I asked if there is anything that people can do to help, he replied, “just stand up for their rights and what they believe in.”

A state senator’s son in Wisconsin (where else), savagely beaten by two liberal-fascist cowards he caught trying to steal a Romney sign from his lawn. This is how it’s going to start, people. If the liberal-fascists don’t come to their senses soon and back off a bit from The Crazy they’ve indulged with complete impunity for so long, then there’s simply going to be no reason for reasonable, decent people to sit back and continue to take it from them. They’re going to start defending themselves, their homes, and their freedom from these thuggish marauders, using any means they deem appropriate.

They had this guy in a chokehold while they beat him; deadly force in response was appropriate, as his own life was clearly endangered by these Obama-sucking goons, whether they intended to kill him or not. If Kedzie had shot them dead he’d have been within his rights as far as I’m concerned, and any (figurative) tears I might shed over it would not be for them, but for the sorry pass they and people like them have brought my country to.

I’m sure Kedzie would be duly horrified at everything I just said here, as well he might be, seeing as how it is in fact, y’know, horrifying. But he himself also said he wished to see people stand up for their rights, at long last. Blustering and threatening action against this sort of thing while doing nothing in the end is not “standing up for” anything, and at this point winning an election–or any number of them–is only going to make it worse.

We all know the insane, violent Left is simply not going to stop until they have us all in chains–not now, not when they’ve come so close to their ultimate goal of unbridled power. An unstoppable force is getting ready to meet an immoveable object.

And don’t give me any crap about how Republicans or Tea Partiers “do the same thing” or are “just as bad.” No, they fucking well are not, and anybody with any sense at all knows it. If it had been one of ours beating someone down for having the temerity to express an “incorrect” opinion, the Right blogs and everyplace else would be collectively bowing their heads in shame and denouncing the despicable act in no uncertain terms.

You won’t see anything of the kind from the Left, except maybe for one or two places, which we on our side will all bend over backward to praise to the skies for actually showing the most minimal sliver of decency for once, in vain hopes of encouraging more of it from their vile fellows. All the rest will either deny it; ignore it; offer lame rationalizations of the type I just dismissed for it; exult in it; or spin some fanciful conspiracy theory about how it just HAD to be Tea Party agents provocateur looking to discredit The Movement.

This story is but one of all too many examples of liberal-fascist thugs beating down people who dare to publicly object to being made slaves in their socialist utopia. It can’t go on a whole lot longer. And it won’t. If the Left can’t rule over all of us as they wish, then they want a war over it. And a war is exactly what they’re eventually going to get. It’s beyond sad, but as I said: there it is.

Update! Here’s what exercising your First Amendment rights in Obamerica gets you; forget “compassion,” “tolerance,” “diversity,” “fairness,” and “equality”–here’s what liberal-fascism is really all about:



Share

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes

At least one Corner reader gets it:

Republicans, as is typical, are making a huge tactical blunder with their focus on religious liberty. This is about liberty, period, not just religious liberty. All the religion talk simply plays into liberal attempts to smear conservatives as religious zealots. If Republicans were smart, which they clearly are not, they would emphasize 2 simple points:

1) There is no lack of access to contraception or attempt to restrict it. Any American can walk into any drug store in any State and buy whatever contraception they want. If they are poor, they can use Medicaid, various State programs, or Planned Parenthood. This Obama decree does not do anything to increase accessibility.

2) Contraception is a personal matter and should not be in the government domain. Liberals, more than anyone else, should be careful what they wish for on this. If they insist that contraception is a government issue, they forfeit the right to invoke privacy rights about it. Americans should do whatever they want with regard to contraception, whether their religion plays a role in the decision or not, and the government should not force any company to offer it or any person to pay for it.

This is a simple, winning message, and we don’t need to rely on religion to make it stand.

Egg-zackly. Why the hell would you bother arguing about the importance of freedom of religion with people who are hostile to religion (excepting, of course, pIsslam)? Of course, it must be admitted that, ultimately, the argument is over the importance of the Constitution itself–with people who are hostile to the Constitution. But I still think it’s better to stick to the larger point and not allow ourselves to be bogged down in niggling details; those aren’t really going to matter in the end anyway. And when it comes time to pass out the rifles and ammunition, we’re going to need all the warm bodies we can get, and not just the religious folks.

Share

Perspective

Another good ‘un from Da Weaz:

I don’t BELIEVE this week — this week of ALL weeks, when we’re eulogizing gleeful bomb-tosser Andrew Breitbart — there are commenters on the Right who found it necessary to scold Rush Limbaugh for using the word “slut.” (And no, I’m not happy he apologized).

Let’s review some basics, shall we?

■ If your name is not Rush Limbaugh, you are not responsible for anything Rush Limbaugh says. You do not ever have to apologize for things other people do. Even people on “your side.” That’s Individualism 101.

■ “Slut” is not a shocking word. You can say it on TV. Chaucer used it, for god’s sake. Your mom probably read it in her Advanced Placement English course. It’s a deadly insult (to most) but it is not a shocking profanity.

■ A year ago, the feminist Left embraced the word “slut” all around the world and carried banners proclaiming themselves sluts…and now hearing the word gives them the vapors? Pff!

■ A distraction? Really? So if Rush hadn’t said “slut” we’d have spent the last week talking about taxes or gas prices or all the other stuff we want to talk about and they don’t?

No. HELL no.

As she says: throw the fucking hammer already. And don’t apologize for that, either.

Feeding frenzy update! Told ya they were smelling blood in the water. It’s difficult to imagine that Limbaugh didn’t know what the upshot of his showing weakness was going to be. But…well, here we are.

Less than a week after calling Sandra Fluke a “slut” on the air, Rush Limbaugh ran his mouth again on Tuesday, calling investigative journalist Tracie McMillan a “babe”, an “authorette” and, more broadly, one of “these single white women.” What makes the talk show host’s poor choice of words even worse is that he was discussing McMillan’s book, as he was trying to prove that the right wasn’t waging a “war on women.” From McMillan’s point of view, this seemed an inopportune time to use diminutive terms in dismissing the in depth reporting and critically acclaimed work of a female author.

“It’s been really interesting to have somebody be that openly dismissive of my work strictly based on the fact that I’m female,” McMillan told The Atlantic Wire. “There’s no other way to think about it except that Rush Limbaugh just doesn’t think women count.”

Apologizing to lyin’ Left sewer-crawlers is never the end of anything; it’s only the beginning. You’d think Rush, of all people, would know this by now. And apparently, you’d be wrong.

Share

Anybody out there still think this is about contraception?

Or “women’s health,” or Rick Santorum’s/Limbaugh’s/Republicans’ in general/your/my wish to impose “theocracy” on poor little liberal fascists who just want to be left alone to run our lives for us as they think best?

Cause it ain’t. Not by a long yard. It’s about destroying all opposition to the Progressivist tyranny project, silencing any who disagree with it, and throwing the First Amendment to the Constitution in the same trash-heap as the Tenth. It isn’t even about a professional Leftist fraud whoring herself out for the Progressivist cause and being called on it.

If you haven’t figured it out, the whole Rush thing is being conflated by the media in order to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. They also recently assaulted Andrew Breitbart in his death, and are now going after the Cato Institute for supposed transgressions by the Koch Brothers. It is a strategy developed to silence and discredit their opposition by any means necessary.

This is a massive assault on free speech the likes of which we have rarely seen. It is plastered all over the front pages, and even in mainstream outlets such as the Los Angeles Times, the vitriolic and disgusting response to Limbaugh’s choice of words far exceeds the shock value of those words. Suddenly, the leftist media is holier than Mother Teresa as it wallows in the gutter. The dissonance is amazing.

The hypocrisy of the Left is unmatched. It is the exact same people condemning Limbaugh who said the most vile things about Breitbart upon his death and about Sarah Palin and anyone who has threatened their hegemony over the narrative. “Bitter clingers” and “right-wing religious zealots” are their stock in trade.Blacks who vote or campaign as Republicans are called the most vile names. God forbid one disagrees with the party line. They can’t shoot dissidents, but they can do their best to destroy them.

They can’t shoot ’em…yet. But you’d better believe they’re working on that little flaw in their plan. Sickening, incredible numbers of dissidents put up against the wall or tossed into gulags has been the end result of every Left revolution in human history–and that’s a feature, not a bug. This one will be no different, and I don’t see how anyone can look at these rabid jackals’ frothing response to a minor insult tossed off-handedly at a lying little fraud and rationally conclude otherwise.

Share

Categories

Archives

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

Subscribe to CF!
Support options

SHAMELESS BEGGING

If you enjoy the site, please consider donating:



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

Image swiped from The Last Refuge

2016 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

RSS FEED

RSS - entries - Entries
RSS - entries - Comments

E-MAIL


mike at this URL dot com

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

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

All original content © Mike Hendrix