Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

An old friend resurfaces

Well dang: our old bud Doc Weasel thoughtfully provides us with a bookmark-worthy link to his “Political Violence” post category, a handy-dandy compendium that ought to come in damned useful for research purposes. Thing is, though, I wasn’t even aware he was still out there doing this stuff in the first place. Into Ye Olde Blogrolle you go, Doc, with a quickness.

Share

Look, up in the sky! It’s a bird! It’s a plane! It’s…uhhh…well, it’s…ummmm…well, actually, it’s…

Sky Dong!

The infamous sky penis of November 17, 2017, hovering over the clouds of Washington, was a total mystery.

On that fateful day, the puzzling dong appeared near Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, around 30 miles north of Seattle. And although the base accepted full responsibility for the phallic drawing in the sky, the public had no understanding of what had actually happened. How’d that big ol’ boner get up there anyway?

Now, two years later, a military report has shed light on the long-awaited details.

A copy of the military’s sky penis investigation was obtained by Navy Times. On that November day, local news station KREM began reporting on a clearly man-made shape in the sky that resembled a penis and testicles. The formation had upset a local parent and began making the rounds on Twitter. The Navy soon confirmed that one of its pilots had formed the phallus and issued an apology.

“The Navy holds its aircrew to the highest standards and we find this absolutely unacceptable, of zero training value and we are holding the crew accountable,” the base said in a statement at the time.

“Zero training value”? ZERO? Ace dispenses handily with that notion.

A point that should be kept in mind is that someone who is playing while actually doing their job — here, flying, executing what I’m going to guess are somewhat precise turns — is practicing that job at a high level. That is, if you’re doing something that might be unnecessary but is still part of your job and is still training your skill, you are likely learning more in those moments than most moments spent in serious study.

The “gamification” of skill-learning is powerful, I think. People like challenges. Every challenge someone makes up for himself is a little game. He understands the success and failure states. He understands that, even in this play, there is victory and their is defeat.

What I’m saying is that it’s a good thing for people to have fun in doing their jobs. Even if they burn up some extra jet-fuel doing so. A pro golfer isn’t directly helping his golf game when he starts playing around with bouncing the ball up and down from his putter-head like it’s a hacky-sack, but he is learning dexterity and comfort with the putter, stuff about balance and head-attitude he wouldn’t learn from just some more putting practice.

Maybe that won’t be helpful. But maybe it will be. It doesn’t hurt to try something different, seemingly unrelated to the core of the skill, to improve the core of the skill by an alternate angle of attack.

So maybe give these guys a (halfhearted) warning because, whatever, people are scandalized to know that Navy pilots (almost all young men) can be fans of puerile, naughty jokes.

But also bear in mind that one of the highest states of skill-acquisition is having fun with the skill and just showing it off. Doing something that seems to have no practical purpose, if it’s difficult and requires off-the-cuff improvisation and quick learning and adjustment (as the dick-drawing stunt did), does stretch and hone one’s skill.

They did have to plot out a path in three dimensional space and imagine what that path would look like as a two dimensional plane.
That’s not nothing.

The Navy probably handled this innocuous mischief perfectly: PR statements expressing OUTRAGE!, disgust, and contrition, while dealing out a finger wagged in disapprobation and a good talking-to. The officer tasked with the actual the dressing-down problem bit nearly through his lip trying not to bust out in wicked snickering. The transcript of the radio chatter from whence this inspired prank sprang—uhh, sprung?—is hilarious:

In the air that day were two lieutenants, a pilot and an electronics warfare officer, known as an EWO. They were soon edging each other on.

“Draw a giant penis,” the EWO said. “That would be awesome.”

“What did you do on your flight?” the pilot joked. “Oh, we turned dinosaurs into sky penises.”

“You should totally try to draw a penis,” the EWO advised.

The lieutenants began breaking down the concept of drawing a penis in the sky.

“I could definitely draw one, that would be easy,” the pilot said. “I could basically draw a figure eight and turn around and come back. I’m gonna go down, grab some speed and hopefully get out of the contrail layer so they’re not connected to each other.”

You telling me this WASN’T at least somewhat useful training, a honing of relevant skills? Not even a little bit?

To quote the immortal Sgt Hulka: Aww, lighten up, Francis.

Read the rest for sure, it gets even more hilarious from there. Naturally, the libmedia reportage I’ve seen dangles the inevitable “sexual harrassment” angle, although even they can only manage a half-hearted, flaccid stab at it. Yes, I’m sure some humorless bluenoses both in and out of the Navy were utterly mortified by this Crime Against Humanity. But not me. Far as I’m concerned, this stunt is one of the reasons bold, audacious young men become fighter pilots in the first place. Carry on, fellas, and good on ya.

Share

A true classic, unearthed

Steyn does one of his typical Big Digs into the long, strange history of a song that’s been one of my absolute favorites since I was a kid, and still is.

In South Africa, it was huge. “Mbube” became not just the name of a hit record but of an entire vocal style – a high-voiced lead over four-part bass-heavy harmony. That, in turn, evolved into “isicathamiya”, a smoother vocal style that descended to Ladysmith Black Mambazo and others, taking its cue from the injunction “Cothoza, bafana” – or “tread carefully, boys”. That’s to say, Zulu stomping is fine in the bush, but when you’re singing in dancehalls and restaurants in you’ve got to be a little more choreographically restrained, if only for the sake of the floorboards.

“Tread carefully, boys” is good advice for anyone in the music business. A few years after Solomon Linda and the Evening Birds made their hit record, it came to the notice of Pete Seeger, on the prowl for yet more “authentic” “traditional” “vernacular” “folk music” for the Weavers to make a killing with. He misheard “Mbube” and transcribed it as “Wimoweh”. That’s a great insight into the “authenticity” of the folk boom: the most famous Zulu word on the planet was invented by a New York socialist in 1951…

Still, Seeger was chanting all the way to the bank. “Wimoweh” is a tune that works in any form – as big band (Jimmy Dorsey), folk-rock (Nanci Griffith), country (Glen Campbell), Euro-lounge (Bert Kaempfert), kiddie-pop (*NSync), reggae (Eek-A-Mouse) military march (the New Zealand Army Band), exotica (Yma Sumac), Yiddish (Lipa Schmeltzer), football singalong (the official theme of the 1986 England World Cup Squad). And that’s before we get to REM and They Might Be Giants and Baha Men, and, of course, The Lion King. Solomon Linda’s song has penetrated every corner of the globe. It’s the most famous tune ever to have come out of Africa.

He and his family must be multi-multi-millionaires, right? Not exactly. Linda sold it to the Gallo record company for ten shillings: that would be about 87 cents. Tread carefully, boy. In 1962, just as “The Lion Sleeps Tonight” was reaching Number One around the world, he died of kidney disease in Soweto, on the edge of Johannesburg, in a concrete hovel with a couple of bedrooms with dirt floors covered in cow dung. He left his widow the equivalent of $22 in the bank and unable even to afford a headstone for his grave. For the last decade he’d swept floors and made the tea at the packing house of the Gallo company. His family lived on a diet of maize porridge – “pap” – and chicken feet.

After Rian Malan drew attention to the plight of Solomon Linda’s heirs, a few music critics took the usual line on the subject. As Thomas R Gruning writes in Millennium Folk: American Folk Music Since The Sixties:

Beyond the economic implications of ‘Mbube/Wimoweh’, the musical development of the song in its different versions illustrates a highly charged symbolic field in which the violence done to Linda’s original piece further reinscribes contested and inequitable power relations between the West and Africa. That is, the issue shifts from conventional notions of cultural imperialism to a more convoluted and complicated process in which ‘plundering and counterfeiting of black culture’ denies the racial authenticities claimed by…

Zzzzzzz. That argument works fine with the likes of Hugo and Luigi and George Weiss. They’re Tin Pan Alley professionals, assignment men. Give Weiss a Broadway score, an Elvis movie theme, and a Zulu chant, and it’s all the same: that week’s job. Who knows what “authenticity” means to such a man? But the only reason the showbiz types were able to “reinscribe” the song in the first place is because of Pete Seeger and the other leftie folkies. The child of wealthy New York radicals, Seeger has always been avowedly anti-capitalist – supposedly. Yet his publisher had a deal with Gallo Music: they snaffled up the rights to “Mbube” cheap and in return sub-licensed to Gallo the South African and Rhodesian rights to “Wimoweh”. And Seeger knew Solomon Linda was the composer. Years later he would plead that back in the Fifties he instructed his publishers to give his royalties from the song to Linda, and he was shocked, shocked to discover decades later that they hadn’t in fact been doing so. But it never occurred to him, as an unworldly anti-capitalist, to check his royalty statements. It was, on his part, supposedly a sin of omission.

Gee, imagine that: another self-righteous, money-grubbing socialist who got rich ripping somebody else off. Why, I’m shocked, I tell you—SHOCKED!!!

Not everyone can plead the same accidental oversight. Having persuaded Linda to sign away his copyright four decades earlier, the relevant parties made sure to slide some forms in front of his illiterate widow in 1982 and his daughters some years later to make sure the appropriation paperwork was kept in order.

And for all Mr Gruning’s huffing about “cultural imperialism” above, it was, in the end, a legacy of colonialism that ended the injustice. There are significant differences between US and English copyright law, and one of them is that the latter attempts to restrain the damage a foolish creator can do to himself. Under British Commonwealth law, the ownership in any intellectual property reverts to the author’s heirs 25 years after his death regardless of what disadvantageous deals he may have signed. In the courtroom, the quiet courtroom, the lawsuit slept for decades, until Solomon Linda’s daughters were apprised of this significant feature of Commonwealth copyright law, and took action. The sleeping lion also took on the Mouse – the Walt Disney corporation, whose film The Lion King had introduced the song to a new generation of children. In America, Linda’s family really had no legal leg to stand on, but, faced with potentially catastrophic complications in Britain, South Africa, Australia, India and other key markets, Disney were only too keen to settle. In 2006, Solomon Linda finally received his due.

Fifteen improvised notes in 1939 powered Africa’s biggest selling record, an entire genre of music, and two separate hit songs on five continents. And, even though those 15 notes and the man who wrote them were buried under all the other names that encrusted to the work, in the end they’re what shine through.

In case you’re a young ‘un and haven’t yet grokked what song Steyn is going on about, this would be it:




The other versions have their merits, but this is the one I myself was smitten by as a kid, still cherish to this day, and most likely always will. Its 80-year backstory is fascinating; the Tokens’ own initial reaction to it is equally so, despite being another chapter of an old, familiar music-biz story:

Back in New York, the Tokens did as they were told but didn’t care for it. “We were embarrassed,” said Phil Margo, “and tried to convince Hugo and Luigi not to release it. They said it would be a big record and it was going out.” It had an orchestra, a trio of Tokens doing the wimoweh-ing, Jay Siegal’s falsetto, an opera singer with a spare half-hour who came in and did a bit of contrapuntal ululating. The first time the Beach Boys’ Brian Wilson heard it he had to pull off the road he was so overawed. Carole King declared the record a bona fide “motherf—er”…

It hit Number One at Christmas 1961. Ilonka David-Biluska’s version, “De Leeuw Slaapt Vannacht“, reached Number One in the Netherlands. Henri Salvador’s “Le lion est mort ce soir” was Number One in France. Pace Phil Margo and Ilonka, it is, in fact, very hard not to make a ton of dough from “The Lion Sleeps Tonight”.

Label tells band to record song; band dislikes song, balks; song is a monster, career-boosting hit; band is forever after bemused by their initial disdain for the record that would unexpectedly bring ’em fame and fortune. Familiar as that story is, though, The Lion Sleeps Tonight seems to wield a magic almost unique in all of Western music; for a pop song particularly, the near-universality and longevity of its appeal is remarkable indeed. Love it or hate it, once you’ve heard it you’ll never forget it. I had it on 45 when I was a kid, and it’s in my Spotify library now. That’s power, people.

Share

RIP the great Tim Conway

Having howled at his and Korman’s riotously funny, largely-improvised Carol Burnett Show antics with my family each and every week throughout my youth, I was all set to write something up on his death. But Aesop’s obit concisely says it all, and aside from mourning the fact that they just don’t do TV comedy like that anymore, I have nothing to add. The Burnett Show gang were such beloved staples in my home that my strongest reaction whilst watching the vids Aesop included was to think of my long-departed dad. He LOVED Conway and Co, and laughed harder than any of us. Ahh, those were the days all right.

Share

Christianity, liberty, and their enemies

By their fruits shall ye know them.

In the late M. Stanton Evans’ remarkable, critically important book The Theme Is Freedom, he develops a brilliant case for the proposition that political freedom depends upon the acknowledgement of an authority higher than any temporal authority: i.e., God. He further argues that of all the belief systems that have ever been followed, Christianity is the only one that emphasizes individual freedom as the rightful condition of men, to be protected from the encroachments of temporal powers. The United States of America, a near to uniformly Christian country for most of its history, is the modern society in which this coupling of religious belief to liberty has been most clearly demonstrated.

Well, our nation’s Founders would certainly seem to agree with that, yeah.

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

Funny how the rise to power of the fascist Left, the rapid escalation of encroachment on American liberty, and the en masse abandonment of Christianity since the 60s all seem to coincide, ain’t it? Funny, too, how much effort those same Progressivists have spent on rejiggering the Founders as being either skeptical at best about Christianity, openly hostile to it, or considered themselves “Deists”—a manipulative oversimplification that blithely disregards many direct statements on the subject made by the Founders themselves.

Back to Francis.

Given that premise, does it not make sense that they who seek to eradicate human freedom should target Christianity first and foremost? Does it not suggest that anyone you hear ridiculing Christians or denigrating Christianity should be viewed with a degree of suspicion?

It is an irony to pin all the meters against their stops that they who denigrate Christianity cannot argue against it on any rational grounds. They denounce it as “superstition,” “fear of death,” and other irrelevancies. They refuse to treat with its prescriptions…because those prescriptions directly oppose what they seek: power for themselves and their fellow-travelers.

God Himself has only ten rules for us. He asks nothing more. How dare any temporal authority suggest, explicitly or implicitly, that His rules don’t bind us? And how dare any temporal authority demand more than does He?

The enemies of Christianity, one and all, are totalitarian in ambition. That is: they seek the power to decide what is compulsory and what is forbidden, without any boundaries to the scope of their authority. Christians know that this is wrong. We decry it. We protest against it. In reply, our enemies ridicule us, drive us out of the public square, criminalize living by our beliefs, and ultimately exterminate us.

Progressivism is a religion its own self—a particularly jealous one, one that doesn’t like competition. Might go a long way, too, towards explaining their strange affiliation with Islam. I mean, aside from all the gay-hating and woman-oppressing, they DO have a lot in common: authoritarianism, totalitarianism, intolerance for all other beliefs, and no problem at all with using violence to back it all up, just for starters.

Share

No risk, no reward

Wilder on risk.

As I’ve observed you humans my fellow humans for the past few decades, I’ve discovered that Risk is poorly understood. Pop Wilder had fallen victim to what I’m now calling Wilder’s Rule of Risk: What he thought was safe, was risky. What he thought was risky, was safe. He ended up outliving his savings due to decisions that prioritized “safety” over even minimal risks. He built barriers to action over unreasonable and unlikely fears.

Life is like Tom Cruise. It’s short. Life is also like having sex with a Kardashian. Hairy and risky. But you have a choice. You can be afraid and live in fear. You can also live gallantly, and die nobly.

We want to live with certainty. We want to, especially when we’re young, and when we are old, avoid risk. But we can’t. The absence of risk is the absence of life. The thrill of the first kiss, the thrill of winning when you’ve bet it all on red, those are life. Life is struggle. Life is fighting. Life is also all about risk.

Step one of living gallantly and nobly? Don’t be afraid of risks that aren’t real.

I’ve taken one hell of a lot of risks over the years: some of them senseless, some of them unavoidable, some of them truly nuts, plenty of them for no fathomable reason at all other than just to take them. If I learned anything from it (and I ain’t saying I did), it’s that the most exhilarating experiences in life are usually the result of a risk run and successfully overcome.

Share

Uncle Peter, my smelling salts!

Can we run this woman for president?

Smoke, Drink and Eat What You Want, Norway’s Public Health Minister Says

Why…why…why…that’s OUTRAGEOUS! This is the NYT, so the photo caption you’d expect comes along with it to make sure nobody misses the point:

Sylvi Listhaug, a right-winger, was put in charge of public health after previously resigning as justice minister over comments she made about terrorism.

A “right-winger.” Well, naturally. Say, anybody remember the last time the words “left-winger” appeared in the Times? Anybody?

It was a most unusual message from a health official: People should be allowed to eat, drink and smoke as they see fit.

Norway’s new minister in charge of public health said this week that adults did not need government lectures about what to put in their bodies, but it sounded a bit like she was telling people to go ahead and indulge. Critics protested that her remarks were damaging, particularly coming from someone in her position.

“I think people should be allowed to smoke, drink and eat as much red meat as they like,” Sylvi Listhaug, the government’s minister for the elderly and public health, said in an interview posted on Monday on the website of NRK, Norway’s state broadcaster. “The government may provide information, but I think people in general know what is healthy and what is not.”

They surely do. And free people would be allowed to choose whether to indulge in personal habits, hobbies, and behaviors whether meddlesome government “experts” approve of them or not.

“I fear that this will set public health efforts back for decades, and that this will compromise the general understanding among Norwegians of the health consequences of tobacco and alcohol use,” Anne Lise Ryel, secretary general of Norway’s Cancer Society, said in a statement.

She called for public health to be removed from Ms. Listhaug’s portfolio, saying that “she seems to lack understanding of what public health really means and what her role as minister in that area should be.”

And YOU, Mzx Ryel, definitely lack understanding of what government’s proper role in this area should be.

Ms. Listhaug said that people who smoked felt like “pariahs” in Norway, and that she would not be the “moral police” in government. She echoed comments made by Austria’s far right, defending freedom of choice in opposing antismoking legislation.

The Freedom Party is part of the governing coalition in Austria, and its leader, Heinz-Christian Strache, the vice chancellor and minister for sport, is an avid smoker. The party last year blocked rules that would have banned smoking in restaurants, as it commonly is elsewhere in the European Union.

Pardon me for indulging my out-of-control, unhealthy habit of making bad word-play jokes and all, but: what a breath of fresh air this is. The bits I bolded are particularly refreshing.

“Where do we send these smokers in the end?” she asked. “Are they going to have to go into the woods or up on a mountaintop or down to the docks in order just to take a drag?”

Not a problem. Eventually, if the Busybody Left fascists have their way, there’ll be camps set up for that sort of thing.

Via Glenn, who adds: “Given the dreadful — and often deadly — record of government nutrition advice in my lifetime this is entirely sensible.” It is that—just plain old common sense, nothing more. How depressing it is that once commonly-held principles like government restraint and keeping one’s nose well out of other people’s business have come to seem so shocking and outlandish.

Share

The Tucker Revolution

Tuckernaught? Tuckpocalypse? Carlsnarok? Okay, okay, I’ll stop now.

Tucker Carlson’s cable-tv show begins identically each night. After the words “Good evening and welcome to Tucker Carlson Tonight”—always intoned and inflected exactly the same way—the host launches into an opening monologue on the news of the day, or what he thinks ought to be the news of the day.

On January 2, 2019, though, there was no news. So Carlson used the holiday lull to deliver a non-stop, 15-minute, 2,571-word evisceration of America’s ruling class—political, industrial, financial, intellectual, and cultural. Our rulers, he insisted, had failed at their ostensible tasks: to improve the health of the country and the lives of its citizens.

The show is usually leavened throughout with puckish humor. Not that night; Carlson was deadly serious. He laid at the feet of our ruling class a devastating litany of failure: the destruction of the family, skyrocketing out-of-wedlock births, the opioid crisis, rampant male unemployment, the sleazy effort to anesthetize the dispossessed with payday loans and pot, increasing financialization and techification of the economy and resultant wealth concentration, and foreign war without purpose, strategy, victory, or end.

But have our rulers really failed? Not if one understands, Carlson explained, that their real aim is to enrich themselves and maintain their power: “We are ruled by mercenaries who feel no long-term obligation to the people they rule.”

Within a day or two, the speech had gone viral. Friend and enemy alike referred to it simply as “Tucker’s Monologue.” Everyone knew instantly which was meant. To those sympathetic, here was a quasi-Trumpist rallying cry not merely for a new Right, but also for millions of apolitical Americans who feel—rightly—abandoned, even preyed upon, by the status quo. By contrast, those opposed sensed a clear danger: a message that—unlike the stale tenets of Republican-study-group, think-tank conservatism—might actually have a chance of inspiring and creating a new majority.

He’s certainly iconoclastic now. The ways in which he breaks—on his nightly show and in bestselling book, Ship of Fools—with the rightist iron triangle of Republican politicians, conservative donors, and the magazine-think tank industrial complex are legion.

Why is capital taxed at half the rate of labor, Carlson asks, and is manifestly unsatisfied by the conventional Right’s answer that “investment” is necessary for “growth and innovation.” What good are the latter, he further asks, if all their gains accrue to a narrowing upper slice while those taxed double for working (assuming they can find jobs) can’t afford to share in the supposed glories of late-stage capitalism?

Why are we still making trade deals, three decades (at least) into a manufacturing decline that has devastated entire American industries and hollowed out many of our communities, all the while enriching some of our most determined foes? Why do our politicians insist on getting us into wars we not only can’t win but for which they can’t even define victory?

Above all, why—at a population of 330 million and climbing, with as many as 22 million here illegally—do our elites refuse to do anything whatsoever to control our borders? Indeed, why do they thwart, at every turn, President Trump on this very issue and attack anyone who speaks up for any limit on immigration whatsoever?

What, specifically, changed the mind of the formerly bow-tied boy-Buckley (or as a friend put it to me, “typical conservative dorkwad”) and launched Carlson toward becoming the leading light of a new conservative movement?

That’s just the opening of a Michael Anton review and analysis which, while lengthy, is a rockin’ good read nonetheless. Part of what makes it so enjoyable is the unvarnished glee with which Anton recounts (and skewers) the Old Guard’s sniffy condescension towards Carlson:

Within a day of Tucker’s Monologue, the “Right” rallied—not of course to denounce the decidedly unconservative trends Carlson complained about, but to attack Carlson himself. “Anyone who thinks the health of a nation can be summed up in GDP is an idiot,” Carlson had said. Right on cue, as if to trumpet their idiocy, in rushed a platoon of policy wonks to defend the sanctity of markets and explain why creative destruction should and must apply every bit as much to people, families, and societies as it did to the buggy whip industry.

Bret Stephens devoted an entire column to riffing on a Monty Python movie, as if Carlson’s meaning were such a joke no serious refutation was warranted. (Then why devote an entire column to it?) It’s worth noting that the proffered catalogue of elite beneficence—“capital financing, deregulation, access to global markets, a stable and predictable regulatory and legal environment, IRAs and 401(k)s, talented immigrants, global cities, good food, universities that are the envy of the world, record-making growth and a world in which there’s almost no chance of my children being conscripted to fight a war”—while no doubt offered with utmost sincerely, reads like self-parody.

“The Right should reject Tucker Carlson’s victimhood populism” whinged David French, who, when not exploring a presidential campaign, never misses an opportunity to moralistically lambaste those to his right.

Later, Anton merrily deals out equally resounding slaps upside the empty heads of bewildered, hapless cucks Max Boot and Bill Kristol. Like I said, it’s a long piece, but stick with it to the end. It’s a sheer delight to read, brim-full of penetrating insight, clear-eyed analysis, and a bunch of good, toothsome lines to boot.

(Via Steyn)

Share

TINVOWOOT

And TINTOWOut, either.

It’s certainly wonderful to think that “all we need to do is find ways to constructively disagree with each other,” and think that this would solve most, if not all, of our problems. But there’s a tremendous difficulty with applying this to the modern ideological divide between Right and Left, the “reactionary” (true or otherwise) and the progressive. The difficulties lie in that this line of thinking implies that there are two sides which actually want rational discussion and a settling of differences rationally. Yet, there are not.

Indeed, what the Left wants is precisely the opposite of this. The progressive Left has not, does not, and never will seek some sort of accommodation with its ideological enemies. Instead, the Left seeks to acquire for itself the institutional and social power to silence its enemies. Ultimately, this proclivity stems from the very nature of what drives the “progressive idea,” which is that the “arc of history” is always bending towards the advancement of what the Left believes is “progress.” Since this trend is inexorable, there is no need, ultimately, to compromise with the Right, merely find various ways to outlast them and hasten their demise. This sort of thinking is responsible for everything from doxxing to the gulags and explains why progressivism is the single greatest evil that this world has ever seen.

At the risk of sounding like a progressive myself, one of the overarching problems with the modern world – which includes the worldview of the “classically liberal, libertarian” soft centre – is that it still holds onto essentially bourgeois attitudes about social and civic participation. These attitudes include notions of fair play, the “marketplace of ideas,” approaching consensus through reasonable discussion and the free and open exchange of ideas, and so forth. To the average American and Westerner, these all sound like pretty straightforward goals.

But they are not goals which the progressive Left shares. Indeed, the Left has absolutely no desire to see a “free and open exchange of ideas” because when that happens, they lose. When stacked against virtually any alternative, progressivism has a horrible track record, and deep down inside they know this. This is why they spend so much effort using institutional power to suppressed dissenters from their orthodoxy.  It’s why when they do appear to be engaging with ideological competitors, it nearly always takes the form of screaming about “fascism,” “racism,” or some other slur designed to signal to their fellows the presence of an enemy, much like the moaning of a brain-dead zombie in a horror movie.

From the progressive Left/SJW perspective, there is literally NO advantage to actually having open and honest dialogue with those on the Right about any topic, and especially not with the genuine-but-currently-dissident Right. They know that when they engage us in the “marketplace of ideas,” they lose. All that can happen for them is to see defections from their ranks and to lose their grip on institutional power. So why would they ever accede to an open exchange build about “rules of fairness,” if they don’t have to?

The short answer is, “they won’t.” So why would we ever expect them to?

The short answer is: we shouldn’t. The longer answer is: we MUSTN’T. Rather, we should concern ourselves exclusively and entirely with smiting them, crushing them, defeating them utterly. At each and every opportunity we can find or contrive. No quarter, no mercy, no remorse. Nothing less can suffice. What they intend for us is neither benign nor tolerable, and no stratagem or tactic is beyond them in the pursuit of their sinister goal. Full stop, end of story.

Via Gerard, who appends a Tweet that fleshes the whole thing out quite nicely.

Share

Madeleine wins big!

So my young ‘un had to write an essay a couple months back on “Why I’m the proudest kid in Gaston County.” At the time she complained to me that, and I quote, “I’m NOT the proudest kid in Gaston County. I don’t really like it here.” Which, y’know, out of the mouths of babes and all that. I nevertheless told her it wasn’t all THAT bad—when I was younger I could hardly wait to make my own escape, although I’m back in Gaston County now and damned glad and grateful to be too—and suggested some topics she might cover: the Schiele Museum, Daniel Stowe Botanical Gardens, Holy Angels hospital, and a few other outstanding local attractions.

Well, the essay won at school level and then citywide, and an awards banquet was held in Gastonia last night. Link to the video of Madeleine’s essay being read at the banquet, followed by her marching on up to receive the plaque while she absolutely beams with slightly puzzled joy, is here, for the interested parties among y’uns. Next, it’s on to Raleigh to be recognized by the NC Senate.

I mean, just…just…WOW. The essay, which I didn’t get a chance to read before it was turned in and only just saw, is quite well-written. I even get a mention in the thing my own personal self, which made me grin like a mule eating briars. Why yes, Daddy IS just bursting with pride right now. Why do you ask?

Update! It seems there’s a permissions problem preventing some folks from viewing the vid, probably on the ex-wife’s end. Apologies for that; I’ll check into it tomorrow.

Share

Politicized, weaponized

US intelligence and federal law enforcement bureaucracies have been subverted by the Left into tyrannical abominations. But hey, we all knew that already, right? An open letter to traitorous IC leadership, from a man who knows whereof he speaks.

I served with and supervised intelligence professionals many times in my more than three decades of service in uniform to the United States, including as a senior officer leading an intelligence unit. I am stunned at what I am seeing coming from your professional community and utterly dismayed at what sure looks like a series of politically motivated published intelligence reports and leaks of misinformation. These actions put intelligence information into the public domain without vetting, credibility, or authoritative support in order to de-legitimize a duly elected President of the United States in the weeks leading up to the inauguration of Donald J. Trump as our 45th President.

The latest is the fiasco that resulted in the release of false information (the unverified Steele Dossier) from your profession through two media organizations who average citizens now know as fake news outlets, thanks to the courage and communications ability of the President-elect. I demand to see some resignations and retirements from this one.

Just the week before that damning release of misinformation, your agencies actually published a report (the Intelligence Capability Assessment ordered by President Obama in December of 2016) making unsubstantiated assessments that Russia actually changed the outcome of a presidential election. I have read the report and its lousy work. Whoever approved it wasted American tax dollars. The thing is full of speculation highlighted by assessments that present NO EVIDENCE AS PROOF and not all intelligence agencies on the thing even agree with the presented assessments confidence level. Interestingly it does admit there is NO EVIDENCE Russia tampered with any election systems that could affect outcomes and clearly states the information released to the media by Wiki Leaks WAS NOT FORGED. Obviously, the information itself, accurate information from the Democrats and Mrs. Clinton herself, had some impact on the election but to link the outcomes specifically to successful Russian influence operations is unprofessional AND undermines our political process legitimacy, violating your oaths of office by causing grave damage to the United States.

This guy is a retired Air Force intelligence and bomber-squadron commander (he was on duty at the Pentagon on 9/11, bless his heart) who is now deeply and correctly indignant over the intolerable illegalities perpetrated by his erstwhile colleagues, saying “I for one, am ashamed to have ever been associated with the intelligence community and am calling you out to clean your own house!” The sentiment speaks well of his integrity, and damningly of theirs. He gets this part wrong, however:

The average American probably finds it difficult to believe these agencies are politicized but the evidence is now overwhelming.

With all due respect, sir, I’m afraid the average American is far more likely to just assume it at this late date. After watching the miserable boob Obama wield it so brazenly against his political enemies throughout his entire lamentable tenure, why wouldn’t they—indeed, how could they not? His too-optimistic assertion aside, though, Maness goes on from there to seriously scorch some Swamp critter snout, and it’s good stuff.

Share

Cheney V2.0?

More rich, buttery Barr goodness.

Barr is the new Dick Cheney: a stocky, bespectacled, confrontational, blunt, intelligent, unapologetically conservative, experienced, and high-powered official who believes in and fights for the office of the president. Just as Democrats loathed Cheney as a bugaboo manipulating President George W. Bush to further the interests of Halliburton, they attack Barr as a dishonest factotum of President Trump’s. The qualities that drove Democrats batty over Cheney—his inscrutability, his cleverness, his asperity, and above all his success—make them incensed about Barr. These happen to be qualities Republicans find appealing.

What’s behind conservative support for Cheney and Barr is their lack of embarrassment. Most Washingtonians, no matter their party, find it important to be held in esteem by the city’s tastemakers, who are overwhelmingly liberal. Not these two. The classic Cheney moment was his 2004 exchange with Pat Leahy on the Senate floor. Cheney complained that Leahy had called him a war profiteer. Leahy responded that Cheney had said he was a bad Catholic. So Cheney ended the conversation by telling Leahy to perform a physically impossible four-letter act. “You’d be surprised at how many people liked that,” Cheney recollected in a 2010 interview. “It’s sort of the best thing I ever did.” He’s selling himself short.

Republican fans of Barr circulated clips of his Senate appearance Wednesday even as media coverage of his testimony was uniformly negative. No Democrats are held in less esteem by conservatives than the ones on the Judiciary Committee. They will never live down their treatment of Brett Kavanaugh. Trump supporters nodded in agreement when Barr said the controversy over his March 24 description of the Mueller report is “mind-bendingly bizarre.” They chuckled when he said Mueller’s March 27 letter to him was “a bit snitty and I think it was probably written by one of his staff members.” They guffawed when Barr described the verb “spying” as “a good English word.” They cheered when Richard Blumenthal asked for notes Barr had taken of his phone conversation with Mueller and Barr told him no. “Why should you have them?”

Where his predecessor was genial and deferential to Congress and the press, Barr is disdainful and combative. At his April 18 press conference before the publication of the Mueller report, a CBS reporter asked Barr if his use of the word “unprecedented” to describe the circumstances of the Russia investigation was “quite generous to the president and his feelings and emotions.” Barr replied, “Is there another precedent for it?” “No,” the reporter acknowledged sheepishly. Another reporter wondered, “Is it an impropriety for you to come out and sort of spin the report before people are able to read it?” Barr said, “No,” and left the room. Lib owned.

Some out there are reminding us of something we all already know: that the chances of top-level malefactors like HILLARY!™ and Ogabe ever facing justice remain slim, and I can’t disagree. Nor do I anticipate meaningful reform of dangerously powerful and corrupt federal bureacracies from Barr’s efforts. Nonetheless, it sure is enjoyable to watch Barr roughly manhandle the Democrat-Socialists, making them squirm like a salted slug on a hot sidewalk. Elsewhere, Lindsay V2.0 scores a stinging, smarting hit himself, calling Mr Integrity out for his weaselly manipulation.

I am filing this story in the “put up or shut up” category of invitations. Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Lindsey Graham Friday morning sent a letter to Special Counsel Robert Mueller inviting him to testify about the phone call he had with A.G. Barr following the letter Mueller sent to Barr about the summary of findings the A.G. issued, pending release of the full report. That letter, purportedly meant to be private, nonetheless was leaked right before Barr testified before Graham’s committee and was used by Democrat members to criticize the A.G.

Mueller knows that Barr had him on a speakerphone, with witnesses present and taking notes. (Incidentally, what does that tell you about the actual regard in which Barr holds Mueller — a man he has known for decades?) Reportedly, during the conversation, Barr asked Mueller if there were any inaccuracies and was told by Mueller, no.

Meanwhile, the Democrat-controlled House Judiciary Committee is negotiating with Mueller over possible testimony. Just a guess: They are not demanding that staff members be given a half-hour to question Mueller.

The last line in Graham’s beautifully direct request to get all the cards on the table: “Please inform the Committee if you would like to provide testimony regarding any misrepresentation by the Attorney General.” Time to fish or cut bait, Slippery Bob.

Update! Gerard posts a Solzhenitsyn quote made all the more poignant by current events.

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousand fold in the future. When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers, we are not simply protecting their trivial old age, we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations.

We are also dishonoring our own integrity and posterity, thereby sowing the seeds of bloody strife, upheaval, and misery for those new generations sooner or later, as faith in the system and justice itself crumbles into ruin.

Obstruction update! Via Insty: “Barr is investigating Democrats. Democrats call for Barr to resign. According to Nadler, that’s obstruction of justice!” But it’s more than just that. It’s also this:

Don’t fool yourself. This latest assault on Attorney General Barr is a coordinated hit job cooked up between the media, the special counsel, and their allies in Congress. And it has only one purpose, to stop or slow Barr’s inquiry into the gross abuses leading up to the effort to spy on the Trump campaign.

I explained exactly why Mueller defied Barr here: “By salting the report with grand jury information that required redaction, Mueller guarantees the president remains subject to the innuendo and suspicion that comes with unnecessary secrecy.” In other words, it was a dirty trick. Open your eyes, Mr. Attorney General, because they’re coming for you now.

Oh, he seems like a smart enough fella. I’m pretty sure he already knows.

Coordinating with their allies in the media and the Senate, Mueller has attempted to set-up the attorney general. Barr was asked whether he knew why Mueller’s team was upset with the attorney general’s summary. He said he did not know what their concerns were. That was a truthful statement. But Sen. Patrick Leahy has attempted to use Mueller’s leaked letter to argue that the attorney general lied to Congress when he said he didn’t know what was of concern to Mueller’s team. The attorney general gave a factual and able explanation for the ginned up discrepancy.

What is Mueller’s endgame here? Impeachment? Don’t be ridiculous.

To answer that question, go back and look at where the Mueller people were standing on the night that Donald Trump shocked the world by upsetting Hillary Clinton. Robert Mueller left a $3.4 million partner job with WilmerHale, the same law firm that had just won a lawsuit for the Clinton Foundation, keeping Clinton emails secret. The Mueller probe provided former Clinton Foundation attorney Jeannie Rhee with the opportunity once again to protect Clinton by making sure the word “Fusion” never appeared in the Mueller report and by steering the Papadopoulos prosecution to help obscure the role of the Clinton-financed dossier in the hoax. The end-game is to continue to protect the coup plotters and deep-state bad actors who have used surveillance of Americans in much the same way the Soviets used it in Eastern Germany.

This is high stakes stuff. If the elites can continue using intelligence and law enforcement to interfere in American elections, they will eventually get good at it and we will lose our republic. The deep state allies are fighting like the “Unsullied” protecting the gates of Winterfell to cover for the bad actors still fumbling for their golden parachutes. Bottom line, the report, these new leaks, they’re just desperate attempts to delay the reckoning. The attorney general is now subject of a campaign of smear and intimidation and he must be protected so he can hold these villains to account.

Seeing as how the Clintons are up to their necks in this, Barr needs more than merely political protection; he should consider putting some serious private security on the payroll, lest he be found on a DC park bench after having committed suicide by shooting himself in the back of the head seventeen times.

Share

Bust ’em up, shut it down

Laura Hollis presents an idea whose time has surely come.

As long as we’re contemplating changes to the way we elect the president, or to the number of justices on the U.S. Supreme Court, let’s not exclude the legislative branch from the party.

But I’m not proposing that we reform Congress. I’m arguing that we should abolish it.

At this point, why do we need it? We have plenty of independent agencies, statutes and regulations; we don’t need any more. We don’t need any more taxes. And as for confirmation of federal judges? Each state can send two state senators to do the job that the U.S. Senate has done. They surely could not behave worse than what we saw with the Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings.

None of these megalomaniacs pays the slightest heed to the principle that Congress’ powers are limited. In 1791, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.”

Congress has either ceded or overstepped its constitutional authority since long ago. Would we really be worse off without a federal legislature?

Congress is a dysfunctional, staggeringly corrupt shitpit filled to the rafters with arrogant, parasitic career politicians—a breed the Founders rightly abhorred. Almost all of them have failed by every measure to live up to the hopes of the voters who sent them there. They use their position to enrich themselves at the nation’s expense; their sworn oath to uphold the Constitution is blandly made mock of six days a week, and twice on Sundays. Shut the whole comedy act down, turn the building into a museum or something, and force the deer ticks and leeches infesting the place to go out and make themselves an honest living for once in their squandered lives.

I know Hollis is probably just kidding around here, but I ain’t. Well, mostly.

Share

Chickens, roost, all that

As the man himself has reportedly said, they’re poking the wrong Barr.

Democrats, as expected, tried to cloud the conclusions by suggesting there was too much smoke in the president’s actions for there not to be fire somewhere. The best hope they had was a letter from Mueller telling Barr he was unhappy with the AG’s initial four-page letter on the report’s conclusions, saying it “did not fully capture” the scope of the entire 450-page report.

Barr called the letter a “bit snitty,” and countered the criticism by saying he had moved quickly to release the entire report, minus minimal redactions, and the whole world could see what Mueller had found — and didn’t find.

It was a legitimate, if thin, line of questioning, but Dems didn’t like the answer and lost it again. Obviously frustrated that their main talking point for the entire Trump presidency has come up empty, they savaged Barr and accused him of covering up for a corrupt ­president.

It was politics at its most dishonest as they tried to argue that up is down and black is white. Barr was mostly stoic, but allowed himself a brief moment to brilliantly summarize the outlandish effort to twist reality.

“How did we get to the point where the evidence is now that the president was falsely accused of colluding with the Russians, accused of being treasonous and accused of being a Russian agent, and the evidence now is that that was without a basis?” he asked. “And two years of his administration have been dominated by allegations that have now been proven false. But to listen to some of the rhetoric, you would think the Mueller report had found the opposite.”

No better, more concise statement has been made about the bankrupt nature of the Democratic Party and its leaders. They bet everything on Mueller validating their Big Lie of Russia, Russia, Russia, and now they have nothing.

Barr’s comportment as AG so far has been exemplary: quiet, judicious, and straightforward. Exhibit A:

In mid-February, shortly after he was sworn-in, Barr instructed Mueller’s team to identify any grand jury material in the final report “so we could redact that material and prepare the report for public release as quickly as we could.” Barr confirmed his order during his opening statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday morning. But Mueller did not abide by that request, and instead submitted a raw report without suggested redactions.

Since the report had not been vetted by the special counsel’s office, Barr explained, and it would have taken at least three weeks to protect sensitive information in the document, he decided to compose a summary of the report’s conclusions in order to partially satisfy the public’s interest.

“I made the determination that we had to put out some information about the bottom line,” Barr told the committee. “The body politic was in a high state of agitation. There was massive interest in learning what the bottom line results of Bob Mueller’s investigation was, particularly as to collusion. Former government officials were confidently predicting that the president and members of his family were going to be indicted. So I didn’t feel that it was in the public interest to allow this to go on for several weeks.”

A wise move by an honest man, in stark contrast with the worm Mueller’s greasy slithering. In light of Barr’s above statement we now return to Goodwin for another excellent, penetrating Barr quote, leaving no reason to wonder why the Democrat-Socialists hate him so much.

At one point, he talked of possible “overreach” by top officials, then added: “But what we have to be concerned about is a few people at the top getting into their heads that they know better than the American people.”

Perfectly, entirely correct. The trouble being, this attitude is the very cornerstone of Progressivism. It always has been; it underpins absolutely everything they do and say. Without it, they have no real reason to exist at all.

At another point, he said, “We have to stop using the criminal justice process as a political weapon.”

Which is a tactic every bit as fundamental to Progressivism as the sacrament of “rule by expert” is. Barr appears to be a no-nonsense sort of man with a crystal-clear understanding of what his duty as AG is, what his oath to uphold the Constitution means, and no intention whatsoever of brooking any interference from “higher loyalty” types who are in reality nothing more than shifty, corrupt weasels maneuvering in support of a hyper-partisan agenda. It’s like this:

Barr had apparently masterminded the most inept cover-up in history, first by accurately laying out the outcome of the special counsel’s investigation. Then, after some light redactions (none instigated by the president), by releasing the report to the public so the entire world could read it.

Now, if a fresh observer to the Russia collusion circus only heard from Democrats, he might not know that the Mueller report had been public for weeks — sifted through and debated extensively. He certainly wouldn’t know that no criminality was uncovered. But most people heard something else. And Barr’s greatest sin had been preempting the collusion spin for the first time.

In his initial letter, the attorney general informed the public, before media was able to manipulate and confuse the core findings, that, despite its best efforts, the special counsel — an open-ended, unimpeded investigation with virtually no oversight — couldn’t find evidence to corroborate the prevailing myth that had been perpetuated for more than two years by Democrats and the political media.

By accurately conveying that the investigation had exonerated Trump and his administration of criminal conspiracy or coordination with the Russians, two years of ostensibly serious reporting was exposed as little more than resistance fan fiction. Rather than take a moment’s self-reflection about how their actions had caused unprecedented political chaos, undermined trust in the electoral system and crowded out legitimate coverage of the presidency, the entire collusion industry just moved its frenzied focus onto obstruction.

Well, under oath, the attorney general confirmed that he had spoken to Mueller on the phone and that the special counsel had been “very clear” that the AG’s letter laying out the conclusions was not inaccurate. There’s been no evidence to contradict his claim.

The AG’s letter had also accurately conveyed that Mueller, who it seems spent a lot of his efforts ferreting out unseemly Trumpian outbursts rather than finding nefarious Russians, punted on charges of obstruction. Volume II of the Mueller report, on the issue of obstruction, reads like a political document meant to incite Democrats into doing what the investigation did not. And that is Barr’s other sin: refusing to play Mueller’s game.

Anybody still wondering why they hate him? The most effective endorsement for Barr, though, comes from none other than the irredeemable scumbucket Adam Schittforbrains:

The attorney general of the United States misled the country about an investigation implicating the president. Then he lied to Congress. Then he did something worse: He effectively said that the president of the United States is above the law.

William Barr should resign.

When Mueller finished his nearly two-year investigation, Barr could have released Mueller’s own summaries. He instead chose to write his own summary, and one that mischaracterized Mueller’s findings and conclusions.

Not according to Mueller it didn’t, Schittbag.

In his March 27 letter, Mueller stated that Barr’s actions had undermined a central purpose of the special counsel regulations, to “assure full public confidence in the outcome” of the investigation. Mueller was right, but Barr’s actions and statements have done far worse than that. They have undermined public confidence in the independence of the DOJ and the fair administration of justice.

Nope, not hardly. That was already taken care of by Comey and his filthy crew, scrambling around desperately to get Ogabe and Hillary!™, among plenty of others, clear of a due and proper reckoning for election-tampering by using the DoJ to illegally spy on Trump. Among plenty of other things.

In testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 1, Barr gave no convincing defense of his actions, nor his false statements to Congress, nor why the obstruction of justice laws do not apply to a president who instructs those around him to lie in an effort to conceal his actions. Instead, he said the president can end a criminal investigation simply because he thinks it’s “unfair” or unwarranted: “I think the department’s position would be that the president can direct the termination or the replacement of a special counsel.”

Seems a little Constitutional refresher might be helpful for ya, genius: the DoJ is part of the Executive branch, which is run by and subordinate to, y’know, the CHIEF EXECUTIVE. He can fire, hire, direct, initiate, terminate, or rearrange anyfucking thing he wants in the branch he is in charge of—within the Constitutional constraints placed on his own office, of course.

That’s more than enough of that garbage, I think; whenever we want any more shit from Schitt, we can always squeeze his enormous head. The day I’m willing to humbly sit back and take lessons on the Constitution from a devious Democrat-Socialist mediocrity like him is…well, I assure one and all that that day just ain’t coming.

Go get ’em, Mr Barr. Go get ’em all, each and every one; let the guilty parties be brought to justice, and cram it all right down Schitt and Co’s throats until they choke and fucking die.

Update! “Lied to Congress,” was it? Bullschitt.

The real problem is that Mueller wanted Barr to execute a public-relations hit on Trump and wasn’t happy that Barr confined the summary to the bottom-line conclusions. Barr said he didn’t want to attempt to summarize the entire report and would let the report speak for itself. He has never deviated from that explanation and Mueller’s letter points to no inaccuracy or misleading information.

Thus, Barr’s answer was 100 percent accurate.

Barr has now revealed that Mueller made a conscious choice to salt the report with unsegregated grand jury material. It wasn’t until after Barr released his March 24 summary that Mueller redacted the summaries from the report. Barr wasn’t interested in making a press release for the president’s enemies. That makes him an enemy of the juggernaut. That’s his real crime.

We just learned that the Justice Department sent a less-redacted Mueller report to Congress and that the Democrats haven’t bothered to read it. Instead, they now want a legal battle over Barr’s refusal to turn over a completely unredacted report.

To be clear, they don’t want the report, which is 98 percent unredacted in the public form. They want the fight.

They’re all in a very deep hole, and have no clue how to get themselves out other than to just keep right on digging.

Share

Looks like another one I’ll be stomping the whole concept of “fair use” over

Fortunately, it’s an unusually long ‘un, so I don’t feel quite so bad about it. Kurt sets the stage with an intriguing first-person recounting of the 1992 LA riots.

I was a first-year law student, back a year from the Gulf War, and I had just joined the California Army National Guard. My unit was the 3rd Battalion, 160th Infantry, and we got called up early the first night and were on the streets for three long weeks. Making it even more delightful was the fact that the unit was in Inglewood, which was pretty much on fire. They burned most everything around, except our armory – that would have gone badly for them – and the Astro Burger.

My battalion commander grabbed then-First Lieutenant Schlichter, and we went all over the city in his humvee as he led his deployed and dispersed troops. Our soldiers came, in large part, from the areas most effected by the riots, and they were notably unpleasant to the thugs and criminals who quickly discovered our guys had no patience for nonsense. One dummy discovered that the hard way when he tried to run over some Guard soldiers from another battalion; he had a closed casket funeral.

The city went insane. Order simply ceased to exist. It was Lord of the Flies. I remember a cop totally breaking down because everything was completely out of control.

But I had a M16A1 – a real assault rifle – and I had a bunch of buddies with M16A1s. The regular folks … not so much. The decent people of LA were terrified, and with good reason. See, the dirty little secret of civilization is that it’s designed to maintain order when 99.9% of folks are orderly. But, say, if just 2% of folks stop playing by the rules…uh oh. Say LA’s population was 15 million in 1992…that’s 300,000 bad guys. There were maybe 20,000 cops in all the area agencies then, plus 20,000 National Guard soldiers and airman, plus another 10,000 active soldiers and Marines the feds brought in. Law enforcement is based on the concept that most people will behave and that the crooks will be overwhelmed by sheer numbers of officers. But in the LA riots, law enforcement was massively outnumbered. Imposing order took time.

And until then, our citizens were on their own, at the mercy of the mob. Betting that the cavalry was going to come save you was a losing bet.

LA’s Korean shopkeepers knew that. They operated many small businesses in some of the least fashionable areas of Los Angeles, and they were already widely hated by activists, being scapegoated for problems and pathologies that long pre-dated their immigration to Southern California. So, they became targets for the mobs.

Bad decision by the mobs.

See, most of these Koreans had done their mandatory service in the Republic of Korea’s Army. Those ROK soldiers are the real deal – the Norks are not a theoretical threat and the South Korean army does not spend a lot of time talking about feelings. They were some solid dudes. So, when the local dirtbags showed up for some casual looting, they noticed the rooftops were lined with hardcore guys packing some serious heat, including the kind of scary rifles that the Democrats want to ban.

The Rooftop Koreans.

It did not take long for the bad guys to realize that the Rooftop Koreans were not playing games – they were playing for keeps. The mob went away in search of softer targets.

There’s a lesson there.

Boy, isn’t there. Isn’t there just. The denouement:

It’s your duty to be prepared to defend our community. Your duty. Yes, being a citizen of a free country is sometimes hard. Too bad. Tighten up and be ready and able to pick up a weapon. Whether it’s a riots and disaster, or whether it’s some scumbag who decides to shoot up your house of worship or a shopping mall, it’s on you.

You have a job to do when chaos comes – no shirking your responsibility and outsourcing it to the local police or the Army. Being a citizen is not a spectator sport.

Now, the left does not see things that way. The mere idea of a good guy with a gun makes them wet themselves. The left hates the notion that we citizens might take personal ownership of, and responsibility for, the security of our own country – that we might act like citizens. See, citizens are unruly. Stubborn. Uppity. We’re hard to control at the best of times. Armed, 300 million of us are impossible to control, unless we consent to it.

Now, the Founders, who enshrined the natural right of free men to keep and bear arms in our Bill of Rights preceded only by the rights of free speech and freedom of religion, knew this. To them, an armed citizenry that is prepared, mentally and logistically, to respond to threats to the people is a feature.

To the liberal elite, it is a bug.

And there’s a reason for that, too, which can easily be inferred from this picture of how the minions of exactly the kind of socialist shitrapy people like AOC, Buttplug, Omar, Obama, Pelousy, HILLARY!™, &C intend to inflict on us respond to even peaceably-expressed dissent:

Venezuela-victim.jpg


Gee, wonder if that poor bloody wreck at left might wish he and his fellow protesters had been armed.

Share

Notable quotes

Two instant classics from Ol’ Remus:

Ever notice “tolerance, equality and inclusion” means banning something or ejecting someone?

Odd, that. I’ll truncate this next one to highlight the part that really grabbed me:

The best training for civil war is how to stay out of it.

Wisdom, distilled to its purest essence.

Share

Johnny Rotten strikes again!

Anarchy for the USA, it’s coming sometime…maybe.

Sex Pistols frontman Johnny Rotten isn’t afraid to buck the establishment and sound the alarm over L.A.’s homeless epidemic, which has literally landed at his front door.

The 63-year-old lives in Venice Beach where there has been a surge of homeless vagrants that have vandalized his multi-million dollar home and spoiled the beaches with “poo” and “needles.”

“A couple of weeks ago I had a problem,” he said. “They came over the gate and put their tent inside, right in front of the front door. It’s like…the audacity. And if you complain, what are you? Oh, one of the establishment elite? No, I’m a bloke that’s worked hard for his money and I expect to be able to use my own front door.”

He added that his wife Nora, who suffers from Alzheimer’s, isn’t able to cope with bums trying to “steal the iron bars off the windows” for the scrap metal and bricks coming through his windows.

“My wife’s ill and she can’t cope with this. But at 2 a.m. last week, a brick whizzed through the top floor window, the bedroom. Sorry, Mr. Policeman. I need your help.”

They have also spoiled beach life: “And the heroin spikes…You can’t take anyone to the beach because there’s jabs just waiting for young kids to put their feet in — and poo all over the sand.”

If you think John’s attitude ain’t Punk As Fuck, allow Nolte to explain:

This might sound like hypocrisy coming from a punk rocker, but it’s really not. The whole ethos of ’70s and ’80s punk rock is live and let live. No rules…at least until you interfere with me living the life I want to live, which is exactly what is happening to Rotten.

In fact, Rotten (whose real name is John Lydon) is bucking an establishment that treats these vagrants as sacred cows while at the same time pretending they do not exist because their rising numbers reflect badly on the Democrat-run strongholds that cannot manage the growing problem.

The media and the left-wing political establishment want us to see the homeless as victims of a cruel American capitalism that allows good people to fall through society’s cracks. Naturally, the only solution to this problem is big government socialism.

Johnny Rotten complaining about one of the most sacred of sacred cows is as punk as it gets, and so is his support of Trump and Brexit.

Punk was always about undermining the status quo and just going against the grain generally, so I’d say Nolte has the right of things here. As for the heroin spikes, I’d guess his experience with Sid Vicious’ ignoble end could have left him with a particularly bad taste in his mouth where that’s concerned. Either way, keep rockin’, Johnny.

Share

The exception that proves the rule?

Apparently, not ALL Millennials are stupid, shallow, and spoiled rotten.

I’m sitting in a small coffee shop near Nokomis trying to think of what to write about. I scroll through my newsfeed on my phone looking at the latest headlines of Democratic candidates calling for policies to “fix” the so-called injustices of capitalism. I put my phone down and continue to look around. I see people talking freely, working on their MacBook’s, ordering food they get in an instant, seeing cars go by outside, and it dawned on me. We live in the most privileged time in the most prosperous nation and we’ve become completely blind to it. Vehicles, food, technology, freedom to associate with whom we choose. These things are so ingrained in our American way of life we don’t give them a second thought. We are so well off here in the United States that our poverty line begins 31 times above the global average. Thirty. One. Times. Virtually no one in the United States is considered poor by global standards. Yet, in a time where we can order a product off Amazon with one click and have it at our doorstep the next day, we are unappreciative, unsatisfied, and ungrateful.

Our unappreciation is evident as the popularity of socialist policies among my generation continues to grow. Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently said to Newsweek talking about the millennial generation, “An entire generation, which is now becoming one of the largest electorates in America, came of age and never saw American prosperity.”

Never saw American prosperity. Let that sink in. When I first read that statement, I thought to myself, that was quite literally the most entitled and factually illiterate thing I’ve ever heard in my 26 years on this earth.

Which, given what the Enemedia has become, is saying something. I’ll hold off on excerpting further, but trust me: there’s more, it’s all great, and you’re gonna love it. So get yourselves on over there and read the rest. Hats off to you, Alyssa, and best of luck with your writing career. You’re obviously quite talented, but given the incredible tide of bias you’ll be swimming against in the publishing world you’re probably gonna need all the luck you can get.

Via Insty, who throws in: “Indeed. It is essential for Democrats’ objectives that things be awful. Or, failing that, that people think that things are awful.” The REAL hell of it is that, when they’re in charge, things ARE awful. Must be coinkydink, or maybe more of that Heinleinian “bad luck,” maybe.

Update! You’ll want to read all of this one, too.

This is no “sugar high” for the U.S. economy. To the great shock and disappointment of liberals who have been desperately hoping for an economic downturn, the U.S. economy once again blew away expectations, recording a 3.2 percent GDP growth rate in the first quarter of this year.

Even MSNBC described the quarterly growth as “extraordinary.”

Liberals have been predicting an impending recession for months. Frustrated with the obvious success of President Trump’s sweeping middle-class tax cuts – which they had claimed would result in “Armageddon” – Democrats next argued that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) would only produce a “sugar high” for the economy. With each successive quarter that their predictions have failed to materialize, they’ve only become more frustrated with the economy’s long-term prospects.

This isn’t a one-time anomaly, either. GDP growth has been increasing steadily throughout Trump’s presidency, and the most recent data bring us to three consecutive quarters in which year-over-year growth has been 3 percent or higher. In fact, GDP growth has averaged 3.3 percent over the past four quarters.

When Trump predicted this economic outcome more than three years ago, the Washington establishment snickered and scoffed, convinced that the pathetic economy Obama presided over was simply the “new normal.”

And it would have been the “new normal” for every bit as long as the American people allowed Obama-types to run things. It’s a testament to the remarkable resilience of capitalism that it’s capable of so speedily bouncing back once the socialist shackles are…hell, not even removed, just loosened up a mite.

All of us, even the freshly-minted Trump skeptics among us, badly need to remember one crucial thing: bad news for the country is good news for the Democrat-Socialists—and very much vice the versa.

Share

A long campaign, a never-ending war

Good interview/chat with a brilliant, insightful man.

Victor D. Hanson: Well, in the book (The Case For Trump—M) I think I concluded in my chapter Mueller that was written a year ago, the greatest irony in Trump’s presidency when he was falsely accused of colluding with Russia by people who were actually colluding with Russia. And I think that assessment that came out well before that Mueller was validated. I think we’re gonna get the Mueller report today or tomorrow. But if you were to summarize the Mueller investigation, there’s a lot of ways to look at it, but I think the best is that there were people within the United States government–the director of the FBI, James Comey; the director of the CIA, John Brennan; the director of National Intelligence, James Clapper; the deputy director; and an array of others; and then NSC and the DOJ who felt A: that Hillary Clinton was going to win. They had followed the analytics and the polls–90 percent surety. But they felt as an insurance policy that Donald Trump for a variety of reasons–culturally, politically, socially–was unacceptable as president. And the very thought that he could be president was so foreign and disruptive that they felt they had a higher duty, a higher loyalty to stop that. So what did they do? They started to surveil his campaign, and they put informants we know into his campaign. In October of 2016, they went to a Federal Surveillance Court–FISA court–and deluded that court by not telling the true nature of opposition research from Hillary Clinton’s campaign which was unverified. And then they used that to surveil Carter Page who had work for Trump, but they were able to go back in time to a time when he was actively in surveils communications and then reverse target that by tapping all the people that he had talked to.

They, in the case of the National Security Council, they requested names that came up in these surveillances that be unmasked and then they leaked them. How did this translate in real terms? If you and I were reading newspapers in September, October 2016–Mother Jones, Yahoo News–they were printing things that Trump was involved with the Russians, and that permeated the press. We forget that now. Then when Trump did the unthinkable, he won both in anger at that fact but also as a preemptive defense of their behavior. You see, because you’ve got to remember the dialectic would have been “President Clinton, look at all I did for you. I should be rewarded. I went beyond the call of duty.” And now the mentality went “My gosh, I’ve got legal exposure. So we’ve got to press further.” So then it was a methodology of getting more FISA requests and disrupting the transition. And then finally the act that resulted in the Mueller commission, and then to dethrone. And then finally the larger context of this was when he was elected there was an effort to sue three states for the voting machines and nullify the election. There was a sustained effort to give the Steele dossier to the electors and to persuade the electors not to vote according to their constitutional mandates. Then there was almost immediately 60 representatives that voted for impeachment the week he was inaugurated. Then there was an effort to sue on the emoluments clause of the constitution to remove him. Then there was the 25th Amendment psychodrama that went on for … And then finally there was Rod Rosenstein and Andrew McCabe meeting to see if they could pull cabinet members to remove him. This is in addition to the Stormy Daniels psychodrama, the Michael Cohen, the tax returns–so there’s been a sustained effort not to wait until 2020, but to remove the president of the United States under the idea that we are so moral and anointed unelected officials, we have a duty to somebody higher than the American people. And boil that down and it was a coup attempt to destroy the presidency before its tenure had expired.

Jan Jekielek: So, basically, it was any means necessary where we’re OK to try to remove the sitting president.

Victor D. Hanson: I think so. I think these unelected bureaucrats, call them what you want–Deep State, members of the administrative state–they were analogous to people in history that worked in the Byzantine court, or the El Escorial in the Spanish Empire, or the people at Versailles. They were a permanent cast of unelected representatives that felt that the liberal progressive project under Obama would be continued for a 16-year interlude. And that somebody who didn’t deserve to be nominated under no circumstances should have been president and when he was elected should fail. That was not happening. So they called upon themselves to remove him. And I’m not trying to be overdramatic. Because remember on September 5 of 2018 we had an anonymous op-ed in The New York Times that was geared, by the way, to come out at the same time as the Bob Woodward book. … is a one-two punch in which a person said, “I am a Republican Deep State bureaucratic appointee within the administration, and I’m trying to stop what I think are wrong decisions by the president. I’m a member of the resistance.” That’s what he said. That was—trim away the imprimatur of the New York Times—it was basically a call for insurrection.

That’s by way of an introductory tidbit snipped from a long, wide-ranging interview. I’ve only gotten partway through it myself, so you can safely bet I’ll be updating this post with more as I wade further into it—or just starting a new post entirely, maybe.

Share

Losers, by choice

Kurt unloads so resoundingly on Conservative Inc, I just…can’t even.

Now, it’s not really fair to imply that the Never Trumpers hate Trump solely because he’s vulgar and crude – or, as normal people see it, unwilling to meekly take the guff the Never Trumpers’ country club class pals dish out like a proper gentleman should. They do find him aesthetically displeasing, but it also gnaws at them because every time he stands up to the garbage Democrats, the garbage press, or the garbage jerks and pervs of Hollywood, his refusal to knuckle-under reminds Team Fail that they don’t have the stones to do the same. He shames their cowardly weakness.

It’s clear, in retrospect, that George W. Bush’s supine acceptance of the abuse the elite heaped upon him was not because he was too classy and too decent to respond in kind. Since Obama left office and he rediscovered his vocal cords, Bush has had zero problem trashing Trump and Trump supporters who, like many of us, stood by Bush in the ’00s while Bush was treading water in a sea of mediocrity. No, it’s clear that W was afraid to fight back against fellow members of the ruling class. He cared about being part of the club. Not The Donald. Trump, by fighting, demonstrates that the establishment GOPers are weak. And it eats at them.

But besides providing a manly contrast to their own gimp-like submission to the leftist establishment, Trump infuriates the Never Trumpers for another reason. He’s kicked them out of their comfy sinecures. One of Trump’s magical powers is to make his enemies reveal their own grift complicity, and boy, have they ever. As a result, while once the mandarins of Conservative, Inc., traded on their insider influence and privilege, under Trump they are outsiders. Copies of the Weekly Standard used to be all over the Bush White House. Now, if its inept crew had not slammed it into an iceberg, you would be lucky to find a few pages at the bottom of Barron’s pet iguana’s cage.

Bill Kristol, Max Boot, and all the rest are nobodies, relegated to occasionally joining CNN panels and fighting with Ana Navarro over the doughnuts in the green room. Where’s Bob Corker now? Jeff Flake hasn’t even got an MSNBC gig; I think last week he was the dude who offered to supersize my order.

Pretty stinging bitch-slaps on Bush and the rest of the Koup Klux Klowns, to be sure. But just wait till you get a load of what he has in store for poor ol’ Mittens.

They are reduced to occasionally popping up on Twitter to inspire a session of Weakheart Whack-A-Mole from actual conservatives. Just look at Senator for Some Reason Mitt Romney. The guy I am sorry I voted for in 2012 is always eager to say something prissy about the president to try to please the same people who, back in 2012, accused him of being a racist and giving a lady cancer. For his obedience, he gets a tasty treat and a pat on the head, like the good doggie he is. But everyone knows that if the elite ever thought that the Distinguished Gentleman From Whatever State He Thinks He Can Get Elected In Next might actually pose a threat to the status quo, he’d be figuratively caged up and driven to Canada on the roof.

As Jed Clampett always said: WEEEEEEEELLL DOGGIES! Schlichter really outdoes himself with this bilious, incendiary masterpiece; I must say, I can’t recall ever coming closer to just saying to hell with fair use and reposting the whole dang thing. But I’ll restrain myself, so you can click on over and revel in every righteous word of the original.

Share

Guilty as charged

Time to start another Mueller thread, I believe. The preamble: former NeverTrumpTard turned reluctant Trump supporter Andrew Klavan on who’s the better man.

At one point in the report, Mueller mulls over whether he could prove Trump’s criminal intent to commit obstruction when so many of Trump’s attacks on the investigation happened in plain sight. In other words, it’s hard to accuse a man of being deceptive when he does everything right out in front of you, even when he’s in the wrong. He didn’t even seek to redact the report by claiming Executive Privilege.

Compare that to a president who masquerades as a high-minded intellectual descended from on high to cause the seas to stop rising while he fundamentally transforms our country — but who is really just another Chicago machine pol who uses the powerful institutions of the federal government as partisan weapons. Compare it to a desiccated gothic ruin of corruption and greed who masquerades as an America-loving public servant while she calls ordinary Americans deplorable, racist, homophobic and all the rest.

In other words, in their attacks, slanders and maneuvers against Donald Trump, the agents of the Deep State and their media fellow travelers revealed themselves to be far worse than the obstreperous president they were hounding.

And meanwhile, while they, in the guise of “The Resistance,” have accomplished literally jack-diddley-nothing for this country, the horrid, mean, rotten, no-good, very bad Donald Trump has restored our economy, destroyed ISIS, realigned our foreign policy toward sanity and realigned our courts with the Constitution.

So really, the only difference between Trump and the people who hate him is that he’s authentically what he seems, he’s competent, he’s trying to make things work, and they are living a lie while trying to suck power from the hands of the people into their own.

Klavan, bless his heart, might remain ambivalent in his support for Trump, sure. Fair enough, I guess; he’s entitled to, although his closing ‘graph amounts to a pretty full-throated endorsement. But now let’s have ourselves a look at what Trump is really guilty of.

He acted as any innocent man might who realized he was being framed for a crime his framers, rather than he himself, committed: collusion with Russia, treason of which he was accused publicly by top-level intel agents working for the media, a former president, and the opposition candidate. Trump objected to the coordination, collusion, and conspiracy among his political enemies to commit a crime against himself, the office of the presidency, the American People, and democracy — first, to frame the candidate for the nation’s highest office, and second, to frame the president now sitting in the nation’s highest office.

He’s guilty of feeling sincere frustration against the daily, persistent, and disingenuous political attacks, lies, and speculation; he’s guilty for expressing opinion. He’s guilty for protesting the dishonest witch hunt that is nothing more than revenge for his 2016 victory and his subsequent astonishing successes. He’s guilty of sincerity and honesty, for thinking he’s being unjustly prosecuted and framed by corrupt officials of a corrupt-to-the-core party, some of whom profess to belong to his party but are, actually, working actively against it.

He acted as any innocent man might who would deny the preposterous charges made against him by serious people formerly in power whose favored candidate lost. He acted as any innocent man might who would object to the methods by which these charges were fabricated out of thin air, paid for by the political opposition, manipulated by the media, the goal posts frequently moved, and how the transparent politically motivated story du jour was amplified, distributed, and spun.

He acted as any innocent man should act — by pushing back.

He acted by refusing to lie down while being steamrolled.

He acted by refusing to be railroaded into criminality not of his making.

He acted as any innocent man should, by trying to obstruct injustice

Many supporting links throughout, which as per usual I’m too slack to transcribe. Just go read all of it, people. I would love to just C&P the whole damned thing; it really is that good, and I promise you’ll enjoy it.

Update! Mittens is “appalled.”


Yeah, dry up and blow away, whydon’tcha. Don’t look now, bright boy, but Greenwald just blew the roof right off of all that tripe.

THE TWO-PRONGED CONSPIRACY THEORY that has dominated U.S. political discourse for almost three years – that (1) Trump, his family and his campaign conspired or coordinated with Russia to interfere in the 2016 election, and (2) Trump is beholden to Russian President Vladimir Putin — was not merely rejected today by the final report of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. It was obliterated: in an undeniable and definitive manner.

The key fact is this: Mueller – contrary to weeks of false media claims – did not merely issue a narrow, cramped, legalistic finding that there was insufficient evidence to indict Trump associates for conspiring with Russia and then proving their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That would have been devastating enough to those who spent the last two years or more misleading people to believe that conspiracy convictions of Trump’s closest aides and family members were inevitable. But his mandate was much broader than that: to state what did or did not happen.

That’s precisely what he did: Mueller, in addition to concluding that evidence was insufficient to charge any American with crimes relating to Russian election interference, also stated emphatically in numerous instances that there was no evidence – not merely that there was insufficient evidence to obtain a criminal conviction – that key prongs of this three-year-old conspiracy theory actually happened. As Mueller himself put it: “in some instances, the report points out the absence of evidence or conflicts in the evidence about a particular fact or event.”

In sum, Democrats and their supporters had the exact prosecutor they all agreed was the embodiment of competence and integrity in Robert Mueller. He assembled a team of prosecutors and investigators that countless media accounts heralded as the most aggressive and adept in the nation. They had subpoena power, the vast surveillance apparatus of the U.S. government at their disposal, a demonstrated willingness to imprison anyone who lied to them, and unlimited time and resources to dig up everything they could.

The result of all of that was that not a single American – whether with the Trump campaign or otherwise – was charged or indicted on the core question of whether there was any conspiracy or coordination with Russia over the election. No Americans were charged or even accused of being controlled by or working at the behest of the Russian government. None of the key White House aides at the center of the controversy who testified for hours and hours – including Donald Trump, Jr. or Jared Kushner – were charged with any crimes of any kind, not even perjury, obstruction of justice or lying to Congress.

That’s because, pathetic bitter-clingers like Mittens and David French notwithstanding, there’s no there there, and there never was.

Smackdown update! Oh, ouch. Just…ouch.

President Donald Trump joked Saturday that Sen. Mitt Romney could have beaten Barack Obama in 2012 if he fought the former president as much as the current president.

“If Mitt Romney spent the same energy fighting Barack Obama as he does fighting Donald Trump, he could have won the race,” Trump wrote on Twitter, adding “(maybe)!”

He shared a clip of Romney appearing to be emotional as he lost the election in 2012.

Trump has a history of mocking Romney as a candidate who “choked like a dog” in the 2012 election, even saying that the former Massachusetts governor “walks like a penguin.”

“Once a choker, always a choker,” he said.

Is that all, you ask? Not hardly, sez I.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is not at all pleased with Utah Sen. Mitt Romney’s constant attacks on President Donald Trump and even said he is sickened by the idea that Romney could have become President of the United States.

“Know what makes me sick, Mitt? Not how disingenuous you were to take @realDonaldTrump $$ and then 4 yrs later jealously trash him & then love him again when you begged to be Sec of State, but makes me sick that you got GOP nomination and could have been @POTUS,” Huckabee wrote in a tweet on Friday.

“More context-rivals in 08 for sure [they were rivals] but in 2012 I campaigned across USA for him, spoke for him at RNC. He doesn’t have to like @realDonaldTrump as a lot of elitists don’t. But we need flip-flops on the beach, not in the Senate.”

Good, toothsome stuff. Actually, though, Hucklebee is wrong on one count: Mittens quite clearly could NOT have been POTUS. I mean, seeing as how he already got his ass beaten like a big bass drum and all.

Piss off, loser. You might be able to pull the wool over their eyes in Utah, you fake phony fraud, but the rest of us ain’t that blind.

Share

Report drops, hilarity ensues

Hemingway creates the new mantra: Remember The Names.


Keep Molly’s slogan in mind while reading this:

MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace exploded in the aftermath of Attorney General Bill Barr’s press conference Thursday morning. Wallace’s mental condition visibly deteriorated during the course of one particularly impassioned rant, in which she smeared Barr as a “shill” and a “human shield” for the President, until she was reduced to repeatedly crying, “Why? Why?”

The grief-stricken Deadline: White House host began her tirade with a number of accusations directed at the President: “As the country’s chief executive, he sat in his pajamas watching Fox & Friends maligning the FBI, maligning Robert Mueller, maligning Rod Rosenstein.”

And watching the Gorilla Channel too, no doubt.

She then turned her ire to Barr: “Rule of law had a deficit because Donald Trump had been kicking it in the teeth for 22 months. And what the country’s Attorney General did was walk in there and back up the guy doing the kicking.”

“Why?” She demanded. “Why?”

There will be a strong wave of trying to bully the press, saying, “It’s over! It’s over! No collusion, no obstruction.”

If you ask me, there ought to be way more than just “bullying” in store for you despicable shitbags, bitch. There ought to be public mockery—harsh, aggressive, and ceaseless. You and your pestilential colleagues ought to be hounded out of restaurants, harrassed in public, never allowed a moment’s peace anywhere you go. You and your dishonest reportage should be spurned and scorned; your private lives should be fair game for investigation and exposure by intrepid muckrakers. Your careers as “journalists” should wither and die from mass disinterest, forcing you to Learn To Code. The enormity of your wilfully destructive crimes demands no less.

There’s a whole helluva lot more schadenfreudelicious dementia and mental breakdown on display here, so much of it that I won’t wade into any more of it for the nonce. Rather, I’ll toss out a couple of the more toothsome morsels from Barr’s press conference.

Attorney General William Barr doesn’t take any nonsense, especially from the liberal media. After his remarks to the press, Barr opened the floor for some questions. CBS’ Paula Reid asked about how Barr has presided over the release of this report, noting on concerns about the redaction process, as Barr’s remarks about spygate are being used in Trump fundraising emails, he’s exonerated him on collusion, he’s cleared him of obstruction, and had words that were generous to the president.

“What do you say to people on both sides of the aisle, who are concerned that you are trying to protect the president,” she asked. 
“It just seems there’s a lot of effort to go out of your way to acknowledge how this was difficult for him,” quoting the portion of the remarks where Barr said, Trump “faced an unprecedented situation.”

“Well, is there another precedent for it,” replied Barr.

“No, but it’s unusual that…,” said Reid.

“Okay, so unprecedented is an accurate description, isn’t it,” said Barr.  

One more bite:

Reporter: “Given that, why did you and Mr. Rosenstein feel the need you had to take it to the next step to conclude there was no crime, especially given DOJ policy?”

Barr: “The very prosecutorial function and all our powers as prosecutors, including the power to convene grand juries and compulsory process that’s involved there, is for one purpose and one purpose only. It’s to determine yes or no, was alleged conduct criminal or not criminal. That is our responsibility and that’s why we have the tools we have. And we don’t go through this process just to collect information and throw it out to the public. We collect this information. We use that compulsory process for the purpose of making that decision. And because the special counsel did not make that decision, we felt the department had to. That was a decision by me and the deputy attorney general. Yes.”

Reporter: “Did the special counsel indicate that he wanted you to make the decision or that it should be left for Congress?

It ain’t Congress’ decision to make, halfwit. As Barr already told you, that’s his job. Scads of unhinged mental disorder from the Hollywood not-so-smart set to be found here, should your funny bone need more stimulation. But sad, sorry truth remains:

Barr Is Right About Everything. Admit You Were Wrong.
After Trump’s vindication, the liberal media and its allies in government should face a reckoning. I’m not holding my breath.

Nor should you, Chris.

For nearly four years, members of America’s ruling class, especially those in the media, the academy and government, have operated on one central, unquestioned assumption: orange man bad. This stifling orthodoxy led to a blind, counterfactual faith in the theory that Mr. Trump had somehow colluded with “the Russians” (never well defined) to win the election. Again, the specific charges were always amorphous — plastic enough to change as needed. That’s hardly surprising: That’s the way conspiracy theories always work. The Russian collusion hoax was in fact nothing more than a massively multiplayer coping mechanism for people who couldn’t accept the results of the 2016 election.

But why is it not enough to simply acknowledge that you dislike Mr. Trump and disagree with his policies? What psychological purpose does adding the fiction of a conspiracy serve?

Well, it was a reassuring totem—like a toddler’s passy, blanky, or teddy bear—for your basic, run-of-the-mill liberal ignorrhoids on campus, in coffee shops and craft-beer bars, in vegan restaurants, and other such urban dens of hipster iniquity. But for the power-elite operatives of the Swamp who actually perpetrated the thing (and their always-helpful Enemedia rumpswabs), there was a different and much darker purpose: they were desperately trying to sweep the nefarious crimes of the Obama junta and the Clinton cartel under the rug and out of view, before they came back around to bite them all in the ass.

Bottom line: they tried to construct a gallows, from which they hoped to politically hang Trump, on a shaky-at-best foundation of lies. The failure to keep this tottering, slapdash structure from collapsing has now driven the whole lot of them right into batshit lunacy—real, literal insanity—from distraught, weeping “journalists” and celebutards to creepy, slimy hack-politicians like Adam Schitt, Jabba the Nadler, Bernie the Billionaire Commie, and all the other Sleazeball Hall Of Fame dis-honorees.

For the sake of their own mental health, I offer this advice to rattled, addled Lefties drowning in a sea of their own tears or collapsing into drooling catatonia all over the nation: You lost the 2016 election. Trump is, and will most likely remain, President of the United States until at least January 2021. Hillary!™ is not and never will be President. GET OVER IT. At long last, do what you so smarmily demanded Trump guarantee to during the debates: accept the results of an election you lost, rather than try to undo it by subversive, illegal, and treasonous means.

Honestly, though, I hope they ignore my advice and carry on as before with this circus. They’re destroying themselves; they’re depressed, panicked, and completely miserable. They have nothing whatsoever to offer but more of the same bughouse shitshow they’re putting on now, along with the same tired, proven-failure policy proposals that have crashed and burned a thousand and one times already. And if that craptacular combination doesn’t result in the Demonrats’ complete undoing and their eventual banishment to history’s junkheap at the hands of a fed-up American electorate, then the American electorate will damned well deserve what it’s gonna get.

Share

Pushing all the right buttons

Living in their heads rent-free.

If the media were honest, more would acknowledge that Trump’s appeals are logical, even conventional. Incumbents always try to broaden their base, and generally have the extra advantage of time because they have no serious primary opponents.

That’s what Trump is doing, but the really odd thing is how Dems react. Time after time, they lurch to the left when it is obvious they already are far out of the American mainstream.

Yet Leftward March is the only command they obey.

So there they are, rallying around Rep. Ilhan Omar after Trump criticized her for characterizing 9/11 as “some people did something.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi blasted Trump for posting a video of the burning Twin Towers mixed with Omar’s comments.

It was, Pelosi said, “beneath the dignity of the Oval Office” for Trump to post the video, adding that “I don’t think any president of the United States should use the tragedy of 9/11 as a political tool.”

Ah, yes, 9/11 was a “tragedy.” By being so politically correct, Pelosi guts the meaning of the worst attack in American history and avoids using the words Islamic terrorism. Count it as another victory for Trump — and another day where Pelosi is caught between Trump and the far-left loons in her caucus.

Something that has been grating on me for, like, forever. 9/11 was NOT a “tragedy,” dammit, it was an ATROCITY. “Tragedies” are things like earthquakes, fires, floods, and such: usually unforeseen disasters which no one has the ability to control or prevent, events that occur outside all human agency and influence. 9/11 was a murderous act of human will, planned and executed by perverse, ruthless monsters for warped political purposes. It might be more or less correct to call the horror the 9/11 attacks wrought on the victims tragic, but the attacks themselves were not a “tragedy.” As Goodwin says, Pelosi hopes to diminish the impact of the attacks and deflect attention from the motivation of those who perpetrated them by mis-using the word “tragedy.” It is to be fervently hoped that most Real Americans aren’t fooled by such low, slimy dishonesty.

She is said to be a political whiz, but Pelosi keeps falling into traps. Recall that when Omar repeated anti-Semitic tropes, Pelosi first criticized her, but couldn’t deliver the votes for a clear resolution. She ended up settling for a mealy-mouthed condemnation of hate that was so meaningless, even Omar voted for it.

Other Dems, like de Blasio, are falling into Trump’s trap on illegal immigrants. Firmly opposed to the obvious need to secure the border, they accuse the president of being heartless for wanting to build a wall. De Blasio himself went to Texas in a senseless stunt to make those charges last year.

OK, then, says Trump — if you want the migrants here, take them into your cities and states. To which de Blasio responds, Oh, no, we can’t do that — let somebody else bear the burden of our compassion.

Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey also had a telling response, saying on CBS that Trump is “trying to pit Americans against each other and make us less safe.” He didn’t elaborate on how illegal immigrants would make cities “less safe” but there’s only one possible meaning to his words.

In fairness, some mayors and governors have accepted Trump’s challenge. Dem mayors in Chicago, Philadelphia, Rochester, Newark, New Haven and other blue enclaves raised their hands to take more illegals.

Still, the effect was a political point in Trump’s favor. He was setting the agenda, and Dems were divided over what to do. Confusion among one’s enemies is always desirable.

Yep. Trump’s eagerness to take the fight to those enemies, breaking with established tradition by refusing to remain in the standard Vichy GOPe defensive crouch, is a big part of the reason frustrated conservatives made him President in the first place. He may do things they don’t like occasionally, and some of them may lose faith and jump ship over his failure to keep all of his promises. But speaking strictly for myself, as long as The Donald is in there landing punches on the Democrat-Socialist’s ugly mugs, I’ll be happy to keep on applauding him for it.

Share

BOTW

It’s a deep, deep well over there, and now that I have about fourteen tabs open with articles of theirs I want to check out, I am up to my clavicles and sinking fast. First off, one of my all-time favorite rasslers: the incomparable Mick Foley.

You would have a tough time finding a professional wrestling fan who could argue with the insane badassitude of Mick Foley. A long time veteran of the ECW, WCW and WWF/WWE, Foley was well-known for being a total crazy bastard who went out there and put his body on the line every single night, doing the craziest shit you could ever think of and risking serious physical pain and permanent bodily damage purely for the sake of entertaining fans who might never fully appreciate it.

Mick Foley got his start wrestling the ECW circuit in the late 80s as Cactus Jack, where he spent much of his time being backdropped onto barbed wire boards and face-planting tables. During one match, he suffered severe second-degree burns when he was thrown into some explosives that went off in his face. He won the Tag Team Belt once in ECW, and in 1995 defeated Terry Funk to win the title of “King of the Death Match”, which is probably the most badass title you could think of. It sounds like something out of The Running Man or something.

After a brief stint in WCW, Foley burst onto the scene in the WWF in 1996 wrestling as the mentally-deranged Mankind. His humorous persona and complete lack of any sort of self-preservation instincts led him to become a huge crowd favorite, and during his career he would win the Tag belts eight times, the WWF Championship three times and would be the first ever WWF Hardcore champ.

After he realized that he had to stop taking serious blunt trauma to the head on a weekly basis, Foley released his autobiography, Have a Nice Day: A Tale of Blood and Sweatsocks. The book topped the New York Times bestseller list and contained thoughtful insight into his wrestling career, and many people learned that in addition to making a career out of being a human pinata, Mick Foley also had a brain in his head and a gift for writing. Since the success of his autobiography, Foley released a follow-up book, a couple of children’s books and two full-length novels, all of which have found success.

During his career, Mick Foley received eight concussions, had part of his ear ripped off, lost most of his teeth and required over three hundred stitches for wrestling-related injuries. The guy sacrificed his body for the sport, and left everything out on the mat. He gave it all and did it with a smile on his face, and that’s the mark of a true badass.

Over the course of a unique career, Foley was indubitably the wildest Wild Man of them all. I remember when the Foley autobiography came out; the book was serially excerpted at length someplace or other, of which series I read the all. BOTW wasn’t just whistling Dixie in their praise, either: a completely spellbinding page-turner, a peek behind the veil into a strange and mysterious world, and so intelligent and well-written as to almost defy credulity at times. It was a real ripper of a fun read, what I saw of it; I’d bet that even people with little or no real interest in pro wrestling would still find it a difficult book to put down.

Naturally, then, it has now been added to my Amazon Wish List. Hey, don’t hate me ’cause I’m beautiful.

Another interesting thing about Mick Foley is that, among his peers and competitors, he was almost universally well-liked and respected. I used to have a couple of minor insider connections to the world of rasslin’, and from them I know that that is NOT the norm with most of ’em. There are intense rivalries both inside the ring and out, even real dislike among some of those guys. Their personal drive and natural competitiveness combine to exacerbate any such friction well beyond the realm of trifling social discomfort and right into imminent-threat-of-physical-violence territory. Despite that, most everybody thought quite highly and spoke warmly of Foley, and had great respect for him. Or so I’ve been told, at least.

Next up, another world-champeen Wild Man, and a lifelong personal icon of mine.

Gregory “Pappy” Boyington was a part-Sioux, part-Irish World War II fighter ace who could drink any man under the table, routinely kicked the crap out of his enemies in back-alley fistfights, cold-cocked at least two superior officers, and still somehow found time to blast a couple dozen Japanese Zeroes out of the air with his quad-mounted .50-cals.  He was the first American fighter ace of World War II, flew two of the coolest fighter aircraft of the war, held officer positions in a couple of the United States’ most famous fighter squadrons, and is probably one of the only human beings in military history to personally accept a Medal of Honor that had originally been issued to him posthumously

From the moment Greg Boyington was wheels-down from his flight with Pangborn, he was obsessed with planes. He built and collected model planes, went to any air show he could, and eventually learned to fly and got his pilot’s license. In 1926 he moved to Tacoma, and then from there he enlisted in the University of Washington, where he did ROTC and played on the UW wrestling, boxing, and football teams. In 1935 he enlisted in the Marine Corps as an aviator, and quickly earned a reputation as a dude you super totally did not want to step to. In addition to being easily one of the best pilots the USMC had to offer, he was also a hardcore troublemaker on the ground as well. He loved to get drunk, gamble, and challenge his buddies to wrestling matches in the middle of crowded bars. He kicked the crap out of townies whenever they messed with him. One time he got super hammered, stripped naked, and tried to swim across the San Diego Bay in the middle of the night (he eventually had to be fished out of the river by his comrades). Another time he punched a superior officer in the fucking face in an argument over a girl, even though Boynton was married at this point and the girl in question was super totally not his wife.

…Eventually Boyington pissed off his (AVG/Flying Tigers) commander a little too hard, and in 1943 he got into a heated argument with his commander that ended up getting Boyington dishonorably discharged from the Flying Tigers.  Which, honestly, is kind of badass if you think about it.  Luckily for him, the United States was formally in World War II at this point, so the grizzled old fighter ace just immediately walked into a recruiting office, swore the Oath of Allegiance, and was posted as a Lieutenant in Marine Fighter Squadron VMF-122.

In true Boyington fashion, within a couple weeks of being reinstated to the USMC, he got into a huge argument with his CO and almost got discharged again. 

At this point in the war, the U.S. was in the heat of the fighting against the Japanese all across the Pacific, and the fighting had left many Marine aviation units shattered and fragmented.  Boyington was coming back from injury himself, and his mission was pretty simple – take whatever available men and equipment you can find, form them up into a fighter squadron, and hurl it into the fray as quickly as possible.

The unit he came up with would become perhaps the most famous Marine Corps aviation squadron in American history:  VMF-214, the Black Sheep Squadron.

The Black Sheep Squadron initially consisted of 26 pilots, including some Royal Canadian Air Force vets, a Los Angeles police officer, and a couple Marine pilots who had already earned themselves a couple enemy aircraft kills during the war.  They were equipped with the Vought F4U Corsair, one of the most badass aircraft of the Pacific Theater, and shipped out to the front to try their hand at annihilating some Japanese aircraft.  Boyington, who was now known among his men as “Gramps” or “Pappy”, because at thirty years old he was by far the oldest man in the unit (I’m reminded of Julius Caesar weeping at the statue of Alexander), flew his first mission with the Marine Corps on September 14, 1943,  when his squadron escorted a group of dive bombers on a raid against a Japanese supply base.  Two days later, Pappy Boyington became one of the very few American aviators to ever become an “Ace in a Day” – meaning he killed five dang enemy aircraft in a single mission.  For most other badass aviators, getting Ace in a Day is the kind of thing that I’d write an entire article about, detailing every bank, turn, and machine gun burst in excruciating detail.  But Pappy Boyington’s story is so over-the-top bonkers insane that it barely warrants an entire paragraph among the list of exploits in his life.  Just know this – the was outnumbered, under attack, and facing an overwhelming force of some of the most battle-hardened, experienced fighter pilots in the world, and he walked away with five more Japanese flags painted on the nose art of his Corsair.

VMF-214 continued attacking Japanese bases as part of the Bougainville Campaign, which was the Allied American and Aussie mission to re-take the Northern Solomon Islands by striking out from bases in the Papua New Guinea region.  And as Marine Corsairs dove, banked, and opened fire all throughout the skies above the region, you might as well have called the place Pappy New Guinea because the freaking Black Sheep Squadron was walloping asses up and down the Pacific.  On October 17, 1943, 25 Marine Corsairs engaged and killed 20 enemy Zeroes without losing a single man.  Another time, Pappy was leading his flight group when he got a radio signal from a Japanese aircraft, hailing the Marines in English, pretending to be an American ship and asking Boyington to identify his location.  Boyington’s b.s. meter was off the charts, though, and he wasn’t about to fall for that weak sauce.  He told the Japanese pilot exactly where he was… except he gave the position at 5,000 feet lower than the altitude the Marines were flying.

When the Japanese squadron showed up for their ambush, the Marines dove down with the sun at their backs and wiped out twelve Zeroes in just minutes of dogfighting.

Lots, lots more to the incredible story of one of America’s greatest badasses. Next up, one for casual American hero Matt Bracken: SEAL Team Six.

The now-legendary Team Six was formed in October 1980, in direct reaction to the clusterfuck of epic proportions that resulted when the Americans tried to rescue a group of civilians who had been taken hostage in the U.S. Embassy in Iran and failed so miserably that the Joint Chiefs decided, fuck it, we need to put together a team of guys whose only job is to kick terrorists in the scrotum until they cough up their marbles and then force-feed their own marbles back to them. Team Six was actually just the third SEAL team formed by the U.S. Navy, but the Admirals gave them number six because it’s a much cooler number than three, and also because it might confuse the Soviets into thinking that we had way more of these guys than we actually did. Interestingly, the unit doesn’t go by Team Six anymore, instead calling itself DevGroup or DEVGRU, which is short for “Development Group” or something equally boring and innocuous. The rationale behind changing the name to something that sounds like a financial consulting firm or a team of overworked video game designers was basically just so that nowadays high-ranking Admirals can honestly stand in front of TV cameras and say shit like, “There’s no such thing as SEAL Team Six,” without lying. While I can understand and appreciate the whole “plausible deniability” thing, I should also mention that I have absolutely no intention of referring to a company of terrorist-eviscerating asskickers as The Development Group for the purposes of this article.

The general consensus is that we basically know about only a miniscule percentage of the badass operations Team Six has carried out in its career saving the world from terrorists, communists, vampire Nazis, and god-knows whatever the hell else out there is trying to kill us, but the shit we know about is pretty much totally fucking awesome. Commanded in the early days by Richard Marcinko (a man I intend to cover in much more detail in a later Badass of the Week article), Six’s first operation was to parachute into a small island off the coast of Puerto Rico in the middle of the night, attack a terrorist camp, and recover a portable nuclear device from the clutches of a group of madmen. Now, if that’s the sort of shit these guys were doing on their first mission, you can only imagine where it goes from there. Like, for instance, in 1985 thirteen SEALs from Team Six rescued Governor-General Sir Paul Scoon when he and nine members of his staff were taken hostage in his mansion in Grenada. Six briefly made tennis a badass sport, fast-roping down onto Scoon’s tennis court from a helicopter while the Grenadan army shot machine guns and anti-aircraft cannons at them. The operatives, completely unfazed by staring death in the face while suspended in mid air from a rope, charged ahead and freed the Queen’s Representative on Grenada by storming the mansion and clearing it of enemy troops with a dickload of bullets and concussion grenades. After securing the hostages, the SEALs, realizing they were cut off from extraction, then proceeded to hold the position against a full-on counter attack by basically the entire fucking Grenadan army. These 13 dudes held the position, staring down tanks, APCs and grenade launchers with little more than sniper rifles and small arms. Not only did Scoon get out safely, but all 13 SEAL team members survived, and none of the hostages were killed.

Their operational record only gets more impressive. In 1989, Team Six worked with Delta Force to capture notorious criminal drug lord Manuel Noriega from the jungles of Panama. In the days before Desert Storm they swam around in SCUBA gear disarming anti-ship mines in the Persian Gulf, and then when the war started they were fast-roping onto Kuwaiti oil platforms, wiping out the Iraqi defenders and re-taking the positions before the enemy could set fire to them. In the late 90s ST6 searched for war criminals in Bosnia. In 2009 they freed an American crew taken prisoner by Somali pirates in a manner so fucking badass that it belongs in an action movie: A team of SEAL Team Six snipers simultaneously coordinated three long-range shots from the rocking deck of one ship to another – the first two popped the heads off a pair of pirates patrolling the upper decks, and the third shot went through a porthole window and drilled a pirate who was holding the American ship’s captain at gunpoint with an AK-47, killing the scurvy scalawag before he could pull the trigger.

(As a weird side note, SEAL Team Six has also worked as a security force for every Olympic Games since 1984. This seems like overkill, but hey, if you’re going to station Colonel John Matrix as a mall security guard outside the fucking food court, you can be damn sure that’s the safest Panda Express in the known universe.)

Lots more fascinating stuff here, too. Minor quibble: SEAL Six wasn’t just led by Marcinko; according to his own autobiography, he was the guy who conceptualized it, created it, staffed it, and commanded it until he ran afoul of some petty personal politicking and was eventually hounded right into prison on trumped-up charges.

There are people out there, though, who are skeptical of many of Marcinko’s claims and regard him as a bit of a braggart—even a bullshit artist—prone to overstating his accomplishments, records, and influence. My late cousin Reggie—a career Navy fighter pilot who had some personal familiarity with Demo Dick—was one of those, albeit mildly. He did like and respect Marcinko generally, to be sure. But upon finding out that that I was a big fan of Marcinko’s writing, he tactfully suggested that a lot of it needed to be taken with a grain of salt. Reg seemed to think that Marcinko’s biggest talent was for self-promotion, I think.

And there’s this guy, a fellow Nam-era SEAL (Team Two) who was so annoyed by Marcinko that he devoted an entire chapter of his own autobiography to debunking and dismissing him.

Marcinko’s original concept for Six was of a lean, adaptable group of highly-trained warriors, small in number (only 75 shooters in the beginning) and operating more or less independently, answerable only to a highly streamlined, compact, and entirely fat-free chain of command. The clever idea of misleading our adversaries by calling it SEAL Team Six was Marcinko’s too. I think Marcinko was very wise in his original concept of Six’s structure and role; unfortunately, things haven’t quite worked out that way since his departure. SpecWar DEVGRU now has seven “squadrons,” consisting of nearly two thousand men. The ideal of an elite, stripped-down fighting machine capable of extreme operational flexibility, speed, and adaptability seems to have been traded in for fatty gobs of REMF bureaucracy and bloat, an apparently inescapable curse afflicting the whole country these days.

Whatever your opinion of Marcinko, the SEAL Six story is another worthwhile read from the BOTW collection. And to think, I still have eleven more of these open BOTW tabs to get around to yet.

Share

No safe space

Much as I do love the Bee, as the Left gets loonier and more grotesque it becomes harder and harder to remember their stuff is supposed to be satire.

GLENDALE, CA—A man was rushed to the hospital yesterday after encountering a slightly different viewpoint than his own Wednesday.

Shortly before 12:30 p.m., Glendale PD officers responded to a 911 call at the Java Lounge Coffee House in the 900 block of North Emerson Road. They found a person who had collapsed in shock and went to the station for help. Witnesses say the man was having a casual conversation about politics with another patron when the minutely opposing viewpoint was expressed.

“They were both Democrats, Bernie supporters,” said Janice Hughson, a barista at the Java Lounge. “Then the guy he was talking to said he had some issues with abortion and thinks there should at least be a few limitations put on the practice. That’s when the man seized up and began foaming at the mouth. It was terrible.”

Four other bystanders were also emotionally injured by the moderately divergent opinion but were not hospitalized.

The man is being kept stable on ideology support at St. Francis medical center, surrounded by friends and family who agree with him 100% on every single issue.

The man who suggested the slightly differing opinion fled the scene. Anyone with information is asked to alert the authorities.

See what I mean? There’s probably more core truth in any given Bee post than you’ll find on CNN.

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