Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

Wrack and ruin and race

Did somebody mention barbarians just now? Why yes, I believe someone did.

In 1989, the Virginia Beach party animals called it Greek Week — one of dozens of such gatherings of black college fraternities and sororities up and down the East Coast over a several-year period. All leaving crime, trash, destruction, and excuses in their wake as they were run out of one town after another.

Today, local reporters are eager to minimize the violence from that time or attribute it to white racist police.

But back then, no one in Virginia Beach questioned whether 50,000 to 100,000 black people were creating incredible levels of mayhem by destroying 100 shops, fighting cops, and breaking the law.

They killed a horse. They threw a cinder block at its head.

Um. Well. Okay, then.

Reporters had trouble describing the epic racial violence and hostility that 40,000 black people brought to Virginia Beach in April of 2013. So let’s start here: Black College Beach Week was organized by black people, for black people, promoted by black people, on black radio stations, at black colleges.

They sent buses to pick up members of black fraternities and sororities. And they brought them all to Virginia Beach. And they raised holy, violent, unapologetic, race-conscious hell.

On Fox43 news, a black woman said mayhem and lawlessness at Black Beach Week is nothing to worry about. “I think it’s still fun,” said Kharizma Jackson. “It happens when you get a lot of people together this stuff happens everywhere you go. It’s like that.”

Well, a lot of SOME people, actually. Best not to talk about that, right? Otherwise, one of those “national conversations” the Left is so enamored of might ensue, with all the accompanying risk of a little truth coming out. But as Virginian-Pilot reporter Mark Morrell said, it doesn’t matter; there’s really no need.

PSA: There were no persons of any other race on the videos perpetrating those crimes. None. Not stealing the bikes, or starting the brawls, or any other illegal, crazy action. Have I mentioned any race at all? Nope!!! Because you know exactly what I’m talking about, I most certainly don’t have to. You can identify me all you want, I’m not scared, and I don’t hide behind my screen — or my newspaper. There is an elephant in the room, Pilot. WHATCHAGONNADOOOOO ABOUT IT???

There is some good news here, and it’s at the beginning of the piece. Lest anyone think that the the Va Beach chaos is in any away unique, or an outlier, I will first commend your attention to the requiem I wrote for the end of the annual Myrtle Beach Spring Rally, reachable via the Leatherballs link up top. MYB was one of the longest-running rallies in the country, until it was stopped. I went every single year myself, and loved it. Never failed to have a good time there, each and every year, for well over a decade.

With my Outlaw Biker article, I had committed my first, last, and only act of true journalism: I interviewed people, reported the facts as they were laid out for me, and tried to look at both the impact of the events and where they might lead in the future. The thing is, though, there’s a story behind the story that was given to me, and then presented. I didn’t find this out until much later, and there’s a reason for that.

See, for all those years the MYB Rally had been a gathering mainly of what most would probably think of as old-school biker types: burly, long-haired, tattooed, leather-clad Harley riders. Lots of MC’s were represented, from true One Percenter clubs and their affiliates to the Blue Knights, although patches were generally not flown in the interest of keeping the peace. The thing happened in early to mid May, and the official Rally itself was run by the NC and SC branches of the HD Dealers Association.

The Rally was relatively sparsely attended; I myself only ever went out to it once or twice. Most of us were there for the riding, the bars, the bands, the asphalt flat track races at Myrtle Beach Speedway, and the general atmosphere of raucous, rollicking good fellowship. Oh, and to gawk at all the other Harleys. And the girls, most definitely to include the bare tits that can be found at any biker event.

The week after the H-D event was always known as Black Bike Week. For this one, a somewhat different and darker atmosphere prevailed. The problems at Black Bike Week were legendary. Shoplifting, out of control near-riots, assaults, stabbings, and even murders, discourtesy and outright belligerence, dine-and-dash incidents—all of these things saw a rise during BBW for which the descriptor “stratospheric” is wholly inadequate. Waitresses, bartenders, and retail staff put in for vacation en masse that week; if they couldn’t finagle the time off, they called in sick. Many establishments made it their practice to just shut down for the week every year.

The Myrtle Beach town officials and influential businesspeople eventually decided enough was enough, and started discussing ways to shut the thing down. One problem was noted right off the bat, and, as Morrell said above, you already know what it was. No way could Myrtle Beach put an end to the wantonly destructive, costly, and downright dangerous catastrophe for the area that BBW had become while allowing the H-D event to continue. Nobody needed a crystal ball to see the howls of outrage over “racism,” the national bad press, and the lawsuits coming.

So the decision was made to avoid all the controversy by killing them both off. This didn’t work out too well for the city of Myrtle Beach. The H-D Rally and its accompanying events just relocated to the surrounding beach towns like Ocean Drive, Cherry Grove, and Murrell’s Inlet—and so did the spike in revenues they generated. Attendance fell off at first, but gradually bikerdom got the word and the numbers came back up; oddly, the name didn’t even change. Even Black Bike Week is still going strong up in the town of Atlantic Beach just north of Myrtle, which back in the days of segregation was traditionally the place where blacks went for their beach vacations.

I don’t know if the accompanying anarchy, disorder, and lawlessness are still prominent features of BBW as well. But I bet I could make a pretty good guess.

Share

Erasing history

And “conversations” that…aren’t.

A few days ago, Kamala Harris, a.k.a. the background dancer who screwed her way to lead singer, was asked by Don Lemon if she supported Sanders’ plan to allow murderers and rapists to retain their voting rights while in prison. “I think we should have that conversation,” said the former “prosecutor.” When I saw the clip, I honestly didn’t mind the evasive nature of her answer. Politicians are evasive by nature; it comes with the job. What pissed me off was the idea that leftists ever engage in a “conversation.” When do leftists ever engage in “conversations”? They adopt a position (often a complete reversal of a previous one), and then they declare the old position to be “hate speech” and those who espouse it “hate criminals.” Where was the “conversation” on trannies in the girls’ bathroom? Where was the “conversation” on there being 1,745 genders instead of two? I don’t recall having those “conversations,” do you? One day, leftists decided that “this is the new truth,” and suddenly people like me get banned from social media for stating the scientific fact that a man can’t wish himself into being a biological woman.

Where was the “conversation” on immigration? I just remember going to bed one night when top Democrats were in favor of strong border control, and waking up the next morning to find that desiring strong border control makes you a Nazi.

If there was a “conversation,” I don’t remember it.

Affirmative action? Forced busing? Court ordered…no “conversation.” And if Democrats, who view voting rights for imprisoned murderers as a race issue (because of the disproportionately high number of blacks and Latinos who’d be affected), decide tomorrow to uniformly support that policy, overnight anyone who opposes it will immediately become Hitler.

Did any Western European leaders have a “conversation” with their constituents about flooding the continent with nonindigenous immigrants? When exactly was that referendum? At least with Brexit, there was a conversation, but has the popular consensus—the result of that conversation—been respected? Of course not.

Leftists don’t “converse.” They impose. And to do this, it often becomes necessary to erase history, ancient and recent. This is done not only to cow the current generation, but to brainwash the next. “Why, Notre Dame always had a minaret! Hell, the building was constructed by Muslims, who were always the majority in France! Just as England was always nonwhite.”

Future Europeans will learn little of old Christendom, but you can be damn sure they’ll know all about Auschwitz. In thirty years, every schoolkid in the West will know about the fifty Muslims killed in New Zealand in March 2019, and none will know of the hundreds of Christians killed in Sri Lanka a month later.

Controlling what we forget and what we remember, what we are encouraged to defile and what we are ordered to hold sacred (like Harlitz-Kern’s holy kazoo), is how you make sure there isn’t a conversation. Leftists understand this better than anyone.

If Stalin taught these bastards anything, it’s that the airbrush is mightier than the memory.

Oh, I think it’s safe to say that Stalin taught them pretty much everything they know. But while we’re talking about erasing history…no. Just…NO. Not just no—HELL NO.

The lawyers and CPAs who run Elvis Presley Enterprises have been threatening the city of Memphis for the past two years with plans to dismantle Graceland—the most hallowed redneck house in the world—and move it to another continent.

They mean this quite literally. They have offers on the table, they say, to bring in redneck historians and lovingly peel up the green shag carpet from the Jungle Room—where Elvis’ last two albums were recorded despite the rushing background noise of the waterfall that spurts out of one wall—and then move all the lacquered wood furniture in the shape of tree stumps to someplace like Dubai, where real estate entrepreneurs like to collect items of Americana and turn them into pop culture museums. It would be sort of like displaying objects from the Titanic if the Titanic had been intentionally sunk in Southampton harbor and then sold off for scrap.

Elvis was from Tupelo, Mississippi, 100 miles to the southeast of Graceland, but he would have been immersed in the African-American music that emerged from the Baptist churches and blues honky-tonks ranged up and down the Mississippi River between St. Louis and New Orleans. Dewey Phillips broadcast that music on Red, Hot and Blue, sometimes even highlighting actual church choirs, but in Memphis the blues and gospel music of black folk ran smack-dab up against all that clog dancing and fiddling that came down through the Appalachian Valley from Scotland, Ulster, and Cumberland. As all Elvis aficionados know, the King was criticized early in his career for singing like a black man, and the term “rock and roll” itself comes straight up out of the slave-based Delta rice fields.

Elvis may not have been black, but his musical DNA was as mixed-race as Alexander Hamilton. Memphis was the place where original black music met original white music. That’s what makes it American, that’s what makes Memphis the Santiago de Compostela of rock and roll, and that’s why you can move Graceland to Nairobi or Edinburgh but you’ll only be telling half the story. If Graceland moves, Graceland dies.

I’ve visited Graceland a couple of times myself—if you have even the slightest spark of affection in your heart for the King, I highly recommend it—and one of the most striking things about the place to me was that, from the backyard right up next to the house, you got an easy view right into the backyards of other houses in the neighborhood. I had always pictured it as being more secluded—at least tucked away behind some high hedges or some sort of privacy fence or something, in the manner of usually what comes to mind with other big fancy mansions.

But no, it was pretty much wide open out there; you could see laundry hanging out to dry on clotheslines all over the place, guys on lawn tractors, old ladies stooped over in their truck patch hacking at weeds, and such. Naturally, those neighbors could likewise see up into Elvis’s yard too. It was kinda cool to imagine the wild, outlandish goings-on Elvis’s neighbors had a bird’s eye view of over the years.

As Joe Bob says: Move Graceland, Graceland dies. Whatever law or ordinance the Memphis city council needs to pass to bring this ill-considered, near-criminal nonsense to a screeching halt, they oughta do it if you ask me. It’s an arrogant affront to history itself. While admittedly nothing like as significant or weighty as Notre Dame, Graceland’s legend is bigger than the present owners seem able to grasp. It doesn’t belong only to them.

Share

Grotesque

Yes, they really ARE this dumb.

Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate and director of Global Social Action Agenda at the Simon Wiesenthal Center, called out Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and The New York Times for promulgating the notion that Jesus was a Palestinian.

Omar re-tweeted an April 20 tweet from Omar Suleiman, an adjunct professor for Islamic Studies at Southern Methodist University, who said a Palestinian relative told him regarding the “Christian right”: “Don’t they know we’re Christian too? Do they even consider us human? Don’t they know Jesus was a Palestinian?”

Similarly, an April 19 New York Times piece focusing on various depictions of Jesus Christ’s skin color stated, “Jesus, born in Bethlehem, was most likely a Palestinian man with dark skin.”

Cooper told the Journal in a statement via email that it’s a “grotesque insult to Jesus born in the land of Israel and to Christianity” to say that Jesus was a Palestinian.

“Palestine was a name made up by Romans after they crucified thousands, destroyed the Holy Temple in Jerusalem and exiled the People of Israel from their homeland,” Cooper said.

Myself, I’m somewhat puzzled by Suleiman’s “Palestinian relative” misnomering Easter Worshippers with the recently-forbidden term “Christians,” but what the heck. More knowledge for stupid Leftwits:

The name “Palestine” wasn’t even applied to the land of Judea by the Romans until 100 years after Jesus, after the Bar Kokhba revolt in 134 A.D. The Romans plucked this name out of the Bible (it’s a variant of “Philistine”) as the name of the Jews’ ancient enemies, just to taunt the Jews as they barred them from living in the area. And when they did apply this name, it was the name only of a region, never of a people. There were never any “Palestinians” until they were invited by Yasser Arafat and the KGB in the 1960s. And now the entire Western establishment political class and media expects us to kowtow and repeat this lie.

Yep. But that’s just Proggie SOP, see. Truth is to them as garlic is to vampires.

Share

Government is just another name for the things we choose to do together

Sickening.

An elderly veteran who ran a business supplying water to fight forest fires was prosecuted by the federal government and sent to prison for digging ponds on his own property, one of his lawyers says.

Joe Robertson, a Navy veteran from Montana, was 78 when he was convicted and sentenced to 18 months in federal prison and ordered to pay $130,000 in restitution through deductions from his Social Security checks.

His crime?

Robertson, whose business supplied water trucks to Montana firefighters, dug a series of small ponds close to his home in 2013 and 2014. The site was a wooded area near a channel, a foot wide and a foot deep, with two to three garden hoses’ worth of flow, according to court documents.

The U.S. government prosecuted Robertson for digging in proximity to “navigable waters” without a permit, a violation of the Clean Water Act administered by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers.

The Supreme Court is expected to decide in April whether it will hear Robertson’s appeal.

Robertson, sentenced in 2016, completed his 18 months behind bars in late 2017.

He was still on parole for the next 20 months when he died March 18 at age 80 of natural causes, according to his widow.

Of course, even his death won’t dissuade the Gummint scum from hounding his bereaved family for the arrears.

His widow, Carrie, has taken up his case, seeking to clear her husband’s name and reverse the fine, which is still in place as a lien against his estate.

I repeat: sickening. Every rotten FederalGovCo son of a bitch in any way involved with this abominable travesty ought to have his balls, if any, stuffed into a Cuisinart and pureed into a fine red mist. Want violent revolution, Swamp rats? This is one of the ways you get yourself one.

Torches, pitchforks, and heads on pikes begin to sound like no more than a good start, don’t they?

Share

Shit City

The tide is high, and rising.

People are pooping more than ever on the streets of San Francisco
Between 2011 and 2018, San Francisco experienced a massive increase in reported incidents of human feces found on public streets.

In 2011, just over 5,500 reports were logged by the San Francisco Department of Public Works; in 2018, the number increased to more than 28,000.

The government watchdog Open the Books documented the sharp increase over time in a stunning chart, first spotted by the BuzzFeed editor John Paczkowski.

Notably, this is a chart of only documented reports — the actual amount of feces on San Francisco’s streets is likely even higher than these statistics suggest.

Vox gets to the, uhh, bottom of the problem.

The reasons one should support Christian nationalism and Western civilization aka Christendom is not limited to a personal belief in Jesus Christ as Man’s savior. On the political side, even if you lack religious faith, a mere preference for indoor plumbing will suffice.

This is the dyscivilizational reality of the promised shiny, sexy, science fiction seculartopia that was promised by the progressives. Rivers of blood and public streets lined with shit.

Never forget, folks: what they did for once-thriving urban meccas like Detroit and San Francisco, they can do for YOU!

Share

Edelweiss

It’s one of the loveliest melodies ever written, from a wonderful, uplifting family movie without so much as a “shit,” a “damn,” or a bare tit to be found therein, much less any HEROIC!!! transgender-butt-rape sex scenes. So of course the fuckwit Left has to politicize and then shit all over it.

On Thursday, a New York Post reporter tweeted that President Donald Trump played the song “Edelweiss” at the White House. The New York Times’s White House correspondent, Maggie Haberman, suggested the song was a Nazi anthem, inspiring rightful backlash on Twitter. She seemed to stick with this false view, even after she was called out on it.

As National Review’s Alexandra DeSanctis noted, “Edelweiss” originated in The Sound of Music (1965), an American musical about the ravages of the Nazi rise to power in Austria. The song was a tribute to pre-Nazi Austria and a rebuke to the Nazis.

Don’t even ask: yes, they ARE this stupid. They really, really are.

The moronization of society proceeds apace. As we mentioned on the show, a bigshot New York Times correspondent thinks that playing “Edelweiss” at the White House is some kind of Nazi dog-whistle to Trump supporters. It is tragic and profound the way even small artifacts of our inheritance get trashed in these witless arguments, so, if you want to know the real story of the very last song in the Oscar Hammerstein catalogue, here’s what I had to say a couple of years back:

Not long after Rodgers & Hammerstein wrote the song, Theodore Bikel was leaving the theatre when he found a fan and fellow immigrant waiting at the stage door for his autograph: ‘I love that “Edelweiss”,’ said the theatregoer. ‘Of course, I have known it a long time, but only in German.’

Not for the first time, Hammerstein had done too good a job. Just as his ‘Ol’ Man River’ for Show Boat is assumed by many to be an authentic Negro spiritual, so ‘Edelweiss’ is assumed to be an authentic Austrian folk song. Not so. In both cases, a great craftsman manufactured them to solve a structural problem with the storytelling. But he did it so well that they have become for real what they were only intended to simulate. Some years ago ‘Edelweiss’ was played at the White House, at a state dinner for Austria’s President Kirschschlager, and everyone but the Austrians stood up for the national anthem. Actually, no. The current Austrian anthem is ‘Land der Berge, Land am Strome’, and the only official anthem by Rodgers & Hammerstein is their title number for their very first show, which serves as the state song of Oklahoma.

Steyn, natch, before going on to mention that Kate Smith has also been purged by the juiceless SJW skinbags at Yankee Stadium. Mark winds it up:

Eighty years later, the social-justice wankers can barely comprehend anything written before 2008. So it’s not enough that, hedged in by the ever narrowing restraints of correct attitudes, our age cannot make anything of its own; it is also necessary that the entirety of the past be erased. Hence, at top right, that ludicrous cover-up of the Kate Smith statue in Philly. As I said on Rush, she looks like the third child bride of Mullah Omar.

But that’s what pop culture is reduced to in 2019: a literal cover version of Kate Smith. Incidentally, if Miss Smith’s “God Bless America” cannot be heard because she also sang “That’s Why Darkies Were Born”, why should Bing Crosby get away with singing “White Christmas” on the all-holiday radio playlists every December? After all, in the very film where he introduced that song to the world, he also appeared in blackface!!!

So “White Christmas” should also be banned – unless, of course, Bing happens to be a Democrat Governor of Virginia.

We are in Pol Pot’s Year Zero. The demolishers (as Victor Hugo calls them in our Notre Dame Tale for Our Time) are determined to ensure there will be nothing left.

What else could anyone expect from Pol Pot’s ideological offspring?

Share

History, revised

Ask a silly question.

We’re all heard stories about young children being punished at school by their socialist teachers for drawing or cutting out pretend handguns, or even for pointing a finger on the playground and saying “Bang! Bang!”

And some of us did sound the alarm about the “slippery slope,” years ago, when the forces of political correctness realized how easy it was to start rewriting history by “digitally editing” old historical photos. After all, why NOT remove the cigarette holder from old photos of President Franklin Roosevelt? You don’t want today’s kids to think it’s OK to smoke, do you?

But surely we’ll never reach the point where gun haters in a U.S. government agency will actually start doctoring images to remove the rifles (the arms with which Americans won and have long defended our freedoms) from the hands of American COMBAT SOLDIERS, will we? — altering an image of a soldier in combat, removing the piece of equipment on which his survival depended, to make it appear that U.S. soldiers CARRY NO NASTY RIFLES when they go to war?

They’ll never go THAT far. Right?

Gee, that’s a toughie all right.

Standing in line at the post office the other day, I noticed a poster on display showing eight newly issued commemorative stamps, along with a sheet of 20, behind glass, of one of the new stamps, called “World War I / Turning the Tide.” In the background of this stamp can be seen a biplane, a shell burst, and some barbed wire. In the foreground, a uniformed and helmeted U.S. doughboy strides bravely ahead, holding close to his chest an American flag.

I have nothing against featuring the American flag on a stamp, mind you. But look at the way that soldier’s arms and hands are positioned. You’ve seen men on combat patrol holding their arms and hands in that position plenty of times. But they weren’t holding flags. 

Does it get worse, you ask? Guess.

I emailed artist Mark Stutzman in Maryland, who designed the “Turning the Tide” commemorative and who had earlier drawn the Post office’s popular 1993 “Elvis” and “Buddy Holly” stamps. In his original design, as submitted, had the American doughboy held a rifle in his hands?

He replied: “Hi Vin, Thanks for writing. Interesting that you should bring this up. My original proposal was with a rifle.”
A source familiar with the back-and-forth between artist Stutzman and the Postal Service told me the USPS “Stamp Advisory Committee” was “a little ‘gun shy’ about the rifle being so prominent.” Stutzman declined to confirm that for the record.

“We debated a few options and settled on him holding the flag instead,” Stutzman told me. “It seemed to bring some patriotism forward and helped identify him as American more immediately. Since stamp images are so small, there’s a need for immediate comprehension. In this case the read of hierarchy is WWI soldier, America, and war (barbed wire, plane, smoke)…I am somewhat speculating on the reasoning for why the decision (to remove the rifle) was made since I got information about committee meetings second-hand through the art director. He may be a better source for info and also have a direct line with the Postal Service. Greg Breeding is his name. . . . Super guy and easy to talk to.”

Not so much. 

Imagine my surprise. Then begins the hem-hawing, slithering-squirming, slip-sliding evasion of the old Bureacrat Shuffle.

After several days of ducking my emails and phone messages, art director Breeding, in Charlottesville, Virginia, finally sent me his polite refusal to talk:

“Hello Vin, Thank you for your interest in the World War I stamp. It was my deep privilege to art director this issuance to commemorate America’s role in bringing World War I to an end. Such an incredible part of our history. Regarding your questions, it is the policy of the Postal Service to direct these types of inquiries to Public Relations…”

Said PR guy “will be happy to assist you and, sometimes, he will subsequently involve the art directors and other Postal employees as well.”

Not so much.

Suprynowicz soldiers manfully on in his bootless quest for a simple, straight answer to his query, but the bobbing and weaving from our putative “civil servants” just continues on and on from there. Y’know, like it does. I guess we can maybe take some small gratification from the fact that even these insensate bureauweasels seem to know that their airbrushing of history is something to be ashamed of, cold though that comfort may be.

(Via MisHum)

Share

Meat-beat manifesto

This culture cannot survive. And it damned well shouldn’t.

College promotes men’s cuddling group to ‘redefine masculinity’

Oh, you’re redefining it all right, I’ll give you degenerates that fucking much.

Dr. Christopher Liang, a counseling psychology professor at Lehigh University’s College of Education, recently came out in support of a Philadelphia area “Men‘s Therapeutic Cuddle Group,” a function advertised by Lehigh University in a news release. The Meetup.com page for the group currently has 69 members and the group has held 46 events so far. The meetups are held once every other week.

Organizers have established quite an expansive set of guidelines for attendees. The men attending must be “hygienically sound” and “remain fully clothed at all times.” The group’s organizers state that all cuddling is “non-sexual.” However, they do note that participants may become aroused during cuddling

Of course they will.

and that if that occurs, it should be treated as a normal thing.

Oh, absolutely.

Liang believes that “these types of groups can be healthy and helpful for men and women,” according to the news release.

Most especially for men who wish they WERE women, or believe themselves to be, or who are, y’know, gay.

“Traditional masculinity is psychologically harmful,” the APA’s news release said

Well, it surely could be—to YOU, if you ever get within arm’s reach of me.

while adding that “socializing boys to suppress their emotions causes damage that echoes both inwardly and outwardly.”

So who advocates such harmful socializing, pray tell? Might it be—hmmm, I dunno, let’s see now—all you fucking liberal degenerate assholes trying to repress innate behavior hard-coded into male DNA and emasculate them instead? Telling boys their natural, immutable male instincts are “harmful” instead of teaching them correct behavior and providing them with positive outlets for their inborn fondness for competition, physical play, aggressiveness, and such? Teaching them to be ashamed of being male, trying to crush out any spark of normal male behavior to instead brainwash them into mincing, namby-pamby, effeminate little pussyfarts? Encouraging grade-school kids to go ahead and chop their fucking dicks off the moment they show the slightest sign of uncertainty about their own gender identity—a perfectly normal and routine part of the process of growing up, one that will work itself out in due course—for Christ’s sweet sake?

Let’s just acknowledge straight up that there are two, and only two, types of “man” who are going to be interested in this “cuddle group” crapola: 1) the exact species of quivering, lily-livered, useless twerp cranked out on purpose by our abominable schools, and 2) gay men. That is absolutely, positively IT.

And I’ll also acknowledge straight up that I have no problem with gay men myself, and don’t give a damn if they want to snuggle up in groups, make cow eyes, and sigh dreamily on each other’s necks til the cows come home, six days a week and twice on Sundays. If they want to call that “therapy,” well, I’m fine with that too. Whatever gets you through the day, fellas. Ain’t really no business of mine.

No, what frosts me about this bushwa is that this isn’t really a legitimate, above-board effort to service a heretofore overlooked market hungry for this sort of thing; no, it is yet another insidious attempt at societal tinkering by Progwits who don’t really care whether it makes anyone genuinely happy or a better, more fulfilled person. The Left intends to rewrite the manual on what constitutes healthy, normal manhood, as the psych prof in charge himself admits, to redefine men as neutered, enervated…well, as women, actually. Being weak sisters themselves, all a-tremble and continuously in need of a “safe space” and a good cry, they hate the thought of being snickered at by far better men than themselves for their sissy-mary pusillanimity.

Ultimately, it comes back to that social engineering I already mentioned. One world; one government; one bland, uninteresting race; one indistinct gender—all distinguishing traits and quirks blurred, individuality subsumed into the collective whole, with the “experts” lording it over the whole sorry shebang. That’s the Progressivist project in a nutshell, folks; always has been, always will be, until either they conquer us or they are stopped. Period. Fucking. Dot.

The nice thing is, I guess, that these self-selected eunuchs show no interest in reproducing, even the cishet binary oppressors among ’em. So all normal Americans really have to do in the long run is just wait them out. They’ll die off quicker than the dinosaurs without our ever having to lift a finger. So we got that going for us.

(Via Insty)

Share

One more reason to abandon Gilette

Please, make it stop. PLEASE.


After citing a few facts on the many, many ways obesity is unhealthy in the extreme, Cristina puts the thing simply: “Obesity is not something that should be promoted or celebrated.” And it really, really isn’t. “Slay the day”? Might want to ask your doctor about that one, Jumbo, and pronto. Until you step away from the AYCE buffets and Double Whoppers with Xtra cheese and get yourself on some kind of exercise plan, the only thing you’re gonna be slaying is your jiggly, misshapen self.

For my own part, I’ll say it again: the cheap feel-goodery of this “everyone is beautiful” flapdoodle actually negates the very idea of beauty itself. By definition, beauty is rare; if everyone is beautiful, then “beauty” has been dumbed down to just another synonym for “common.”

Semantic arguments aside, what really IS rare is people who seriously think blubberous, grotesque manatees such as this are in any way beautiful. Well, aside from the statistically-negligible handful of twisted pervs skulking around those chubby-chaser Pr0n sites, that is.

Share

History, on endless repeat

Any of this sounding familiar at all, to anybody?

U.S. v. I. Lewis Libby is worth revisiting to set the record straight. It also illustrates the damage that can be done to national security by a special counsel who, finding no crime, generates through his investigations the alleged offenses he seeks to prosecute.

With a virtually unlimited budget, a malleable mandate, a single case and little in the way of oversight or time constraints, the special counsel operates outside the usual system of formal and informal checks on prosecutorial conduct. This gives him the power to transform executive branch slip-ups, oversights and faulty recollections into criminal offenses capable of crippling the White House and wreaking havoc on individuals and their families.

According to the conventional view, in the summer of 2003 Mr. Libby compromised national security by unlawfully outing a covert CIA agent. Mr. Libby’s supposed purpose was to punish the agent’s husband, who challenged President George W. Bush’s assertion in his 2003 State of the Union address that the British government learned that Iraq had sought to purchase African uranium. According to the standard anti-Bush account, when Mr. Libby became enmeshed in a federal investigation, he lied to conceal his crime and protect Mr. Cheney.

This account is false in all essential respects, as Mr. Fitzgerald—since 2012 a partner in the Chicago office of the Skadden Arps law firm—had reason, as well as an ethical obligation as an officer of the court, to know.

Scooter Libby did not “out” CIA employee Valerie Plame. That was done by then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, a critic of the conduct of the Iraq war. Mr. Armitage disclosed to columnist Robert Novak that Ms. Plame, who at the time held a desk job in the CIA’s Counterproliferation Division, urged the agency to send her husband, retired Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, to Africa in early 2002 to investigate whether Iraq had sought uranium. Presidential aide Karl Rove and then-CIA Director of Public Affairs Bill Harlow confirmed Mr. Armitage’s disclosure for Novak’s July 14, 2003, column. (Novak died in 2009.)

Mr. Fitzgerald didn’t charge anyone with leaking Ms. Plame’s identity or disclosing classified information to reporters. From the moment he took over the FBI leak investigation in December 2003, he knew that Mr. Armitage was the leaker but declined to prosecute him, Mr. Rove or Mr. Harlow because the disclosure of Ms. Plame’s identity wasn’t a crime and didn’t compromise national security.

Having failed to find any underlying crime, Mr. Fitzgerald nonetheless pressed on for someone to prosecute, eventually focusing on Mr. Libby, whose trial became a contest of recollections. The excruciatingly inconsequential question on which his conviction turned was whether, as Mr. Libby recalled, he was surprised to hear NBC’s “Meet the Press” host Tim Russert ask him about Ms. Plame in a phone call on July 10 or 11, 2003.

Ms. Miller was the only reporter who asserted that Mr. Libby volunteered information about Mr. Wilson’s wife. And Mr. Fitzgerald attached special importance to the journalist’s June conversation with Mr. Libby, declaring, at the 2005 news conference following Mr. Libby’s indictment, that “Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson.”

If Ms. Miller had testified accurately, she would have dealt a severe blow to Mr. Fitzgerald’s central contention that Mr. Libby was lying when he said he was surprised to hear Russert mention Ms. Plame.

In closing arguments, Mr. Fitzgerald insisted that a “cloud” hung over Vice President Cheney, at whose behest, the prosecutor insinuated, Mr. Libby had compromised national security. Ms. Miller’s revelation—that “it was hard not to conclude that my testimony had been wrong”—erases the cloud that Mr. Fitzgerald’s prosecution, abetted by an enthusiastic media, put over the vice president. At the same time, Ms. Miller’s book casts a dark shadow over Mr. Fitzgerald’s prosecution of Mr. Libby. And it raises troubling questions about what the prosecutor told and did not tell other prosecution witnesses to shape and reshape their memories.

Oh, it raises far more troubling questions than that: it raises the question of just what the hell is WRONG with us, that we sit back and allow the unconstitutional, squalidly banana-republic-style position of “special counsel” to disgrace this nation by its continued existence? It is nothing more nor less than one of the handiest tools in the Deep State box—very useful for tuning, tightening, and maintaining its strangulating chokehold; reining in its (very occasional) antagonists; or just putting the fear of God into all and sundry now and then, a reminder of who’s REALLY the boss around here. Has any truly important or even worthwhile purpose EVER been advanced by its use? Even once?

Share

The War on Christianity

Is real.

The unlawful arrest of a Christian street preacher in London has drawn attention to the continuing use of hate speech laws to silence Christians in multicultural Britain—even as incendiary speech by Muslim extremists is routinely ignored.

On February 23, Oluwole Ilesanmi, a 64-year-old Nigerian evangelist known as Preacher Olu, was arrested at Southgate Station in North London after complaints that his message about Jesus was “Islamophobic.” A video of the arrest, viewed more than two million times, shows how two police officers ordered the man to stop preaching because “nobody wants to listen to that,” confiscated his Bible and then arrested him for “a breach of peace.”

The video was filmed by Ambrosine Shitrit, co-founder of Eye on Antisemitism, a London-based organization that tracks anti-Semitism on social media. Shortly before Ilesanmi’s arrest, Shitrit had seen him interacting with another man, who turned out to be a Muslim. She thought the Muslim was about to assault Ilesanmi when she went over and started filming with her phone. When the police arrived in response to an emergency call, the Muslim man left the scene.

The video shows Ilesanmi pleading with police, “Don’t take my Bible away. Don’t take my Bible away.” An officer responded: “You should have thought about that before being racist.” A popular blogger known as Archbishop Cranmer tweeted what many people doubtless felt: “Dear @metpoliceuk, Setting aside the appalling ignorance of these two officers, would you handle a copy of the Qur’an like that?”

Ilesanmi said that after he was searched, the police drove him to a remote area before “de-arresting him.” In Britain, “de-arrest” is a legal term which means that no crime has been committed. Since then, London police have changed their story about what transpired; some have accused the police of staging a cover-up.

When journalist Marcus Jones of Premier Christian Radio asked the Met Police whether they agreed that Ilesanmi had been driven away to a remote location, the Met Police expressly denied it. In an email exchange, they said that Ilesanmi was escorted “approximately 200 meters away, de-arrested and shown to a nearby bus stop.”

This, as it turns out, was a lie. The post includes a sickeningly long list of Christian street preachers being placed in chokey on all sorts of specious pretexts. As a Christian myself, I’ll say upfront that I’m not overly enamored of street preachers myself; I was raised in a more modest, quiet denomination (FUMC) that held such public proselytizing to be rude, intrusive, and inappropriate. The theory was that, while not specifically forbidden, for most people it was at best off-putting, which rendered it ultimately ineffectual. Yes, bearing witness and sharing one’s faith is an important part of Christianity. But there is a proper time and place for that sort of thing, which might not be in the middle of a busy city sidewalk, among the jostling, already-harried workaday crowd.

On the other hand, I happened across a street preacher in downtown Charlotte just the other day. He was a disheveled, dirty, homeless-looking guy crumpled on the sidewalk at 4th and Tryon, propped against a big handwritten sign. His marginally-coherent muttering in praise of Jesus, punctuated by the occasional shouted rant, was, umm, somewhat less than compelling, let’s say. Every now and then he would set down his battered Bible to pick up and rattle his beggar’s cup vigorously, soliciting a more temporal, earthly reward for his efforts.

But know what? I didn’t seek to have this unsightly, possibly ersatz Man Of The Cloth tossed into durance vile by the local gendarmerie. Nor was I overly discomfited or alarmed by his ghastly presence. I handled this transgression independently, without complication or undue fuss: I just kept walking on by. Sounds easy enough, right? Unfortunately, the Bobbies seem to feel differently about matters, wielding a much heavier hand in the pursuit of protecting London’s public spaces from encroachment by the abominable affliction of…Christianity.

It’s disgusting, despicable, and not a little alarming. But sadly, tragically even, it’s not shocking.

Share

Ho hum, just another random nut

Prepare yourselves for the Christchurch mosque killer’s light-speed trip down the memory hole. The “right-wing H88888R!!! Islamophobic bigot™ right-winger” libmedia narrative doesn’t quite seem to be holding up—as usual—so you can be sure the whole thing will very shortly be dropped—as usual—never to be brought up again.

All jihad is local, but all “Islamophobia” is global. So, if a Muslim of Afghan origin shoots up a gay nightclub in Florida and kills 49 people, that’s just one crazed loner and no broader lessons can be discerned from his act. On the other hand, if a white guy shoots up two mosques in New Zealand and kills 50 people, that indicts us all, and we need to impose worldwide restraints on free speech to make sure it doesn’t happen again. I’m ecumenical enough to mourn the dead in both gay clubs and mosques, but I wonder why we are so conditioned to accept Islamic terror as (in the famous words of London mayor Sadiq Khan) “part and parcel of living in a big city” that it is only the exceptions to the rule that prompt industrial-scale moral preening from politicians and media. [UPDATE: Utrecht isn’t that big a city – 350,000 – but it’s today’s designated “part and parcel”.]

The Christchurch killer published the usual bonkers manifesto before livestreaming his mass murder on Facebook. Brenton Tarrant purports to be an environmentalist – indeed, a self-described “eco-fascist” – who admires Communist China (notwithstanding, presumably, its indifference to environmentalism). He wants to massacre Muslims in order to save the planet:

The environment is being destroyed by over population, we Europeans are one of the groups that are not over populating the world. The invaders are the ones over populating the world. Kill the invaders, kill the overpopulation and by so doing save the environment.

Does he mean this? Or is it a giant blood-drenched leg-pull?

No matter. For the the politicians stampeding to the nearest camera to dust off their tropes, what counts is that, if you’re American, Donald Trump pulled the trigger; and, if you’re British or European and you’re not prepared to say that Google-Twitter-Facebook should silence anybody to the right of Trevor Noah, then you’re part of the problem.

Call me a H8888!-filled Islamophobic H88888RRR!™ if you wish, but I confess that among my first thoughts after hearing about this business was to wonder how many future Muslim terrorist attacks had just been forestalled. My second was to wonder where the mosque-goer who seems to have stopped the attack by shooting back might have gotten his gun, how many more of them might be found in storage at this mosque, and what might be the reason for their being there.

I would be interested to know why Mr Adler thinks it is in the national interest to lend the imprimatur of the Crown and the state to as specious and opportunistically deployed a conceit as “Islamophobia”. One of our Antipodean Steyn Club members, Kate Smyth, drew my attention to a fine example of that: After the Islamic terror attack in Melbourne four months ago, Muslim community leaders refused to meet with Aussie Prime Minister Scott Morrison because of all the systemic Islamophobia. After the Christchurch attack, the same Muslim community leaders are demanding a meeting with Morrison because of all the, er, systemic Islamophobia. To say Terror Attack A is something to do with Islam is totally Islamophobic; to refuse to say Terror Attack B is Islamophobic is even more totally Islamophobic.

Were the Queen or the Governor General to pull an Andrew Scheer and sign on to this somewhat selective view of the world’s travails, it would necessarily imply that “Islamophobia” is now beyond and above politics, and in that sense beyond criticism. The use of “Islamophobia” in the Melbourne attack is, in fact, its standard deployment: it is an all-purpose card played to shut down any debate.

Not, of course, that there’s much debate as it is. And there’s likely to be even less in the future. Facebook, which is unable to devise algorithms preventing a depraved psychopath livestreaming mass slaughter on its platform, is busy fine-tuning its controls to expel the most anodyne dissenters from the social-justice pieties. Less speech inevitably means more violence – because, if you can’t talk about anything, what’s left but to shoot up the joint?

Things are changing faster than you think. The urge to change New Zealand’s gun laws might be politely excused as a reflexive response to the means by which an appalling attack was carried out. But the demand throughout the west to restrict both private gun ownership and free speech are indicative of a more calculated clampdown, and of broader assumptions about control of the citizenry on all fronts. In the transition to the new assumptions, we are approaching a tipping point, in which the authorities of the state (as in the average British constabulary’s Twitter feed) are ever more openly concerned to clamp down on you noticing what’s happening rather than on what is actually happening.

And isn’t it just funny as all hell that, no matter the event, situation, or putative contretemps, Big Boss Man is always able to find a way of using it to keep on workin’ for the clampdown?



Share

Racist…knitting?!?

Wait, what?

Knitting circles are replete with racism, according to a 2,000-word essay published Monday. And it wasn’t even in the Onion.

The Vox commentary article, titled “The knitting community is reckoning with racism,” claims “knitters of color” are often discriminated against by fellow knitters. Such instances of hatred are seen all over the internet, according to Vox, but is especially cancerous on sites such as Instagram, Etsy, and even on the knitters’ personal blogs.

What mountain of evidence does the author use to show the prevalence of racism in knitting circles, you might ask? Absolutely none. This essay follows up on a recent invasion of the online knitting space by social justice types, or maybe just trolls, who began bullying people for having basically just normal conversations about life. The phenomenon received some attention last month in Quillette, where the issue of racism among knitters was referred to as a “witch-hunt.”

The title of this jawdropping piece asks: “Can social justice warriors ruin knitting?” Of COURSE they can. These are some profoundly, irreparably miserable people we’re talking about here, intent on spreading their own misery as far and wide as possible. Trust me: there is NO aspect of life, however obscure, trivial, or innocuous, that they won’t invade, corrupt, disfigure, and demolish. Via Ace, who provides a broader analysis explaining why insane horseshit like this actually does matter. Myself, I’m still too gobsmacked by it too bother.

Share

HORRORS!

The truth hurts.

The West Virginian GOP displayed a poster in the state Capitol implying that Democratic Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar was a terrorist Friday.

The poster shows the World Trade Center in flames on 9/11 with the caption “‘NEVER FORGET’ — YOU SAID…” with a photo of Omar underneath it. The second half of the caption reads, “I AM THE PROOF – YOU HAVE FORGOTTEN.”

Actually, I don’t think the post “implies” that Omar is a terrorist per se; that kinda misses the actual point. Rather, it flatly states that she’s a radical, jihad-supporting, Jew-hating, anti-American Muslim. Which, y’know, is true. The assertion that she “is the proof…you have forgotten”—which is also true—is upheld by the very fact that, for some unfathomable reason, this nation saw fit to blindly import unvetted Muslim hordes from places like Somalia, Syria, and elsewhere even after having suffered the 9/11 atrocities—naked acts of war perpetrated in the name of Islam, by Muslims, for the greater glory of Allah.

The very fact that a hijab-wearing terrorist sympathizer from Somalia*, of all fucking places, is now treating all and sundry to hate-filled, Islam-inspired harangues from a pulpit in the very seat of American government—having been elected out of an overwhelmingly Muslim-majority enclave in, of all places, Minnefuckingsota, then sworn in on the biggest Koran Nancy Pelosi could find as the cherry on top of the obnoxious-triumphalism sundae—is simply grotesque. Also note this:

Democrat Ilhan Omar made history as she become one of the first two Muslim women to enter Congress – and did so with her head covered.

The 37-year-old who came to the U.S. as a refugee from Somali represents the fifth district of Minnesota, which includes all of Minneapolis and some of its suburbs.

Democrats were to formally end the ban on religious head coverings on the House floor on Thursday afternoon as part of a package of rules to govern the House. That package changes the ban on head coverings to exclude ‘non-religious headdress.’

Naturally, baseball caps, fedoras, cowboy hats, and other such common, all-American headgear remain strictly verboten. I repeat: all of this—ALL of this—after having suffered the 9/11 atrocities.

“Forgotten”? Oh, I’d say that’s putting the thing WAY too damned mildly, if you ask me. Makes the occasional Proggy wailing about the disgraceful, uniquely American scourge of “Islamophobia” seem head-twistingly Kafkaesque, don’t it?

*9/11 isn’t the only thing we’ve forgotten; Somalia, remember, was where the Black Hawk Down disaster took place—another hideous atrocity, one which to this day has never been avenged, and won’t ever be. So anybody wanna maybe try explaining to me why it is we ever saw fit to bring even ONE of the filthy, murdering savages here, thereby “fundamentally transforming” a goodly chunk of Minneapolis into Little Mogadishu?

Share

Beset on every side

Disappointed in Trump? Think he hasn’t got anything like a satisfactory amount done on his proposed agenda? Could be there’s a reason for that.

Angel moms (an organization of mothers of Americans killed by illegal aliens—M) came to DC early in the week, trying to schedule meetings with Trump, Schumer, and Pelosi. Schumer’s office granted them a meeting, Pelosi’s office called the police on them, but Trump’s WH respectfully said they couldn’t take a meeting.

According to two sources, the order was coming right from Mulvaney to stop a meeting w/ the angel moms. The WH has ways of stopping info from coming to Trump, many members of the WH team who are hostile to the MAGA movement keep information from ever reaching POTUS’ desk.

With Trump in the dark, Angel Families and their organizers brainstormed how to get POTUS’ attention. They floated multiple ideas but time was running out with a majority of them having return flights on home scheduled on Thursday.

They decided upon a press conference outside the WH where they would denounce the border bill. The WH caught wind of this and panicked, it would be horrible optics especially given that they had worked so hard trying to stop criticism from conservative media outlets.

Mercedes Schlapp called one of the organizers, asking that they turn around and stated that Trump was fighting for them w/ this bill. The organizer refused to give saying that $1.375 billion wasn’t enough for all these dead Americans.

With Mercedes unsuccessful, Kellyanne Conway called saying and also argued that they shouldn’t do this to Trump. The fight got heated, words were exchanged, but in the end the Angel Families refused to give up their press conference in front of the White House.

Kellyanne was visibly upset after the conversation, Trump walked in the room and noticed something was wrong. After a week of keeping him in the dark someone relented and told him about the Angel Families.

As the Angel Families rolled near the White House, Trump called the organizer and stated he wanted to meet with them, that he had no idea, and invited them for a meeting at 9:15 AM on Friday.

Most of the Angel Families had left by that point but a few were there. But those that were there were happy to meet Trump. It was Trump’s idea to bring them in the rose garden.

If you want to be mad at Trump, be mad at him for not cleaning the vipers out of his nest on Day One.

Achilles Heel update! Why Trump is losing.

How did we get here? Trump took office as a controversial and unorthodox “change” candidate. He reflected the frustrations and inchoate nationalist views of many Americans, whose concerns have been ignored by both parties for many years. In addition to consolidating the large cohort of ordinary Republicans radicalized by the presidency of Barack Obama, he brought in many disillusioned and alienated blue-collars voters, whose jobs and communities had been stressed by outsourcing, immigration, and a more general malaise. From the beginning, he faced an uphill struggle to implement an ambitious agenda.

Trump made his first unforced error in the earliest days of his administration. Personnel is policy, and his nominees for various cabinet and senior positions often did not share his vision, may have voted for his opponent, and otherwise were creatures of the very swamp he set out to drain.

James Mattis, Kirstjen Nielsen, and Nikki Haley, while all impressive people, do not come from the dissident wing of the Republican Party. In some cases, they have openly expressed opposition to Trump’s policies. John Bolton, while apparently a born-again Trump supporter, was the face of neoconservative interventionism during George W. Bush years, which gave us the failed regime-change wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. While the use of traditional Republican appointees may have been unavoidable, at least in part, the Trump Administration seemed to make little effort to ensure fidelity between the expressed goals of his campaign and his appointment of top officials.

In addition to these top cabinet picks, his daughter Ivanka and her mediocre husband, Jared Kushner, have been behind useless policy measures such as criminal justice reform and knee-jerk decisions like the 2017 Syria airstrikes. These two standard-issue New York liberals do not have the talent or the views to justify their portfolio, and their undue influence continues to be apparent in Trump’s occasional leftward lurches in rhetoric and policy.

Finally, in the transition, Trump set up a website—www.greatagain.gov—seeking talent from across this great country among his supporters. As far as we know, this database was destroyed, and any serious attempt to recreate it has never been undertaken. I know many talented people whose résumés went into this black hole. Government should again become the province of talented individuals from the private sector and the nation’s interior, and not a revolving door of Washington insiders bouncing back-and-forth between government and lobbying positions, as it has been for decades. You cannot drain the swamp by elevating people attached to its perquisites and devoted to its pieties.

Absolutely, positively correct. Which makes Trump’s “unforced error” here all the more baffling. The bottom line, though, is now this:

It is not clear if Trump can make any significant progress with his agenda in light of recent events. Nevertheless, Trump has accomplished something useful. He has revealed Americans’ deep resentment of our elites and their policies, but also exposed the deep contempt those elites have for the American people. He has shown a way forward for a revamped political party focused on the rights of legacy America, the interests of its workers and families, and a commitment to the integrity of the nation.

Most important, “Make America Great Again” has legitimized our history and our right to exist. If Trump cannot take the baton across the finish line and build a wall, some other enterprising statesman should realize this approach remains fertile ground to accomplish something that is significant and historical…and absolutely necessary.

I don’t really see things going that way myself. I find myself thinking more along the lines of Trump unwittingly having set the table and established the battle lines for an imminent struggle far broader and more destructive in scope than anybody imagines. Basically, despite good intentions, many useful and relevant talents, and the temperament required, Trump has found himself undone because he hoped to save and restore a nation that is fundamentally beyond salvage. Indeed, it barely remains a nation at all except by the most basic definition of the word. It doesn’t even WANT to be saved, and probably shouldn’t be.

Share

Unity!

Funny how effectively and speedily the PTB mob can bestir themselves to take decisive action when it’s something they all agree on.

Silicon Valley’s business elites and donor-class billionaires are uniting with elected Republicans and Democrats to ensure that white-collar, middle-class American jobs are swiftly outsourced to mostly Indian and Chinese nationals.

A plan known as the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act, introduced in the Senate by Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Kamala Harris (D-CA), as well as Reps. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) and Ken Buck (R-CO), would eliminate the U.S. country caps in the legal immigration system and would fast-track outsourcing of white-collar American jobs to mostly Indian and Chinese nationals imported to the country by businesses, outsourcing firms, and multinational corporations.

The country caps were originally implemented to prevent any one country from monopolizing the legal immigration system. Eliminating the country caps would immediately fast-track up to 300,000 green cards, and eventually American citizenship, to primarily Indian nationals in the U.S. on the H-1B visa, so long as they agree to take high-paying, white-collar jobs from Americans.

In the process, not only would other foreign workers be crowded out from receiving employment-based green cards, but the elimination of the country caps would fast-track the outsourcing of high-paying American jobs that would otherwise go to U.S. graduates.

See? THIS is what true bipartisan cooperation looks like, folks. Now if they could only work together like that for something that DOESN’T harm ordinary Americans.

Yeah, I know, I’m just being ridiculous there.

Share

Double bubble trouble

YIKES! With (urk) pictures.

DESPERATE for a fuller bust Jacqueline Harvey spent her life savings on a boob job.

But the 23-year-old was left distraught after the “botched” op left her with malformed, “double bubble” boobs.

The graphic designer saved for five years, before splashing out £4,500 on the op – boosting her bust from a 34C to DD.

However, after waking up and looking in the mirror, Jacqueline immediately regretted her decision.

She realised her implants had caused a second bulge under her breast bone – creating what looks like four “bubble” boobs.

The average cost of breast augmentation in Australia is $13,000 [£7,000], so Jacqueline was thrilled to find a discounted price of $6,000 (£4,500).

But she now regrets choosing the knock-down rate as she will have to spend the same amount on corrective surgery.

She added: “It was a lot more affordable than what I had previously been quoted for breast augmentations, which range around $13,000.

There’s a reason for that. There usually is.

“But I regret my decision as I now need to spend this amount to correct the damage that was done in the first operation.”

Rule Numero Uno, kid: never, ever, EVER bargain-shop for tattoos, tools, shoes, surgery, helicopter pilots, or high explosives. It’ll end up costing more than if you just bite the bullet and drop the coin to get the good stuff right out of the gate. WAY more, and in more than just money, too.

I just don’t get the store-bought-titties thing, I never did, and I never will. For whatever it might be worth, I find synthetic fun-bags repellent—notwithstanding my having more than one or two female friends to whom I will never willingly disclose that opinion, in the interests of my own physical well-being. Not knocking anybody for their preference in knockers, mind, whatever it may be and however they may have arrived at it. To each his/her own, I say.

Share

McHale’s Navy

As someone descended from a long line of Navy men on both sides of my family, it pains me indeed to have to say this. But, as Vox puts it:

The level of bureaucratic incompetence plaguing the US Navy is almost astonishing, even without taking into account the way female crewmen have increasingly hindered the ability of the Navy to properly crew its ships. No wonder the Russians were able to defeat US forces in Syria; the Chinese have absolutely no reason to fear a US Navy that literally can’t even steer its own ships.

The USA is almost certainly going to lose its next major war. What we are witnessing here is nothing new, it is absolutely normal for an empire that has indulged itself in imperial overstretch for generations to fail to fund its military infrastructure prior to engaging in the conflict that fatally exposes the rot within. And lest you appeal to the inherent strength of the American people, keep in mind, the United States of Diversity is comprised of a very, very different population than the United States of America of 78 years ago.

Depressing as it is, he’s correct on every particular here, and we all know it. From the article he’s talking about:

When Vice Adm. Joseph Aucoin was elevated to lead the vaunted 7th Fleet in 2015, he expected it to be the pinnacle of his nearly four-decade Navy career. The fleet was the largest and most powerful in the world, and its role as one of America’s great protectors had new urgency. China was expanding into disputed waters. And Kim Jong-un was testing ballistic missiles in North Korea.

Aucoin was bred on such challenges. As a Navy aviator, he’d led the “Black Aces,” a squadron of F-14 Tomcats that in the late 1990s bombed targets in Kosovo.

An aside, apropos of nothing: I met some of the Black Aces one weekend years ago when the band went up to NAS Oceana to play at the O-club for Cousin Reggie’s change of command after-party years ago. Those guys, the Jolly Rogers, and a few others were in attendance, all good bud of Reggies, who was taking over Rampager squadron (VFA 83) that day. It was a truly great night, one of the best ever for me. It was also the night I taught Mark Kelly— yes, THAT Mark Kelly, another close friend of Regbo’s, who strolled in casually rockin’ his blue NASA jumpsuit fresh from a training session in the Domes simulator complex—to play Smoke On The Water on guitar, which I believe I’ve mentioned here a couple times before. Anyways.

But what he found with the 7th Fleet alarmed and angered him.

The fleet was short of sailors, and those it had were often poorly trained and worked to exhaustion. Its warships were falling apart, and a bruising, ceaseless pace of operations meant there was little chance to get necessary repairs done. The very top of the Navy was consumed with buying new, more sophisticated ships, even as its sailors struggled to master and hold together those they had. The Pentagon, half a world away, was signing off on requests for ships to carry out more and more missions.

The risks were obvious, and Aucoin repeatedly warned his superiors about them. During video conferences, he detailed his fleet’s pressing needs and the hazards of not addressing them. He compiled data showing that the unrelenting demands on his ships and sailors were unsustainable. He pleaded with his bosses to acknowledge the vulnerability of the 7th Fleet.

Aucoin recalled the response: “Crickets.”

I said “depressing” above, and it is that. It’s also enraging. The sorry state of the US Navy is simply unacceptable, and dangerous. This article reveals a corruption and misfeasance little short of mind-blowing in its scope, and you should read all of it. Solutions to this massive problem are pretty thin on the ground; could be there really are none, or none likely to be implememnted given the current state of the nation itself. Our ill-concealed national enfeeblement bodes even worse than our ragged, overstretched military does; both are tocsin bells warning us of the necessity to hold Trump’s feet to the fire on his declared intent to pull the US out of its pointless, endless entanglements in Syria and Afghanistan, at the very least.

Share

Green No Deal

The Democrat-Socialist end-game.

It is not hyperbole to contend that GND is likely the most ridiculous and un-American plan that’s ever been presented by an elected official to voters. Not merely because it would necessitate a communist strongman to institute, but also because the societal costs are unfathomable. The risible historic analogies Markey and Ocasio-Cortez rely on, the building of the interstate highway system or moon landing, are nothing but trifling projects compared to a plan that overhauls modernity by voluntarily destroying massive amounts of wealth and technology. That is the GND.

While some of the specifics need to be ironed out, the plan’s authors assure us that this “massive transformation of our society” needs some “clear goals and a timeline.” The timeline is ten years. Here are some of the goals:

  • Ban affordable energy. GND calls for the elimination of all fossil fuel energy production, the lifeblood of American industry and life, which includes not only all oil but also natural gas — one of the cheapest sources of American energy, and one of the reasons the United States has been able to lead the world in carbon-emissions reduction.
  • Eliminate nuclear energy. The GND also calls for eliminating all nuclear power, one of the only productive and somewhat affordable “clean” energy sources available to us, in 11 years. This move would purge around 20 percent of American energy generation so you can rely on intermittent wind for your energy needs.
  • Eliminate 99 percent of cars. To be fair, under the GND, everyone will need to retrofit their cars with Flintstones-style foot holes or pedals for cycling. The authors state that the GND would like to replace every “combustion-engine vehicle” — trucks, airplanes, boats, and 99 percent of cars — within ten years. Charging stations for electric vehicles will be built “everywhere,” though how power plants will provide the energy needed to charge them is a mystery.
  • Gut and rebuild every building in America. Markey and Cortez want to “retrofit every building in America” with “state of the art energy efficiency.” I repeat, “every building in America.” That includes every home, factory, and apartment building, which will all need, for starters, to have their entire working heating and cooling systems ripped out and replaced with…well, with whatever technology Democrats are going (to) invent in their committee hearings, I guess.
  • Eliminate air travel. GND calls for building out “highspeed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary.” Good luck Hawaii! California’s high-speed boondoggle is already in $100 billion dollars of debt, and looks to be one of the state’s biggest fiscal disasters ever. Amtrak runs billions of dollars in the red (though, as we’ll see, trains that run on fossil fuels will also be phased out). Imagine growing that business model out to every state in America?

And that’s just for openers. The trainwreck of lunacy only picks up steam from there: free houses, free food, guaranteed income for anyone “unable OR UNWILLING to work,” and the elimination of…no, really, folks…cows. Any ONE of these proposals ought to be enough to forever sink any political party putting such utter codswallop forth for serious consideration. But all of this—along with post-birth abortion, unrestricted illegal immigration, persecution of Christians and embrace of Muslim terrorist, promotion of gender dysphoria and mutiliation for children, among much else—are now cornerstones of the Democrat-Socialist agenda.

It’s nothing short of astounding, is what it is.

Update! Watermelons: Green on the outside, Red on the inside.

The “Green New Deal” is not green at all. If anything it’s a raw, red deal. It calls for a government takeover of our wage, and of our energy, housing, health care and transportation sectors. It has more in common with Mao’s Cultural Revolution than it does FDR’s New Deal, which lifted millions out of the Great Depression.

Uhh, well, actually, NO. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
 
After scrutinizing Roosevelt’s record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.
 
“Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump,” said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA’s Department of Economics. “We found that a relapse isn’t likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies.”
 
In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy, Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933.
 
“President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was responsible for the Depression by reducing prices and wages, and by extension reducing employment and demand for goods and services,” said Cole, also a UCLA professor of economics. “So he came up with a recovery package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been, given market forces. The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies.”

Policies which the Democrat-Socialists still cling to and revere, and will re-implement in a hot minute whenever they’re given the power to do so, without a moment’s regard for the damage done and the misery inflicted. My slight digression aside:

The demand for justice on the basis of climate change is upside down. The energy revolution did not cause the oppression of the frontline and vulnerable communities. Quite the opposite, it was at the core of the democratization of technology as Thomas Edison’s invention of the light bulb was not limited to the few but became universal to every household.

The moderately priced car created by Henry Ford helped create the middle class and later provided the near-universal mobility that enabled people to live in the suburbs and commute to work. While the oil industry was broken up to create greater competition, these energy driven inventions were at the center of transforming American life for everyone.

The very premise that America is the carbon fiend that needs to mobilize to this degree on its own is faulty as well. Carbon emissions from America have been declining, down 2.7 percent in 2016. Since 2011, carbon emissions from large power plants in the U.S. have declined by nearly 20 percent.

This plan is really a nifty piece of marketing to use the environment as a Trojan horse to justify socialism in America. 

Well, y’know, DUH. The chilling fact remains: this is who the Democrat-Socialists are. This kind of thinly-veiled power grab is what they do. Always, and forever. Full stop, end of story.

Share

Can’t stop the signal

Or the Federal Goobermint either, apparently.

In Shutdown Month: Federal Government Added 1,000 Jobs

Uhm. Wait, what?!?

Even though the federal government was in partial shutdown for most of January, it still managed to increase its employees by 1,000, according to data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

In December 2018, according to BLS, the federal government employed 2,799,000 workers. In January, it employed 2,800,000.

The BLS’s employment report said that with this net increase of 1,000 federal workers federal employment was “essentially unchanged” in January. It also noted that federal worker who were furloughed during the shutdown were counted as employed because they will be getting paid for the time that they did not work.

Which only goes to show that our zombie-like federal Leviathan staggers blindly on doing whatever it damned well pleases regardless of…well, of anything at all. At this point It has taken on a life of its own; its processes, systems, and functions are autonomic and grind independently on without reference to external influence or contraints. It will not, it cannot, be stopped or even slowed by any known peaceable means, evidently.

TINVOWOOT, folks.

Share

Man down

Just went to check in at TL Davis’s joint, and…wait, what?

TLDavis-Down.jpg


NC Renegade just has this:

Christian Mercenary is done.

And that’s it, no details or further information.

Well, damn.

Share

Give ’em an inch

And they will ALWAYS take a mile. And then keep right on going, until they’re stopped.

Virginia Democrat Delegate Kathy Tran proposed a measure last week that would not only allow abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy in the state, but would also permit a woman to decide whether she wants to “abort” her baby as she is dilating and about to give birth.

Virginia Democrat Delegate Kathy Tran proposed a measure last week that would not only allow abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy in the state, but would also permit a woman to decide whether she wants to “abort” her baby as she is dilating and about to give birth.

Does it get worse? It’s liberals, Jake; why bother asking?

Democratic Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam came under fire Wednesday after he waded into the fight over a controversial abortion bill that one sponsor said could allow women to terminate a pregnancy up until the moment before birth — with critics saying Northam indicated a child could be killed after birth.

Northam, a former pediatric neurologist, was asked about those comments and said he couldn’t speak for Tran, but said that third-trimester abortions are done with “the consent of obviously the mother, with consent of the physician, multiple physicians by the way, and it’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities or there may be a fetus that’s not viable.”

“So in this particular example if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen, the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”

The intent of his comments was not clear. But some conservative commentators and lawmakers took his remarks to mean he was discussing the possibility of letting a newborn die — even “infanticide.”

Obligatory disclaimer, for the bazillionth time: I am NOT a blanket, strict, diehard anti-abortion in-all-cases-and circumstances-guy. But this…this…

This is no less than an abomination.

Horrifying. But remember, these baby-murdering ghouls—literally, now—are the “humane,” “compassionate” ones. If you don’t believe it, just ask them.

Share

Goodbye Gillette

Looks like I picked the wrong right time to start sniffing glue stop shaving.

GilletteGoodbye.jpg


I decided a month or so ago to grow another beard because A) I was bored; B) I hate shaving anyway, and do this now and then for a brief while; and C) the young ‘un, having seen me pretty much exclusively with one configuration of facial hair or other for the first five or so years of her life, always seems to like it when I grow one, and I hadn’t in a good while. Plus: D) it’s cold outside.

But with Gillette’s ill-considered and insulting SJW outburst against masculinity, my timing seems to have been unusually propitious this time around. So after threatening it for years and years and never following through, this is now my goal, and I am no longer joking:

billy-gibbons-and-the-bfgs.jpg

What the hell, a feller could do a lot worse than emulating Billy Gibbons, I figure, for all kinds of reasons.

The sad thing is, Gillette really DOES make the best razors, and always has. Their Fusion Pro, the one I’m holding in the pic, is no more nor less than the absolute best shaving gear I’ve ever had the privilege of using, although the blades for it are hellishly expensive. Schick (shudder) is just cheap copycat junk; don’t bother even bringing those Big Bag 0′ Bic nightmares up at all to me; and after trying several electrics over the years, well, sadly…no. So I fear my coerced Gillette boycott is gonna sting a lot more than the Red Lobster one ever will, or could.

But whatcha gonna do? Sooner or later, we gotta decide we’re just not gonna play docilely along anymore when Lefty decides to step on our faces. Refusing to fork over any more of our hard-earned when shitlib-run corporations sniffily insult us is certainly small potatoes when it comes to vengeance, I admit. But you gotta start somewhere.

Since I mentioned Billy above, this is a fine time for a little ZZ action.



My kid loves this song even more than she does beards on Daddy, and quite rightly so. I’m raising her right on 70s classic rock and such-like, among other styles and genres, and the Little Ol’ Band From Texas is among her very favorites. Every time we play this video at home we do the crazy-legs dance during the guitar solo’s second pass. And then we just laaauuuugh and laugh.

Axis of Irritants update! Schlichter says: retoxify masculinity.

Much as I advocate global warming, I am a strong proponent of toxic masculinity. It’s also known as “masculinity.”

Risk-taking.

Ferociousness.

Independence.

These are the qualities the SJWs want to wring out of us. Why? Because these are the qualities they cannot overcome. They want us weak, passive and obedient. That’s how they get power. Some bloated Trigglypuff screaming about the male gaze can’t force us to do anything. Sure, a lot of them have weight on us, but if we laugh at them and simply say “No” to their demands, they’re stuck. Are they going to go get a rifle and make us? 

Nope. They have to talk us into surrendering, or really, pester us into surrendering. Which means talking us out of the uppity, aggressive, no-damns-given masculinity that is the last obstacle to their fussy, naggy domination.

Don’t be fooled by the “toxic” qualifier – all masculinity is toxic to these human weebles. What they call “toxic” is really the essence of freedom. It’s toxic all right, but to their goals, not ours. Masculinity means freedom from them and the puffy, non-binary utopia they dreamed up because that’s the only world in which such losers could be anything more than a sorry punchline.

Actually, the “masculinity” they decry as “toxic”—rape, bullying, thuggishness, hoggishness, discourtesy, taking unfair advantage of the helpless—isn’t masculinity at all, but its opposite. All those things are reflections of weakness, in truth, and real men neither tolerate nor indulge them. They’re not representative of true masculinity, but of that which true men resist, oppose, and defy. But there’s another way of looking at the Gillette ad:

Although the message aligns with current ideas of “toxic masculinity” and the concept of “rape culture” in which progressive feminists argue men are taught they can do, say, and get away with whatever they want, I saw a different message. The ad is telling a story of respectful, confident, moral young men taught self-respect and self-restraint from their fathers.

The image of a father teaching his son how to shave has become an iconic portrayal of the unique bonding between a father and son and the importance of that relationship on a young man’s development. The ad wants the audience of men to reflect on their behavior and consider the influence they have on their sons. The problem is, the cultural perspective behind the ad caused the very issues it is trying to address.

While the progressive scoffs at this line of reasoning and has for a very long time, the truth is everything they lecture us about proper male behavior today, they aggressively shamed out of society a generation ago. This is simply what happens when the father’s authority in family life is denounced, shamed, and cut out altogether.

To make men better, the reasoning goes, you must shame away all remnants of the barbaric masculine past. It is assumed that our grandfathers’ generation represented the worst of sexism and violence, and society has slowly moved forward since. They don’t seem to realize the men they want for their sons today belong to the exact generation they worked so hard to erase.

Men do not become more compassionate and responsible citizens by renouncing their masculinity and embracing feminism. The culture of obscenity, meaningless sex, and perpetual adolescence is the result of failing to develop masculinity within men. The excesses, abuses, harassment, and violence we see as a social concern are the consequences of young men lost and left to their own devices.

Boys are not lost because of toxic masculinity; they are lost because their fathers have been taken away from them and they cannot figure out how to fill that void with anything but rage and shame.

Agree with this assessment or not, I can’t really see how boys having “two mommies” is going to fix things. Certainly, all these decades of seeing men and fathers mocked as hapless, ineffectual, stupid, incompetent buffoons on TV hasn’t done anyone any good.

Masculinity isn’t a sickness update! This one is locked up behind WSJ’s Iron Curtain, unfortunately, so Glenn’s excerpt is all I can give ya.

In my practice as a psychotherapist, I’ve seen an increase of depression in young men who feel emasculated in a society that is hostile to masculinity. New guidelines from the American Psychological Association defining “traditional masculinity” as a pathological state are likely only to make matters worse.

True, over the past half-century ideas about femininity and masculinity have evolved, sometimes for the better. But the APA guidelines demonize masculinity rather than embracing its positive aspects. In a press release, the APA asserts flatly that “traditional masculinity—marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression—is, on the whole, harmful.” The APA claims that masculinity is to blame for the oppression and abuse of women.

The report encourages clinicians to evaluate masculinity as an evil to be tamed, rather than a force to be integrated. “Although the majority of young men may not identify with explicit sexist beliefs,” it states, “for some men, sexism may become deeply engrained in their construction of masculinity.” The association urges therapists to help men “identify how they have been harmed by discrimination against those who are gender nonconforming”—an ideological claim transformed into a clinical treatment recommendation.

The truth is that masculine traits such as aggression, competitiveness and protective vigilance not only can be positive, but also have a biological basis. Boys and men produce far more testosterone, which is associated biologically and behaviorally with increased aggression and competitiveness. They also produce more vasopressin, a hormone originating in the brain that makes men aggressively protective of their loved ones.

The same goes for feminine traits such as nurturing and emotional sensitivity. Women produce more oxytocin when they nurture their children than men, and the hormone affects men and women differently. Oxytocin makes women more sensitive and empathic, while men become more playfully, tactually stimulating with their children, encouraging resilience. These differences between men and women complement each other, allowing a couple to nurture and challenge their offspring.

Modern society is also too often derisive toward women who embrace their biological tendencies, labeling them abnormal or unhealthy. Women who choose to stay home with their children can feel harshly judged, contributing to postpartum conflict, anxiety and depression.

What’s unhealthy isn’t masculinity or femininity but the demeaning of masculine men and feminine women. The first of the new APA guidelines urges psychologists “to recognize that masculinities are constructed based on social, cultural, and contextual norms,” as if biology had nothing to do with it. Another guideline explicitly scoffs at “binary notions of gender identity as tied to biology.”

From a mental-health perspective, it can be beneficial for women to embrace masculine traits and for men to express feminine ones. Every person will have some mix of the two. But that doesn’t change the reality that women tend to be feminine and men tend to be masculine. Why can’t the APA acknowledge biology while seeing femininity and masculinity on a spectrum?

Two possibilities spring to mind: 1) the APA is now fully-converged Leftist organization, and since the attack on masculinity is part and parcel of the Left’s ongoing FUD campaign to destroy the traditional American notions of family and gender, they’re just participating in it as one would expect, or 2) they’re a bunch of fucking quacks going along with the dominant PC ethos as a sort of defensive-crouch atonement for their many years of officially defining homosexuality as psychological deviance and disorder, for which the Left has never really forgiven them.

Share

How tyranny happens

It sinks in its claws and doesn’t let go.

Trump is correct when he says that invoking the National Emergencies Act (NEA) is wholly within his presidential purview. Whether it’s a smart political move is a separate discussion, but there is little doubt he has the legal authority to stem the flow of illegal immigrants at our southern border via that statute. (John Eastman explained why last week at American Greatness.)

So, political foes are dispatching Trump to a presidential No Man’s Land, alternatively downplaying (or entirely ignoring) previous applications of the law and fabricating fictional scenarios about how future Democrats could exploit Trump’s alleged precedent—”whatifism,” if you will.

The most outlandish warning is that a Democratic president could declare climate change a national emergency and take any number of drastic measures, from shutting down coal plants to forcing the military to build wind turbines.

“If today, the national emergency is border security, tomorrow the national emergency might be climate change,” explained Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) on CNBC on Wednesday.

Perhaps these folks don’t remember that the Obama Administration declared war on carbon dioxide in 2009, paving the way to propose hundreds of billions in federal regulations with the alleged purpose of limiting carbon emissions; this included attempting to execute the Clean Power Plan, which the Supreme Court found so excessive and outside the authority of the executive branch that it took the highly unusual move of halting the EPA-imposed rule in 2016.

But if Americans now are expected to believe that the NEA suddenly is either unlawful or unconstitutional merely because Trump is president, and his action could portend a dark future of presidential authoritarianism, then the only reasonable step is to eliminate the law. Permanently.

I have an easier solution: stop electing Democrat-Marxists. To anything. Ever.

Yeah, I know, I know. T’is a dream I have.

Kelly is correct, all kidding around aside. Laws like this are object lessons in how tyranny gets itself established.

Now that the act is, for the first time in recent memory, an issue of public debate—consequently spawning a whole Twitterverse of experts—it’s fair to assess whether the 42-year-old law should exist at all. Currently we are under a state of 31 national emergencies, including one dating back to the Carter Administration. Another emergency declaration, imposed days after the 9/11 terror attacks, has been renewed on an annual basis.

According to a 2014 report by USA Today, “in his six years in office, President Obama has declared nine emergencies, allowed one to expire and extended 22 emergencies enacted by his predecessors.” This included proclaiming in 2009 that the flu was a national emergency, which allowed for waiving federal rules and set off a public frenzy for flu vaccines. Others deal with national security threats posed by Colombia, the Congo, and Yemen.

There is no doubt the law provides sweeping powers to the president. In a study published by the University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform in 2012, Patrick Thronson criticized the act as “[contrasting] sharply with the traditional conception of the United States as being a government of limited and enumerated powers.” Thronson detailed how the NEA activates “over 160 provisions of statutory law, dozens of presidential orders, and numerous other federal regulations.” This includes the use of the military. He also blasted Congress for being “oblivious” to the implications of ongoing and future national emergencies.

An honest, open federal government run by officials who respected the mandates and boundaries made explicit by its Founding documents would never have countenanced such an affront to proper governance in the first place. One might judge the legitimacy of the abomination we’re saddled with now by pondering the extreme odds against its ever being undone.

“[Contrasting] sharply with the traditional conception of the United States as being a government of limited and enumerated powers”? Now THERE’S the understatement of the year for sure. Then again, though, the US government itself provides the same contrast, for anyone with eyes to see.

Share

Disconnected

To quote Johnny Rotten: not a trace. No reality.

Never in modern times has there been such a disconnect between the opposition party and the realities of national life. The very talk of removing Trump, without evidence of an impeachable offense, is a stick in the eye to history and most Americans.

To be clear, the disconnect is not the product of policy differences, though they exist too. This is instead a mass outbreak of Trump Derangement Syndrome that, for those infected, can be cured only by undoing the results of the 2016 election.

And if by some lightning strike they succeed, then what? Impeach President Mike Pence, too?

How does any of this help the country address its infrastructure needs, reform entitlement programs or ensure better schools and more opportunities? And what message does it send to our allies and adversaries about America’s resolve?

The questions answer themselves. The relentless fixation on impeachment is a destructive decision that sacrifices national progress and security on the altar of partisan madness.

Well, to be fair, the Democrat-Marxists care not a whit for either of those things.

Paralysis by politics, of course, is a bipartisan disease, and Trump is not immune. His decision to force a partial government shutdown over border wall funding followed warnings that he was on the verge of betraying a key promise to his supporters.

But that doesn’t make both sides equally wrong.

No, it certainly doesn’t. On that last point, this sort of thing just annoys the living hell out of me:

THE L.A. TIMES IS PRETTY COOL WITH ANTI-SEMITISM, APPARENTLY: Can you admire Louis Farrakhan and still advance the cause of women? Maybe so. Life is full of contradictions.

As Drew McCoy tweets, “Replace ‘anti-Semite’ with ‘anti-Muslim’ and see if this piece gets published.”

Yet another reminder that the alt-right and the mainstream left are the mirror images of each other.

That’s Ed Driscoll making with the false equivalence in bold above; I’ve seen him do it several times, and he’s by no means the only one guilty of it.

By yielding to the Left’s denunciation of the former alt-right as being composed exclusively of “Nazis,” “fascists,” and “white supremacists,” the milquetoasts nominally on our side have shot themselves—and us—in the foot yet again. The term “alt-right” itself has been forever poisoned by a misguided eagerness on the part of Doormat Rightists to score points with the Left by proving their docility and reasonableness to them. It’s exactly the sort of thing that made a fool of Juanny Maverick a thousand and one times, that killed the Tea Party movement a-borning. It’s futile. It’s stupid. And it ain’t even close to the truth.

Sorry, cucks, but one of these things is NOT like the other. The alt-right, whatever and whoever it might represent now, is in no way a “mirror image” of the Left. The Left is seditious, treacherous, underhanded, and violent. They hate America That Was in its every particular: its values, its traditions, its strength, its prosperity, its influence. They hate the white males who founded it, built it, and made it work. They want it destroyed forever—ALL of it—and replaced with a collectivist tyranny firmly in control of every single aspect of our lives. ALL of our lives, every one of us.

The alt-right is, or was, NONE of those things. Not ONE. Period. Fucking. DOT. To pretend otherwise is a mug’s game, a fool’s errand, and suicidal. How can it possibly be that so many of us still can’t understand that the Left can never be defeated by continuing to play their game, by their rules?

The funny thing is, the desire to disassociate and distinguish themselves from the half-assed Loser Right is the very reason the alt-rightists started calling themselves that in the first place. Now they’re trying again with Derb’s newly-minted Dissident Right, which I actually like better anyway. We’ll soon see how long it takes the cucks and schmucks to fuck that up for us too, I guess.

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

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

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