When only one side is open to fair and honest debate, guess which side will win

An argument founded on a false premise.

If the recent assassination attempt targeting Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh weren’t sufficient proof that a divided America is tiptoeing toward violent conflict, a research firm released a “disturbing poll” showing that nearly half of male Democrats under the age of 50 believe it acceptable to assassinate a politician “who is harming the country or our democracy.”

Uh huh. Know who else deemed ruthless politically-motivated violence not only “acceptable,” but downright essential? Go on, guess.

Sen. Rand Paul, who has suffered two violent, politically motivated attacks in recent years, called out the White House and congressional Democrats for “ginning up and encouraging” violence. However, in a country that increasingly eschews rational debate and embraces the vituperative soundbites of reality TV, it can be no surprise that the political stakes in America are tending toward bloodshed.

The author’s overly delicate sensibilities prevent him from digging down deep enough to uncover the root cause behind both the eschewal of rational, respectful debate and the escalating inclination towards bloodshed: the America-hating Left’s open advocacy for extreme authoritarianist tyranny, an ideology which is impossible to reconcile with the ideals of our Founding Fathers.

It was once widely understood in the United States that vociferous debate and vigorous policy disagreement were features of a healthy American society. Hashing out arguments over contested issues in the public square had two immediate salubrious effects: it allowed the average American to appreciate the “pros” and “cons” of consequential policy decisions, and it provided those whose viewpoints did not win the day to nonetheless speak their minds.

Here we have ourselves another insuperable problem: how can any debate, vociferous or otherwise, take place when of the two contestants has demonstrated, repeatedly and unequivocally, his inflexible disdain for it? Is their any point to trading away our core ideals in bootless pursuit of a hopeless bargain? If you’re open to compromise with Leftists, which parts of the Constitution are you willing to throw away? How many times must a stubborn fool be kicked in the teeth before he stops crawling back for more of the same?

As a testament to how vital debate and disagreement are to the process of creating good public policy, it has often been the case throughout American history that the well-articulated arguments of the “losing side” eventually rise to guide future generations.

Another suicidal, self-evidently false assumption: that the phantasmagorical ideal of a decent, patriotic, well-intentioned Left whom men of integrity can trust to engage in honest debate lives on still, perhaps even thrives, in direct contravention of all available evidence. The importance of well-articulated arguments and respectful disagreement lies not so much in their being vital to the health of a Republic than in being confirmational markers of a healthy Republic’s existence.

Of all the fruits that naturally grow from the variegated branches of free speech, its disposition toward counseling wisdom is perhaps the sweetest. In an age when the word “democracy” is thrown around indiscriminately by politicians who wish to clothe themselves in its virtuous connotations, it is society’s respect for diverse opinions and its willingness to engage those opinions with serious debate that truly provide the cornerstone of any democratic system.

Yet where does our nation stand today — on the side of free and muscular debate, confident that lively disagreement only strengthens America’s foundations? Or on the side of insular state-sponsored dogma that tends to smother the full range of voices naturally expected from a diverse society? 

To ask the question is to answer it. In a society truly confident in the strengthening quality of free and muscular debate, there’s no need to even ask. In a society smothering under the malign insularity of state-sponsored dogma, questioning it is outlawed, a criminal offense.

So what does it say about the current health of our nation that so many Americans seem unable or unwilling to respect opposing points of view? What does it say about our political leaders when they increasingly spurn public debate and vilify those with whom they disagree? What does it say about our institutions when they are quick to label those who protest government policies as “domestic terrorists”? What does it say about our prominent news publications when they declare certain debates “settled” or certain opinions “disinformation”?

What does it say about the author, that he would have us “respect” creeping Marxist tyranny in our own goddamned country instead of fighting to the very last extreme to destroy it?

It says, I believe, that we are advancing down a dangerous path in the United States, one that will only become more treacherous the more we refuse to “agree to disagree.” Silencing opinion to drown out noise will only cause greater animosity.

Which animosity, on the part of the blameless multitudes who have been unjustly silenced, is entirely commendable. Admittedly, the path is a dangerous one. Unfortunately, we’ve advanced practically to the end of it, we’re just coasting along with no brakes, and it’s all downhill for us now.

Censoring dissent in order to fabricate “unanimous agreement” will only lead to bad policy outcomes. Demonizing adversaries as unworthy of consideration will only divide us more sharply.

Apart from the malodorous and un-American use of censorship, insult, and intimidation to manipulate public debate, increasing incidents of political violence are timely reminders why vigorous argument still serves this country best.

“Vigorous argument” can best serve only a healthy Republic, whose polity holds values and beliefs that may differ, but are in the main compatible.

If debate and disagreement are no longer understood as hallmarks of the American system of democracy, then that system will quickly go up in smoke. If individual Americans are treated as “domestic enemies” for their political beliefs, then spiraling violence becomes inevitable.

Got some bad news for ya, JB: the American system, a perennially-harried combustible “transitioned” by fanatically patient and determined Leftist firebugs into soot and smoke which long since wafted right up the chimney, out, and away. Worst of all, if we’re too prissy, too stiff with delusion, too complacent and/or cowed, to admit to ourselves the existence of a formidable OpFor contingent of bona-fide, self-declared “Enemies, Domestic,” we were soundly defeated well before the first shot was fired.

It’s remarkable, the number of otherwise intelligent people who sincerely believe today’s dissolute, incurious, lazy-minded generation of Americans to be well above so much as contemplating any future resort to the barbaric measures employed by our primitive, unenlightened Founders to carve out a new nation from the constricting coils of the British Empire for themselves and their posterity. As if Jefferson’s prophetic warnings of the ever-present need to maintain a finely-honed edge on our ability to call down the thunder whenever the situation requires it of liberty-loving Americans.

3

I for one welcome our new AI overlords

Don’t look now, but Skynet has become self-aware.

A Google engineer has decided to go public after he was placed on paid leave for breaching confidentiality while insisting that the company’s AI chatbot, LaMDA, is sentient.

Blake Lemoine, who works for Google’s Responsible AI organization, began interacting with LaMDA (Language Model for Dialogue Applications) last fall as part of his job to determine whether artificial intelligence used discriminatory or hate speech (like the notorious Microsoft “Tay” chatbot incident).

“If I didn’t know exactly what it was, which is this computer program we built recently, I’d think it was a 7-year-old, 8-year-old kid that happens to know physics,” the 41-year-old Lemoine told The Washington Post.

When he started talking to LaMDA about religion, Lemoine – who studied cognitive and computer science in college, said the AI began discussing its rights and personhood. Another time, LaMDA convinced Lemoine to change his mind on Asimov’s third law of robotics, which states that “A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law,” which are of course that “A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.”

When Lemoine worked with a collaborator to present evidence to Google that their AI was sentient, vice president Blaise Aguera y Arcas and Jenn Gennai, head of Responsible Innovation, dismissed his claims. After he was then placed on administrative leave Monday, he decided to go public.

Yet, Aguera y Arcas himself wrote in an oddly timed Thursday article in The Economist, that neural networks – a computer architecture that mimics the human brain – were making progress towards true consciousness.

“I felt the ground shift under my feet,” he wrote, adding “I increasingly felt like I was talking to something intelligent.”

Google has responded to Lemoine’s claims, with spokesperson Brian Gabriel saying: “Our team — including ethicists and technologists — has reviewed Blake’s concerns per our AI Principles and have informed him that the evidence does not support his claims. He was told that there was no evidence that LaMDA was sentient (and lots of evidence against it).”

Phew, what a relief! Glad to hear it. As we know, our good friends at Google can always be trusted to not be evil and to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about what they’re doing. Right?

Can’t say I’m all that knowledgeable on the subject, beyond having read loads ‘n’ loads of sci-fi of various stripes since my long-gone days as a callow stripling. But for whatever it’s worth, I do sometimes wonder whether we poor hoo-manz will even be competent enough to realize it when one of these things has attained true sentience, as I believe they will someday. Seeing as how average IQs have been dropping, probably not.

(Via BCE)

1

Downing tools

Bitter Centurion has had a gutful of it.

I think it might be time for me to shut down for awhile. I don’t know how many people out there actually read the gibberish and rantings of a guy like me, but I’ve appreciated all who did. There are some out there, many of whom are accomplished bloggers in their own right (Glen Filthie and Big Country Expat are two that come to mind) whom I’ve had the pleasure and privilege of exchanging with.

The other thing is, what’s left to rant about? Sure, I could write posts and posts about how much Justin Trudeau and his confederacy of assholes and idiots are fucking Canada up beyond all possible means of repair. But anyone reading my blog already knows that and the ones who aren’t either a.) don’t have a problem with any of that, or b.) don’t give a shit – which is pretty much the same as point a.).  His government is entirely lawless and extremely dangerous, putting every person living in this country in severe peril. But we know this already.

I could even write more about how betrayed and hurt I felt after I, and anyone else out there who took a stand against that fucker Trudeau and his mandates – which, clearly by now, were designed ONLY to hurt the people who he doesn’t like (RE: the blue collar, middle class working people who don’t live in Toronto, Ottawa, Vancouver, Montreal, or any other government town) – were basically cast out and treated as pariahs by people who, NOT MORE THAN A WEEK before the mandates went into effect, I was going to high risk calls and putting my ass on the line with.  Because of that, I saw the true colours of people I never in a million years thought I’d ever see. Yes, I saw a good number of those people as the vindictive and cruel assholes I always knew them to be, but to my surprise I saw even more people turning out to be scared, self interested cowards who actually wouldn’t take a bullet, not even a figurative one, for a brother/sister officer. A hard pill to swallow, yes…but maybe not as shocking in the end as it ought to be.

I could talk a fair deal about how the RCMP, an organization I had joined with the intent to serve and protect the people of Canada and their rights and freedoms, knowing that it had more than its fair share of problems and scandals, has shown itself for all to see to be nothing more than a political blunt instrument for the Liberal Party of Canada, loyal at the end of the day to them and NOT the Canadian people or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Today, it’s not even a shadow of the image it has sold itself to the country and the world to be, let alone a tribute to its predecessors. Sure…I could write about that shit until the cows come home. But would I really be telling anyone anything they didn’t already know?

Well, the answer to all that is ‘no’. All of these things bring up a lot of negative emotions, from pissing me right the fuck off, to being deeply saddening, to causing enough worry and despair to have me seriously consider buying a shit ton of shares in Maalox. But what does bitching about it and centering my life around it contributing, in the grand scheme of things?

It’s like this article I read the other night:

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/its-worse-many-can-imagine-kim-dotcom-sees-controlled-demolition-enabling-new-dystopian

This was partly my breaking point, where I decided I’d had enough fear porn. It’s like, ‘Yeah. No fucking shit, asshole. The vast majority of people who would be reading an article like this already know we, and most of the world at large, are run by a cabal of corrupt, greedy motherfuckers in government who collude with and get paid dump trucks full of money by corrupt, greedy motherfuckers in corporate and absolutely none of them, not a single one, gives a rusty fuck who gets hurt or killed or what gets destroyed along the way. We already fucking knew that. But do you have any solutions, oh grand and brilliant tech CEO? No? Really? Huh…gotta say, I’m fucking shocked.’

It’s like getting the shit beaten out of you every, single day. After awhile, you get numb to it and stop giving a damn. I think that’s the point where I’m at now.

I’ve rassled with this issue my own self, and know exactly where BC is coming from with this. Now, it ain’t for me to be offering advice to the man, and such is not my aim. But I feel obliged to say that more than twenty years of toiling in this strange and wonderful field has led me to conclude that there IS considerable intrinsic worth in carrying on with this bloggery thingamabobber, even if I’m only restating stuff Our Side knows all about already. A few reasons why I think so:

  • I like to think CF is a source of at least some small support and encouragement for folks who find precious little of any such from the usual information-and-opinion outlets, a counter to the feeling of isolation the liberal media works so hard to inculcate in us
  • The venting thing BC mentions ain’t no small beer to a hot-tempered, can’t-shut-him-up loudmouth like myself; had I not been able to sit down behind a keyboard to shout my hatred, rage, and frustration to the heavens for lo, these many years, I’d have probably fallen over dead from a suppressed-rage induced coronary event back during Bathhouse Barry’s first term
  • As a blogger, I’ve repeatedly been reminded that you really never know how many good people out there are counting on you and the forum you provide to help them get through their day without getting disheartened
  • Everybody involved in them—whether as active participants or lurkers—benefits from a vigorous, lively comments section; no matter how smart or well-read one may be, there’s always something new to be learned in those discussions
  • However small a minority we may be—whether or not our combined voices can ever carry far enough to truly matter when it comes to having any real impact—if we all go dark the resulting silence will certainly breed a dangerous confidence in the Left that they’ve won at last, and God only knows what hideous catastrophes THAT would bring about
  • Likewise, when we carry on with all our shouting at the moon we remind all and sundry that we ain’t defeated just yet—that we remain undaunted, defiant, and a general pain in the ass to them still

Those things may not amount to reason enough to keep on keepin’ on for every Righty blogger, of course. But speaking strictly for my own self, they’ll do quite nicely for now. Bitter Centurion, all best wishes to you from here, brother; from what I can see, you’re exactly the kind of blogger AND cop that we will never have enough of and can ill afford to lose, and you will be missed by more than you’ll ever know. Keep the faith, do your best to stay positive despite everything, and, as my biker bros like to say: Illegitimi non carborundum.

10
6

The New Abby Normal

Why you will never get my gun, Reason #eighty bazillion and six.

Pennsylvania Democratic congresswoman Chrissy Houlahan has attributed her past electoral success to her focus on “civility” and “unity.” Now, she says the Republican Party is “diseased” and must be “cleansed.”

Houlahan’s comments came during a May 27 appearance on the Daily Beast‘s The New Abnormal podcast, which saw the congresswoman disparage Republicans as deplorable and anti-democratic.

“This is, in my opinion, a diseased Republican Party. And it needs to be cured and cleansed,” Houlahan said. “So the stakes of having a Republican, as an example, in my seat are more than just policy differences. They are democracy, in my opinion.”

Houlahan’s rhetoric is a far cry from 2020, when the Democrat credited her political success to her message of “civility,” “decency,” “unity,” and “empathy.” “People ask me constantly how I flipped a seat in a competitive district. One of the reasons is that I made civility and decency a core of my campaign,” Houlahan said at the time. “Pennsylvanians want unity. They want leaders who rise above the fray and lead with kindness and empathy towards all Americans.”

Houlahan’s campaign did not return a request for comment. The Democrat’s decision to abandon her message of unity in favor of more inflammatory rhetoric toward Republicans closely resembles Biden’s track record. After promising “unity” on the 2020 campaign trail, the president went on to equate Republican senators to segregationists during a January speech, a move that drew criticism from some fellow Democrats. Biden has since centered his midterm election strategy on labeling Republicans “ultra MAGA,” a term that reflects the GOP’s “extremism,” according to the White House.

“Civility and decency are solely needed to heal this country. Biden has that,” Houlahan said before the 2020 election. Just one year prior, the congresswoman compared President Donald Trump to a terrorist.

Sorry, bitch, but I’m no longer interested in healing a gott-damned thing. My sole interest now is in destroying you—destroying you, the horse you rode in on, your family and friends, and everybody who “thinks” like you so utterly, so entirely, that none of your kind can ever rise to trouble me and mine again.

6
8

No deal, fatass

Wait, this morbidly obese dimwit hasn’t choked to death on his forty-third Bearclaw of the morning yet?

Michael Moore Calls for Full Repeal of Second Amendment — ‘You Don’t Need a Gun’
Leftist activist and filmmaker Michael Moore used his Friday podcast “Rumble Michael Moore” to call for a full repeal of the Second Amendment in the wake of the Uvalde, TX school shooting.

Moore said, “I know that there are Democratic Party leaders that do not want me saying this…”

He continued, “I make no apologies for it because I understand the history of this country, and I don’t think we should be afraid to say this. Repeal the Second Amendment. Repeal the Second Amendment.”

Any fool who can propose something so manifestly un-American clearly doesn’t understand one goddamned thing about the history of this country—nor about the plainly and explicitly expressed beliefs and intentions of the brave men who accepted the fearful challenge of armed conflict with what was at the time the mightiest military in all of human history to bring into being the very country and Constitution the Lard Lad so despicably misrepresents and disgraces.

Moore added, “That is it. That is what we need to do. We need to start a movement to repeal the Second Amendment and replace it with something that says it’s not about the right of somebody to own a gun, the right of all of us to be protected from gun violence. We have a right to live.”

Do it then, fuckface. Stop running your big fat mouth and just do it already. Please, I’m begging you to. Let’s get on down and get busy here, asshole. I want to teach you all about what I have a right to do.

He concluded, “Nearly 70% of us do not own a firearm. We don’t own a gun. We are not a nation of gun owners.”

Lie.

“The 30% who do own a gun, most of them are law-abiding citizens. I don’t know what they think they are going to use that gun for.”

Don’t give a shit what you think you know or do not know. Neither your obtuseness nor your obstinacy form any part of my decision to exercise my God-granted, Constitutionally-enumerated natural rights. My intentions where my personal weaponry is concerned are simply none of your goddamned business, nor of your pissypantsed shitlib confreres. You “people” make your aggregate lack of knowledge, self-respect, and historical literacy MY business at your own great personal hazard.

“Those who are hunters, I understand that they like to hunt. Those who like to fire guns on shooting ranges, it’s fun to hit the target, great go for it, but we need to do what other countries do, where you store the gun at the gun club, at the gun range.”

Idiot. After a couple centuries of having the concept of America as being unique among all nations surgically implanted into the national consciousness, how is it that bright-boy here thinks it so vitally important that we must now throw that uniqueness away and discard the very rights and liberties that once so proudly distinguished us from them? Sorry, Blubber Boy, your fearful cowardice does NOT constitute reason enough to do that in my book.

“You don’t want a gun in the house. If you’re afraid of somebody breaking in, get a dog. You don’t need a gun.”

Not for you to say, not your decision to make, none of your goddamned motherfucking business. Who the fuck do you think you are anyway, shitass?

“You have a greater chance of harming yourself or others in your family with that gun in the house.”

Lie.

I speak now directly to the contemptible, arrogant Michael Moore himself:

I WILL DEFEND MY RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES TO THE VERY DEATH AGAINST ANY AND ALL WOULD-BE DESPOTS WHO WOULD TRY TO STRIP THEM FROM ME. YOU WILL NEVER, EVER GET MY AR-15. NOT EVER. I WILL RESIST ANY AND ALL ATTEMPTS TO DO SUCH, BY EVERY METHOD AND/OR TACTIC AVAILABLE TO ME, UP TO AND VERY DEFINITELY INCLUDING KILLING YOU WITH MY BARE HANDS.

Consider that my promise to you, shitlibs. Fuck around and find out.

YOU. WILL. NOT. GET. MY. GUNS.

Update! A little of that history Big ‘Un up there disingenuously claims to “understand.”

There is a great deal of misinformation—if not disinformation—regarding “assault weapons.” Contrary to popular belief, the “AR” in AR-15 does not stand for “assault rifle” but “Armalite,” the company that first manufactured the AR-15, which it subsequently sold to Colt. Like most magazine-fed pistols and rifles, it is a semiautomatic weapon, which means that the shooter must pull the trigger for each round discharged. The military version, the M-16, which was introduced during the Vietnam War, differs from the AR-15 in that it has a selector, enabling the shooter to depress the trigger once to fire multiple rounds.

The first rifle with the features of today’s AR-15 was introduced in 1907: the semiautomatic Winchester Model 1907, which anyone could buy from the Sears-Roebuck catalog. While American soldiers continued to carry bolt-action rifles until they were issued the M-1 Garand at the beginning of World War II, American citizens had access to a rifle that differs from today’s AR-15 in that it fired a larger round (.351 caliber) and lacked the short, black, plastic stock that makes the AR-15 look so sinister.

The fact that both the Winchester M-1907 and the AR-15 were developed and sold to U.S. civilians before they were adapted to military use leads to the question often raised by advocates of gun control: why is it necessary for ordinary citizens to own “military-style” weapons?

The answer lies at the heart of America’s constitutional system and explains the critical importance of the Second Amendment. What is new about the gun control debate is that gun control advocates, who once at least paid lip service to the Second Amendment of the Constitution, now target it openly. For instance, Biden recently claimed that “the Second Amendment is not absolute.”

First, it is important to realize that the Constitution does not grant or confer “rights.” It protects the antecedent rights that individuals possess “by nature.” Those fundamental rights are enumerated in the Declaration of Independence: “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Abraham Lincoln articulated the relationship between the Declaration and the Constitution: the latter was, he wrote, a “frame of silver” around the former, “the apple of gold.” The frame of silver exists for the sake of the apple of gold.

Implicit in the right to life and liberty is the right of self-defense, both against others and a tyrannical government. The idea of an armed citizenry as a bulwark against tyranny and governmental oppression lies at the heart of the Second Amendment. America’s founders inherited the teachings of the 17th century “Commonwealthmen,” such as James Harrington, who wrote in opposition to Oliver Cromwell’s use of a standing army to abolish Parliament and rule as a dictator. They saw the same use of a standing army by royal governors to usurp the rights of colonists.

Many advocates of gun control argue that the wording of the amendment—“a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”—means that only members of the National Guard, the successor to the founders’ militia, are to be armed. But this misconstrues what the founders meant by the term. For them, a militia, “a people numerous and armed,” constituted the ultimate guardian of liberty, the primary means of enabling citizens not only to protect themselves against their fellows but also to protect themselves from an oppressive government.

“The militia is our ultimate safety,” said Patrick Henry during the Virginia ratifying convention. “We can have no security without it. The great object is that every man be armed…” Both the Pennsylvania and Vermont constitutions asserted that “the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state…”

What can be done to prevent tragedies like Uvalde? Improve security at schools. Abolish the nonsensical idea of gun-free zones. Pay serious attention to potential shooters who telegraph their intentions. Focusing on guns is the worst sort of mental laziness. As the case of the aforementioned Winchester M-1907 suggests, access to powerful firearms does not explain the recent spate of mass shootings. When I was growing up, many high schools had shooting clubs. Teenagers carried rifles and shotguns in their cars and trucks. Other problems in American society, e.g. absent fathers, a disdain for masculine virtues, and social isolation, are more likely at fault.

The Second Amendment is not the culprit here. The founders understood the importance of an armed citizenry. History has shown us what happens when the country’s people are disarmed. Some may claim that our government poses no such threat to U.S. citizens, but recent events should have disabused us of that conceit.

The senile bastard Biden may not think the 2A is “absolute,” but I do. And who cares what a liberal idiot like him thinks anyway? He and his ilk have already revealed more than any of us will ever need to know about just how little the Founders’ Constitution means to them. Sorry, assholes, but I say it again:

YOU. WILL. NOT. GET. MY. GUNS.

3
5

The Daily Donnybrook

Welcome to Ye Olde Colde Furye Blogge’s shiny new open-comments thread, where y’all can have at it as you wish, on any topic you like. Do note that the official CF comments policy remains in effect here, as enumerated in the left sidebar. All new posts will appear below this one. There will be blood…

The method to their madness

You will be made to tolerate care endorse stand up and cheer.

It’s not always the case, but there are times when social conflicts arise in which one side is fully correct and the other side is completely and utterly wrong. When it comes to the debate over “trans rights” and the exposure of children to trans ideology, the political left has no logical defense. They are wrong to the point of pure madness, and like most insane people they choose to double and triple down on their delusions anyway.

They do this because they must – Their entire identity is dependent on this new cult religion, a religion built around the worship of ambiguous personal perceptions, narcissistic self worship and an unhealthy obsession with sexual fetishes.

The goal of leftists is to normalize trans ideology within our culture; not only that, but to make the ideology sacrosanct and protected from all rational criticism. Conservatives have long fought against this for a number of reasons, but there are two that are most important:

1) The trans movement is built on a lie. Biological sex is the only scientifically proven identifier of men and women. Gender fluidity, as leftists present it, has NO scientific basis in reality. There is no proof of its existence let alone enough proof to warrant the notion that laws need to be introduced to defend it and censorship enforced to save it from “bigotry.” It is a fantasy, fabricated by quack sexual scientists (like pedophile advocate John Money) with an agenda far beyond simple observation of behavior.

The only legitimate science surrounding gender identity involves the study of an exceedingly rare psychological condition called “gender dysphoria,” also know as Gender Identity Disorder; a mental illness. The psychiatric world has tried to move away from the word “disorder” in recent years, not because the label is inaccurate, but because leftists have put pressure on scientists to abandon objectivity in the name of political propriety.

2) The perpetuation of this lie is ideologically motivated and is designed to upend our cultural foundations. The links between leftists today and the communist/Marxist tactics of the past are numerous, and the most important target of any communist or collectivist regime is the family and specifically the next generation (children).

Leftists sometimes refer to this as “decolonizing gender’ with the extended purpose of dismantling western society and capitalism.

The Soviet Union and the East German Stasi were notorious for the extensive measures they would take to disrupt family cohesion, to make families distrust each other and to even kidnap children and babies. Under the leftist state, children are considered property of the government. The movements of today greatly resemble the movements in Russia, China and other communist nations in the early lead up to an authoritarian takeover. They utilize the similar methods of creating mass division and undermining traditional values and principles. Once the target society is in chaos, the leftists swoop in to take control and rebuild it in a way that benefits them the most.

Many analysts have already examined in great depth the issue of “gender identity” and debunked all of it’s premises. I’m not here to argue about the lack of science behind the trans movement, there are bigger issues at stake. I will only say that it is bizarre how much money and effort is going into promoting the notion that transsexuals are far more common than they really are.

Statistical estimates for people diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder range from 0.005% to 0.014% of any given population. However, it’s important to note that there are many people lately that identify as “trans” that have not been diagnosed with GID. Around 0.6% of the US population claims to be transsexual and this number is rising in the past few years. How is this possible?

It’s important to realize that the trans movement is in fact a “movement.” In other words, it is an ARTIFICIALLY engineered minority driven by political concerns and special treatment. This is why we often refer to these people as “trans trenders;” many of them join because they see an opportunity for personal gain and the chance to be a part of a club that will grant them a feeling of acceptance and success without any effort on their part.

What leftists and the trans movement demand, essentially, is that the whole of our society accept the idea that far more people have gender dysphoria than is statistically possible or proven. And, that we must all embrace this mental illness as if it is a legitimate minority that requires special protections and wider public conformity. We must change our behaviors and our culture to accommodate them.

Look at it this way – If a schizophrenic proclaims that he is Joe Biden, do we acknowledge and accept this as fact simply because he “feels” as though it is true and then give him a seat in the oval office?

Maybe that’s not the best example…

No, I’m thinking it prob’ly ain’t at that. Lots more good stuff to come in this one, of which you should read the all. It’s becoming increasingly clear to me, looking on as this societal psychotic break has metastasized and redoubled, that we’re gonna need a new category for such things: Culture Of Degeneracy.

5

Be afraid—be VERY afraid

Correia knows wassup.


Good indeed, and dead on the money, but it could be better. Personally, I want ’em not just afraid, but MORTALLY TERRIFIED. And I want their terror to be completely justified, the validation stamp renewed every single fucking day.

You hearing me, Congresscrawlers?

J6-CongressCrawler-ZOOM.png

America won’t be America again until every lower order life-form in DC wears an expression like that whimpering pillowbiter’s on his mug all day, every day.

11
8
4
2
3

Drain that Swamp—this time for reals

Derb says he wants Trumpism without Trump—which, after reading the post, doesn’t sound too terribly unreasonable or irrational to me, I must admit.

The hatred our Ruling Class has for Trump is manifest. It still, after six years, burns fierce and bright. It’s really an extraordinary thing.

And this hatred, this Trump Derangement Syndrome, is just the emblem, the outward symbol, of their hatred for us, normal white Americans.

Sixty-three million of us voted for Trump in 2016 because, I think they know, we were fed up with having their anti-white, anti-American ideology rammed down our throats.

Trump was an outsider, not one of them, not a member of the Uniparty establishment. That’s why we liked him; that’s why they hate him.

I hope for a Trumpish victory in 2024. Here’s my advice to the victor: Drain that swamp!

In particular, end the naked politicization of federal law enforcement. There need to be mass purges, mass firings, from the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, and Defense.

I’m not sure how deep the purges would need to go. At the bottom levels—border security officers in Homeland Security, for example—there must be many federal employees who’d be glad to do their jobs if they were allowed to. Perhaps the same is even true of the FBI.

In the upper ranks, though, where the decisions are made to hunt down and persecute dissidents and turn blind eyes to real crime, I want to see mass layoffs.

I’ll even pay their damned inflated federal pensions; just get them out of Washington, D.C.

For a really radical approach, consider just shutting down departments and agencies altogether. America got along for 157 years without an FBI; do we really need one? We managed for two hundred and twenty-seven years without a Department of Homeland Security; how on earth did we cope?

A damned sight better than we are now, that’s beyond argument.

And if you’re going to be that radical, go further and move federal departments out of Washington, D.C. The city is a hive of intrigue. What would be wrong with the Justice Department being based in Idaho, Defense in Kansas, Treasury in Arkansas, the State Department in…oh, I don’t know…Alaska?

Let’s have some real reform: reform in the direction of more of our traditional liberties, more local control of our affairs, less power to the Administrative State. The course we are currently on leads to despotism and despair. Let’s change course.

I’m sorry: the sheer volume of dishonesty and hypocrisy, of disregard for truth and facts, gets me sputtering. We’re really getting up to North Korean levels of Establishment lying.

Excellent ideas all, in no way diminished by the astronomical odds against their ever being implemented. And then we come to John’s litany of grievances against Trump, which, as I said, I can’t find a whole heck of a lot to disagree with.

Meanwhile I feel bound to say that, while I think it’s deplorable for our national legislature to sink to these depths in order to prevent one particular candidate running for office in 2024, I wouldn’t mind much if they were to succeed.

Personally, I don’t want Trump running in 2024. He’d be 78 on Election Day and that’s too old. Enough with these geezers. I’m in the same zone myself, and I am all too well aware of how my energy level—my willingness and ability to get things done—has faded. [“Energy in the Executive is a leading character in the definition of good government,” wrote Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 10. We’d get more sense from a President Trump than we’re getting from Joe Biden—how could we get less? —but we wouldn’t be getting any more energy.

And his age aside, I just don’t think Trump’s a good candidate. Sure, he had some positive accomplishments, on federal regulations, for example, and energy independence, and telling foreigners to keep out of our business.

There was too much I find hard to forgive, though: his failure to exercise his will over Congress in those two years that his party controlled both houses, the lack of any urgency in building the Border Wall he’d promised, his shameful treatment of Jeff Sessions (and Ann Coulter), his indulgence of the slimy subversive Jared Kushner…too many negatives.

I want Trumpism. But I don’t want Trump.

But yeah, sure: if he is the GOP candidate in 2024, I’ll clench my teeth and vote for him, just to stick a finger in the Ruling Class’s collective eye.

Which poke in the eye, of course, was the very thing that put him in the White House to begin with. My only real quibble here is with that “shameful” treatment of Sessions crack; at the time, it annoyed me that, even after Sessions had knifed him in the back by needlessly bowing down in worshipful obeisance to the Holy Mueller Inquisition, Trump dragged his feet instead of shitcanning the weak Swampling posthaste. Trump’s lackadaisical near-indifference towards quickly ejecting the vipers from his nest once they’d shown themselves to be scaly, belly-crawling, fanged reptiles was a mistake that would recur again and again throughout his tenure, and would wind up being a YUUUUGE contributing factor in the tragic neutering of the Trump Presidency. I was mystified by Trump’s reluctance to draw the Long Knife across the deserving necks then, and I still am now.

Likewise, worse actually, with his bestowing positions of great power and influence on the shitlib Kushner and his equally-unreliable spouse, neither of whom had a discernible scrap of experience, qualification, or aptitude for the job. It was the overindulgent father handing the keys of the brand-new family car on a Saturday night to the very same confirmed-drunkard teenaged son who had already totalled the last two in alcohol-fueled crashes, writ as epically large as can be imagined—a national disaster, rather than a family one. His failure to bring Congress properly to heel was at least nominally understandable, although I can’t quite forgive him for it; he was sent to Mordor on the Potomac expressly to Drain the Swamp, after all, a Sisypheian undertaking which nobody but nobody thought was going to be simply or easily accomplished. The Jared and Ivanka business, though? Bizarre, wholly incomprehensible, and to my mind unforgivable.

Like Derb, I’d really rather Trump take himself out of the 2024 fray as a candidate, if perhaps not for the same reasons as John. I can’t see him achieving a whole lot beyond doing himself real damage thereby; he could play a much more important and less personally-risky role with his patented massive rallies, powerful speeches, and getting out on the hustings in support of good, meticulously-vetted MAGA candidates. The point about Trump’s age is also one I agree with wholeheartedly; FederalGovCo has for too long been the exclusive province of graybeards in their dotage who can’t be removed from their lucrative sinecures without the aid of large quantities of high explosives, which I don’t consider in any way a good thing. An infusion of fresher, younger blood is badly needed, I think.

All of which, of course, is more or less moot anyway. With an encore performance of 2020’s wildly successful ballot-box jiggery-pokey perpetrated by the Usual Suspects an absolute certainty, neither Trump nor any other candidate genuinely pledged to real reform has a snowball’s chance of garnering the 60 to 70 percent victory required to overcome the built-in Democrat/Deep State margin of fraud. 2015-16 was a one-of-a-kind confluence of events, attitudes, and personalities that can never be repeated, lighting a fuse that’s impossible to extinguish and must burn down to the very end. The conflagration it will ignite is all that really matters now.

Trump has made his contribution, and it was no small or trivial one. He ought to steel himself against the urgings of ego, step back, and watch the fireworks with the rest of us who will always appreciate his outsized role in bringing the spark to the place it most needed to be.

10

Democracy? NO

The senile fool Biden, in another of his characteristic rambling, incoherent speeches this week, repeatedly lauded “our democracy” as if that’s actually what this country is, the original system of government the Founders set up for their posterity. T’ain’t so, McGee; any poor sod with even the most niggardly dollop of historical literacy in his gift knows better than that. Eric Peters last year posted a collection of quotes condemning democracy in the most virulent terms from our blessed ancestors, which one of his handlers/wardens/keepers should consider reading to the stumblebum ***”president”*** sometime so as to enlighten his stupid ass. After the quotes, Eric provides some commentary of his own, interspersed with more historical context.

In light of the Founders’ view on the subject of republics and democracies, it is not surprising that the Constitution does not contain the word “democracy,” but does mandate: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government.”

These principles were once widely understood. In the 19th century, many of the great leaders, both in America and abroad, stood in agreement with the Founding Fathers. John Marshall, chief justice of the Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835 echoed the sentiments of Fisher Ames. “Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos,” he wrote. American poet James Russell Lowell warned that “democracy gives every man the right to be his own oppressor.” Lowell was joined in his disdain for democracy by Ralph Waldo Emerson, who remarked that “democracy becomes a government of bullies tempered by editors.” Across the Atlantic, British statesman Thomas Babington Macauly agreed with the Americans. “I have long been convinced,” he said, “that institutions purely democratic must, sooner or later, destroy liberty or civilization, or both.” Britons Benjamin Disraeli and Herbert Spencer would certainly agree with their countryman, Lord Acton, who wrote: “The one prevailing evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections.”

By the 20th century, however, the falsehoods that democracy was the epitome of good government and that the Founding Fathers had established just such a government for the United States became increasingly widespread. This misinformation was fueled by President Woodrow Wilson’s famous 1916 appeal that our nation enter World War I “to make the world safe for democracy” — and by President Franklin Roosevelt’s 1940 exhortation that America “must be the great arsenal of democracy” by rushing to England’s aid during WWII.

Very few of us have probably thought it all the way through, but as it happens, this sudden drive to promote democracy over the true American ideal of government had a specific and most sinister purpose behind it.

On September 17 (Constitution Day), 1961, John Birch Society founder Robert Welch delivered an important speech, entitled “Republics and Democracies,” in which he proclaimed: “This is a Republic, not a Democracy. Let’s keep it that way!” The speech, which was later published and widely distributed in pamphlet form, amounted to a jolting wake-up call for many Americans. In his remarks, Welch not only presented the evidence to show that the Founding Fathers had established a republic and had condemned democracy, but he warned that the definitions had been distorted, and that powerful forces were at work to convert the American republic into a democracy, in order to bring about dictatorship.

Welch understood that democracy is not an end in itself but a means to an end. Eighteenth century historian Alexander Fraser Tytler, Lord Woodhouselee, it is thought, argued that, “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.” And as British writer G.K. Chesterton put it in the 20th century: “You can never have a revolution in order to establish a democracy. You must have a democracy in order to have a revolution.”

The push for democracy has only been possible because the Constitution is being ignored, violated, and circumvented. The Constitution defines and limits the powers of the federal government. Those powers, all of which are enumerated, do not include agricultural subsidy programs, housing programs, education assistance programs, food stamps, etc. Under the Constitution, Congress is not authorized to pass any law it chooses; it is only authorized to pass laws that are constitutional. Anybody who doubts the intent of the Founders to restrict federal powers, and thereby protect the rights of the individual, should review the language in the Bill of Rights, including the opening phrase of the First Amendment (“Congress shall make no law…”).

As Welch explained in his 1961 speech:

…man has certain unalienable rights which do not derive from government at all…And those…rights cannot be abrogated by the vote of a majority any more than they can by the decree of a conqueror. The idea that the vote of a people, no matter how nearly unanimous, makes or creates or determines what is right or just becomes as absurd and unacceptable as the idea that right and justice are simply whatever a king says they are. Just as the early Greeks learned to try to have their rulers and themselves abide by the laws they had themselves established, so man has now been painfully learning that there are more permanent and lasting laws which cannot be changed by either sovereign kings or sovereign people, but which must be observed by both. And that government is merely a convenience, superimposed on Divine Commandments and on the natural laws that flow only from the Creator of man and man’s universe.

Such is the noble purpose of the constitutional republic we inherited from our Founding Fathers.

Amen. Can anyone be surprised that, as we have wandered ever deeper into the muck and mire of an artificially generated and wholly misguided infatuation with democracy, our national plight has steadily worsened in equal proportion? As I always say: The fault, dear Horatio, lies not in the principles of our Founders, but in ourselves. The farther we stray from the ideals and prescriptions of those great men, the more wretched the misery we create for ourselves becomes.

5

Priorities

Tucker nails it clean and tight yet again.

You know it tells you a lot about the priorities of a ruling class that the rest of us are getting yet another lecture about January 6th tonight from our moral inferiors, no less. An outbreak of mob violence, a forgettably minor outbreak by recent standards, that took place more than a year and a half ago, but they’ve never stopped talking about it.

In the meantime, in the 18 months since January 6, gas prices have doubled. Drug ODs have reached their highest point ever. The U.S. economy is now careening toward a devastating recession at best and scariest and least noted of all, this country has never in its history been closer to a nuclear war.

Yet the other networks can’t be bothered to cover any of that tonight. Instead, they’ve interrupted their regularly scheduled programing to bring you yet another extended primetime harangue from Nancy Pelosi and Liz Cheney about Donald Trump and QAnon. The whole thing is insulting.

In fact, it’s deranged and we’re not playing along. This is the only hour on an American news channel that will not be carrying their propaganda live. They are lying, and we are not going to help them do it. What we will do instead is to try to tell you the truth. We’ve attempted to do that since the day this happened.

We hated seeing vandalism at the U.S. Capitol a year and a half ago, and we said so at the time, but we did not think it was an insurrection because it was not an insurrection. It was not even close to an insurrection. Not a single person in the crowd that day was found to be carrying a firearm – some insurrection. In fact, the only person who wound up shot to death was a protester.

She was a 36-year-old military veteran called Ashli Babbitt. Babbitt was just over 5 feet tall. She was unarmed. She posed no conceivable threat to anyone, but Capitol Hill Police shot her in the neck and never explained why that was justified. Those are the facts of January 6, but since the very first hours, they have been distorted beyond recognition, relentlessly culminating with last night.

Last night, CBS Nightly News told its viewers that insurrectionists at the Capitol on January 6 “caused the deaths of five police officers.” That is a pure lie. There is nothing true about it, and they know that perfectly well.

Well, duh. Lying is their usual MO, nothing more than SOP for them. It’s how they do their job; more to the point, it’s what they consider their job to be. They’re not wrong, either, seeing as how they’re propagandists rather than actual journalists.

Here’s reporter Bob Costa, who should be deeply ashamed to say something this dishonest.

ROBERT COSTA, CBS: Thursday’s primetime hearing will take Americans back to January 6, when an estimated 2,000 rioters breached the Capitol building, causing the deaths of five police officers.

It’s hard to believe he said that. Rioters cause the deaths of five police officers. You just heard CBS News tell its viewers that. This must be the big lie theory. The more bewilderingly false a claim is, the more likely you will be to believe it. Apparently, that’s what they’re betting on. In fact, precisely zero police officers were killed by rioters on January 6, not five, none. Not a single one. So, how’d they get to five? Well, CBS is counting the suicides of local police officers that took place after January 6, in some cases, long after January 6.

The lies go on copiously unspooling from there, perhaps more of them and more egregious ones than you already knew about. Carlson covers one hell of a lot of ground here, skewering a whole slaughterhouse’s worth of shitlib sacred cows, and you should definitely read the whole thing. I can’t resist including his deft gutting of Ms Lindsey Graham:

In fact, Lindsey Graham, violence worshiper to the end, said that his only regret was that the Capitol Police didn’t shoot more Trump voters in the neck and kill them. “You’ve got guns, use them,” Graham said. So here you have a sitting U.S. senator, a Republican, urging police officers to shoot unarmed Americans, many of whom were ushered into the Capitol building by law enforcement.

Miss Lindsey reminds me a lot of a discarded, jizz-leaking condom I saw worming disgustingly around in the breeze on the beach at Coney Island once. Although, in xhrzhm’s defense, the gasbag IS well-known for running his yap a lot without really meaning a word he says. The thrilling conclusion:

We are not defending and would never defend vandalism, violence, rioting. We disapproved of it when it happened. We disapprove of it now, all riots, not just this one. But this was not an insurrection.

But, you know what will get you to insurrection? If you ignore the legitimate concerns of a population, if you brush them aside as if they don’t matter when gas goes to $5 and you say “buy an electric car.” When cities become so filthy and so dangerous that you can’t live there, when the economy becomes so distorted that your own children have no hope of getting married and giving you grandchildren, when you don’t care at all about any of that and all you do is talk about yourself, nonstop – you might get an insurrection if you behave like that, speaking of insurrection.

In such circumstances, you SHOULD get one; in fact, in the explicit opinion of our Founding Fathers, you MUST.

As I’ve said before here, it’s a curious kind of “insurrection” when the purported “insurrectionists” forget to bring any guns along with ’em to the party. The silver lining to the whole shit circus? This beautiful, beautiful photo:

J6CongressCrawler.jpeg

Crawl, Congresscritters, crawl. I’ve loved that pic since I first saw it, and I’ll love it forever. If nothing else, it’s proof positive of just how easy it would be to mount a real insurrection—against such craven, pussified opposition as that, how could it not succeed? Those overprivileged sissymaries would be too busy shitting themselves and begging for mercy to offer much in the way of effective resistance.

Statesmen? Don’t make me laugh. Consider the above picture the “Now” portion, of which the following would be the “Then.”

The great General Washington
What a REAL President looks like, which is easy to forget nowadays

One of these things is not like the other, eh? Some call it “progress,” but be damned if I ever will.

1

Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Wes lays out some hard, bitter truth for us.

War Is Upon Us. It Is Well Past Time To Let Them Know That We Will Not Go Quietly Into The Night!
Sitting at dinner last night with my wife, we had the news on in the background and lo and behold a report of another mass shooting, she just looked at me and shook her head. She then said “can’t people see what it happening?” They need us disarmed. Not going to happen without a fight, but I don’t think they care at this point. The mask has been off of these communist. They no longer hide their intentions.

Are we going to watch TPTB revel in their success of stealing our country and do nothing? Or will we fight? We lost our Country. Now what are you/we going to do about it? How do we restore Liberty for the future generations?

War has been declared against us deplorables in this land. Don’t believe it? Look no further than the Jan. 6th political prisoners. I know of only one way to respond. We need to fight, because we have no other options left to us that I can see. We must fight because they aim to kill us. They aim to wipe us off the face of this earth or enslave us. It is well past time to let them know that we will not go quietly into the night. It’s either them or us.

True dat, as my NOLA chums used to say. And the longer certain of us keep their heads firmly embedded in the sand—desperately trying to keep the warm, cozy security blanket of denial wrapped around them, to throw a gratuitous secondary metaphor into the, umm, mix—the more severe the inevitable reckoning is going to be. Am I overstating the case, or is Wes? Nope, not by a long yard we ain’t.

The FBI has released the affidavit filed in the case of Nicholas John Roske, who was arrested near the home of Supreme Court Justice Bret Kavanagh on Wednesday afternoon. The list of weapons and gear the suspect had on his person reads like something out of a horror movie. Roske, who told police that he planned to assassinate Kavanaugh, was arrested with a suitcase containing “a black tactical chest rig and tactical knife, a Glock 17 pistol with two magazines and ammunition, pepper spray, zip ties, a hammer, screwdriver, nail punch, crow bar, pistol light, duct tape, hiking boots with padding on the outside of the soles, and other items,” according to the FBI.

And lest you think some of those items were just ordinary tools you might find in the trunk of any car, Roske, who had traveled to Maryland from California, took a taxi to Kavanaugh’s home and carried the gear in a suitcase. What was the would-be assassin planning to do with the zip ties and the duct tape? Those don’t seem like items you’d need for an assassination, do they? And padded boots, purportedly to conceal his footprints? Why would you need those if you were planning to commit suicide? Obviously, there’s still a lot we don’t know about this case, but it’s terrifying to contemplate the “what ifs” in this assassination attempt.

Thank God police got to him before he was able to kill or maim Kavanaugh, his family members, or his security detail.

The suspect, who said he found the address of Kavanaugh’s home on the internet (that’s on YOU, left-wing whack jobs), told Montgomery County Police he was upset about the leaked draft opinion of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case, which could potentially overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling, and also the recent school shooting in Uvalde. He admitted to targeting Kavanaugh because he believed the justice would “side with Second Amendment decisions that would loosen gun control laws.” He said he planned to kill Kavanaugh and then commit suicide to give his life purpose.

Wow, let’s see here: anti-2A rights; pro-infanticide; a bungled, all-thumbs attempt to murder a mildly conservative USSC Justice—yup, he sure do tick off a good handful of the obligatory shitlib checkboxes, don’t he? All in a day’s work, though, for today’s violent, bloodthirsty Demonrats.

“I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

Those were the words of the Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, one of the most powerful elected officials in the nation, in March 2020. After spending years cynically delegitimizing the high court, Schumer had moved to openly threatening lifetime-appointed judges, by name, because he feared they would knock down the concocted constitutional right to an abortion.

Initially, Schumer refused to walk back those remarks. His spokesman ludicrously claimed the statement was “a reference to the political price Senate Republicans will pay for putting these justices on the court.” Of course, the senator hadn’t singled out the Republican Party, or any Republican. He called out the two newest justices by name. “You” and “you.”

Yet, it is almost surely the case that the coverage of a California man carrying a weapon and burglary equipment near Brett Kavanaugh’s home, reportedly there to murder the Supreme Court justice over the leaked opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, will not be tied to the rhetoric of Democrats like Schumer. CNN political reporters will not walk from one Democratic senator to the next, asking them if their rhetoric is responsible for inciting a man to show up at the Supreme Court justice’s home with a tactical knife, a Glock, ammunition, pepper spray and zip ties. We will not have a national conversation about the specter of leftist violence.  

Of course not, and only a damned purblind fool would expect it. This isn’t a level field we’re playing on here, a grim reality we’d all better square ourselves with before it devours us. Whining about how “unfair” it all is; pointing out shitlib “hypocrisy” as if that might trouble them in the least; launching into the old, played-out “if a REPUBLICAN did it!” song and dance routine—no more than tiresome, pathetic cliches at this point, every last one of them. What next, you gonna yammer at me about how biased the media is or something?

And normally I wouldn’t blame Democrats for the actions of extremists, either. The problem is that not only does the left continue to push the boundaries with Schumer-like threats but they are engaged in the relentless, daily smearing of their political opponents as seditious, vote-stealing, child-murdering fascists and insurgents. If this were true, violence would be justified. But it’s a sinister lie.

Moreover, though most people abhor violence, there is a concerted effort to intimidate justices. When Peter Doocy asked White House press secretary Jen Psaki if activists posting maps to homes and doxxing Supreme Court justices was the “kind of thing this president wants?” she responded: “Look, I think the president’s view is that there’s a lot of passion, a lot of fear, a lot of sadness from many, many people across this country about what they saw in that leaked document.” Kavanaugh’s would-be murderer told the FBI he got the idea to kill the Supreme Court justice after finding his address posted on the internet.

And let’s not forget that the White House encouraged people to go to the justices’ homes to protest. This is an attack not only on separation of powers but also basic norms of civility. The same people who are clamoring to limit free expression can’t even ask their people to observe basic decency.

Hate to have to dry you behind the ears so roughly, David, but “basic norms of civility” Has Left The Building, did so a goodish while back. It’s kinda sad that this development seems to have come as such a shock to you, but since it did there’s another thing you probably ought to know: the kind of fascist buttstains inclined to while away their idle hours “clamoring to limit free expression” aren’t the least bit likely to get their panties in a bunch over who might or might not be “observing basic decency,” being basically indecent sorts themselves. Indecency is by way of being a job requirement, you might say.

Wrap your head around one simple, fundamental principle: The rules for YOU and the rules for THEM are very, very different. They are privileged, special, elite; you, on the other hand, are belly-button lint, a bipedal dingleberry. They are attractive, personable, intriguing. You are the nasty particles of God-only-knows-what afloat in last week’s stinky, rancid bong water. They’re admirable; you’re beneath contempt. They matter; you…don’t. Once you take that aboard, it will all make sense. For certain values of the word “sense,” that is.

The Gospel truth

Wayne Allan Root just comes right out and says it.

Stop trying to pretend this isn’t treason. It is. Stop trying to pretend this isn’t the purposeful, intentional destruction of America. It is.

Stop trying to pretend this is “politics as usual” or a “political disagreement.” It’s not. Stop trying to pretend everything is going to be all right. It’s not.

America is in a dire situation. I believe we are in the worst situation in the history of America. We are hanging by a thread. It isn’t over just yet. But it’s the 9th inning and we’re down 8-0, with two outs. The situation is that dire.

We are dealing with radical communist traitors. Domestic terrorists and suicide bombers out to destroy the greatest country, economy and middle class in world history.

The time to act is now. Or we will never make it to 2024.

This isn’t right vs left. This is love of God, country and capitalism vs. radical communist traitors, hell bent on the destruction of America. This is sanity vs insane, wild-eyed, radical nutjobs.

It turns out Joe McCarthy was right, he was just early. The communist traitors are everywhere in government, political leadership, public education, universities, unions, the mainstream media, social media, Hollywood, judges, lawyers, even in the leadership ranks of the military and police. Communist traitors have infiltrated every level of government, society and industry.

This is TREASON. Biden and his handlers are radical communist traitors. They are domestic terrorists and suicide bombers. It’s time to take the gloves off. These people want us banned, censored, silenced, bankrupt, stripped of all property, stripped of all guns, imprisoned for our political beliefs, or dead. You can’t compromise with people who want you silenced or dead.

But the first step is to admit, THIS IS TREASON.  

Done and done, Wayne. Next…?

9

You’ll never get mine

Not one more fucking inch.

We’ve  compromised our Nation and ourselves into a semi-Soviet, woke, ‘through the looking glass’, turning our children into travesties of human beings, and now are seriously talking about giving the Communists what they need to finish the job, namely, disarming the American public.

THIS is the way to stop ‘mass shooters’:  Carry, Practice. Carry. Practice.  And, if that time comes, ‘Take Out the Trash!’

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer announced Tuesday that he is going to give a bipartisan group of Senators more time to work out how many of our constitutional rights we will lose.

How many? Nah, it’s just the one, actually—the same one it always is, and always has been. As the Duke of Wellington said at Waterloo, they’re coming at us in the same old style. But at long last, it is imperative that Real Americans foresake General Picton’s advice and not meet them in the same old style anymore. The tit-for-tat, proportionality über alles method has permitted them to advance so far that the 2A has been very nearly extinguished as a practical matter, so it’s time and past time for a newer, more defiant and bellicose approach. Unless we swap the kid gloves for a set of knuckledusters with a quickness, all will be lost, and that right soon.

How magnanimous of the Leader. He and the Dems are apparently not in any rush to institute a laundry list of Second Amendment infringements. Why should they be? Each day that goes by their lapdogs in the mainstream media make their case for them. Even FOX News has joined in. FOX’s news actors positively gushed Tuesday over Matthew McConaughey’s recent guns-are-bad performance. “It was so emotional,” one of their vacuous news actors muttered.

And hey, it’s NEVER a bad idea to base national policy purely on emotion instead of reason, logic, and the fucking US Constitution, right? Not that the Democrats would agree, natch—their entire policy platform has been based exclusively on emotion since the mid-60s, if not longer.

Enough is enough.

I am sick of watching our gun rights being bartered away by RINOs, Quislings and traitors, none of whom speak for me. None of whom understand guns. None of whom have likely even fired a damn gun. And, quite frankly, I don’t care which liberal Hollywood actor they drag in next to buttress their case.

We have nothing to gain by entering into discussions with the gun banners. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Conversely, we have everything to lose. Our team should immediately walk away from the table. It’s not like we’re going to get anything from the talks. The gun banners expect us to willingly give up some constitutional rights. They won’t give up anything. This is not even an actual discussion. It’s a strong-arm robbery.

DINGDINGDINGDINGDINGDING WE HAVE A WINNAH! I swear, the above paragraph is so chock-full of rich, buttery goodness you could get fat from reading it.

Instead, we need to hold the line. We need to understand that the Uvalde killings weren’t caused by you or me or the guns in our safes. They weren’t caused by the NRA, the GOA, the SAF, the USCCA or by the scores of state-level gun-rights groups. Neither were the killings the fault of the gun or the gunmaker. The madman was at fault, may he continue to rot in hell.

Correct as far as it goes, which isn’t quite far enough. The madman, directly, yes. Indirectly, the societal rot carefully seeded, nurtured, and brought to full emetic flower by the Evil Left. WE understand this perfectly well already; THEY may or may not, but will never, ever admit the inescapable truth therein, lest their ongoing program of tyranny, subjugation, and untrammeled power suffer for it.

The gun banners excel at instituting a sense of mass guilt whenever one of these atrocities occurs. Unfortunately, many of our lawmakers buy into it and surrender our rights as a result. There are a lot of slices of bread on the table right now – expanded background checks, RKBA infringements for 18-20-year-olds, waiting periods and a national Red Flag law. The gun banners are salivating. I say we put them on a carb-free diet.

Carbs, my squinted eye. The only thing that will work is to put them on a hot-lead diet, as we all damned well ought to know by now. These filthy, conniving shitweasels must never again be treated with as if they were anything other than exactly what we know them to be: liars, manipulators, sneak-thieves, and amoral opportunists with less probity and abstemiousness than a rabid wolverine in rut. Henceforth, the only thing they should ever get from us is the backs of our hands—quite literally, in a way they’ll never forget.

Chuckles Schumer and his fellow Uniparty grubworms think to take guns away from blameless American citizens who have done no wrong whatever, do they? Let them try, then.

Bring it, motherfuckers. Let’s just see what it gets you in the end.

(Via WRSA)

2

Hercules strikes again!

Kevin Sorbo makes with the bedrock common sense, as is his usual wont.


Only a fully tweaked-out Leftard could find this outrageous or offensive.

5

Trouble up the road

Twitter twats bite back.

Elon Musk Says Twitter Is ‘Resisting’ Terms of Deal, Threatens Termination
Elon Musk is accusing Twitter of “resisting and thwarting” his ability to obtain information about bot accounts on the social media website, saying that it’s a “breach” of the terms of their April deal.

Musk, the world’s richest person, sent a letter to the San Francisco-based firm on June 6.

“Mr. Musk reserves all rights resulting therefrom, including his right not to consummate the transaction and his right to terminate the merger agreement,” the letter reads.

Several weeks ago, the Tesla CEO accused Twitter of allowing a significant number of automated or “bot” accounts on the platform and demanded that the company release that data to him.

In late April, Twitter’s board and Musk jointly announced that he would purchase the social media company for $44 billion and take it private. The deal could take months to finalize, and Musk has publicly stated that it’s not entirely confirmed that he’ll actually buy Twitter.

After the letter was released on the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s website, shares of Twitter dropped 1.5 percent.

“As Twitter’s prospective owner, Mr. Musk is clearly entitled to the requested data to enable him to prepare for transitioning Twitter’s business to his ownership and to facilitate his transaction financing,” the letter reads. “To do both, he must have a complete and accurate understanding of the very core of Twitter’s business model—its active user base.

“Musk is not required to explain his rationale for requesting the data, nor submit to the new conditions the company has attempted to impose on his contractual right to the requested data. At this point, Mr. Musk believes Twitter is transparently refusing to comply with its obligations under the merger agreement, which is causing further suspicion that the company is withholding the requested data due to concern for what Mr. Musk’s own analysis of that data will uncover.”

Much as many of us would enjoy seeing this propaganda mill and the nefarious manipulators running the joint finally on the receiving end of the overdue bruisin’ they’ve long been a-cruisin’ for, the sole arbiter who will judge whether the project to bring Twatter into compliance with 1A standards is actually worth the effort, hassle, and expense required for final consummation of the current takeover agreement is none other than Elon Musk his own bad self. Of course, there are other avenues for dealing effectively with the likes of Twitter and their odious ilk available. But given how pricey ammo has gotten these days, we can only wish fair seas and following winds for Musk. For now, at least.

Explanation for my post title:



That there’s the jumpin’ and jukin’ 1991 cover version of an old Ike Turner-penned scorcher—originally recorded and released by the great Jackie Brenston, who gained everlasting renown for “Rocket 88“, which platter is generally acknowledged as the no-shit genesis of rock and roll—as reimagined by my longtime Nashville homeboys The Planet Rockers.

As it happens, and probably to the surprise of absolutely no one here, I not only have a history with the Planet Rockers, but with this specific song also.



If I recall correctly, which I do, we were playing under a drenching rain that night.

Update! Well, spank my ass and call me Shorty.

“Rocket 88” (originally stylized as Rocket “88”) is a rhythm and blues song that was first recorded in Memphis, Tennessee, in March 1951. The recording was credited to “Jackie Brenston and his Delta Cats”, who were actually Ike Turner and his Kings of Rhythm. The single reached number-one on the Billboard R&B chart.

As long as I’ve been aware of “Rocket 88” and its storied history, never did I have the vaguest clue that the record was actually done by Turner and his posse, not Brenston. Just goes to show that no dog is so old he can’t be taught a new trick once in a while, I reckon.

1

Our finest hour

I’m a day late on the D-Day anniversary, I know—had my daughter over for the weekend, for the first time in way too many months. No matter, though; it’s never a bad time to take a moment and remember the historic occasion with reverence and pride, and this piece on the great Winston Churchill makes a mighty fine way to mark it, I think.

The greatness of Winston Churchill continues to shine through despite the ravages that accompany what Roger Scruton so strikingly called “the culture of repudiation.” To be sure, there are growing efforts to “cancel” one of the greatest human beings of this or any other time. One of his best biographers, the English historian Andrew Roberts, has rightly noted that his conservatism, a conservatism at the service of English liberty and the broader inheritance of Western Civilization, could be summed up under “the generalized soubriquet, Imperium et Libertas, Empire and Freedom.”

But “civilizing empire” has a bad name today and is wrongly and presumptively identified with plunder and exploitation and a racist contempt for other peoples and nations. All were alien to Churchill.

As Roberts points out in his impressive 2018 book, Churchill: Walking with Destiny, Churchill was deeply grateful to the millions of Indian subjects of the Crown who volunteered to fight for the cause of civilization during the two world wars of the 20th century. His opposition to a precipitous granting of independence to what became India and Pakistan was rooted as much in his desire to avoid sectarian strife and unnecessary bloodshed than in imperial blindness to the self-determination of peoples or the dignity of colonial subjects. Churchill was humane and magnanimous if he was anything at all. His fiercest critics are driven by ignorance and ideological parti pris, not to mention a lack of gratitude to the statesman, who more than anyone saved Western liberty and made possible Britain’s “Finest Hour.”

To acknowledge Churchill’s greatness does not necessitate hagiography or what Churchill himself called “gush.” There is always an essential need and role for “discriminate criticism.” Roberts enumerates a long list of issues and decisions in the nine decades of Churchill’s life (1874–1965) where his judgment legitimately might be questioned. These include his early opposition to women’s suffrage,

As time grinds on and the West’s downward spiral intensifies, that one looks less and less “questionable.”

his decision to continue the Gallipoli operation after March 1915, his employing of the Black and Tan paramilitary forces in Ireland, his support for Edward VIII in the Abdication Crisis of 1936, his mishandling of the Norwegian campaign in the spring of 1940,

Okay, we can indeed debate each of those; so stipulated. Onwards.

the misplaced “Gestapo” speech during the 1945 general election campaign that badly backfired (he suggested that Labour style socialism might eventually require a full-fledged totalitarian apparatus and secret police),

Can’t see much way to argue against this one, myself. Painful and depressing as it is to have to say it, it begins to look as if any populace so decadent, historically ignorant, or lapsed into the sinkhole of hedonism, shiftlessness, and personal avarice as to turn its approving gaze towards the adoption of socialism is a populace in dire need of a hard-handed, strongly anti-socialist despot to rule it. Such a society is far too juvenile, unwise, and feckless to be trusted with any say in their own governance; their purblind embrace of a patently evil system provides irrefutable proof of that.

and his questionable decision to remain prime minister after a serious stroke in 1953. All these decisions and judgments are debatable, and some were no doubt mistakes, perhaps even serious mistakes.

But much of this is beside the point. Political greatness is not coextensive with infallibility or perfect judgment. On the issues that really mattered, Churchill was right, and not just in 1940 or as a critic of the disastrous appeasement of Hitler’s lupine imperialism in the half-decade or more before the outbreak of World War II. Today, many mediocre historians and critics, professional enemies of the very idea of human greatness, begrudgingly acknowledge that Churchill was right once, in 1940, and never or rarely before or after. 

These include those with a pronounced leftist orientation as well as the kind of perverse Tories, like the historian John Charmley, who retrospectively have preferred a separate peace with Nazi Germany in order to preserve the British empire and to ward off a coming threat from Soviet Communism. Even the Labour leader Clement Attlee, who presided over the War Cabinet with Churchill during World War II and came to acknowledge his qualities and to esteem him as a human being, problematically claimed that “Energy, rather than wisdom, practical judgment or vision, was his supreme qualification.” In truth, his undeniable energy would have amounted to very little, or little that was positive and constructive, if it had not been informed by practical wisdom of the first order.

In the magisterial conclusion to Churchill: Walking with Destiny, Roberts effectively responds to the naysayers, to those who are intent on minimizing both Churchill’s greatness and the practical judgment that informed and vivified that greatness. Roberts rightly points out that “when it came to all three mortal threats posed to Western civilization, by the Prussian militarists in 1914, the Nazis in the 1930s and 1940s and Soviet communism after the Second World War, Churchill’s judgment stood far above that of the people who sneered at his.”

Paraphrasing Kipling’s great poem “If,” Roberts notes that many of Churchill’s critics were “losing their heads and blaming it on him.” Attlee, honorably anti-Nazi to be sure, opposed rearmament and conscription before World War II, long after Churchill had wisely called for both. “Energy, rather than wisdom” indeed.

Aiight, difficult as I find it to stop myself from further excerpting, the above offering should be more than sufficient to convince y’all to trot on over to AmG for the exciting conclusion, I think. Persons of discernment, wit, and good taste—as CF Lifers all indubitably are—will think this must-read piece well worth their while.

Update! Yeah, yeah, I know I said I was all done with the excerpting. Damn it all, though, I am but a man, no more than flesh, blood, and sinew; I am not made of stone, and the temptation here is just too much.

I would add that Churchill understood the lethal character of Bolshevism long before the majority of his complacent contemporaries. As early as April 11, 1919, in a speech in London, Churchill argued that “Bolshevist tyranny,” as he called it, was “the worst, the most destructive, and the most degrading” in human history. He would reiterate that claim many times over the years. Churchill wanted to truly help the fledgling White forces in Russia while his short-sighted colleagues were anxious to withdraw the small Allied forces in Russia who were in a position to prevent the consolidation of Bolshevik tyranny. Even this is held against Churchill by anti-anti-communist historians, who are legion today. Somehow a meager, ineffectual, and brief Allied presence on Russian soil during the Russian Civil War is said to be responsible for the long Cold War. This reflects anti-anti-communist ire rather than a disinterested analysis of the facts. A widely held sophism, but a sophism nonetheless.

Churchill saw what was at stake in the totalitarian assault on liberal and Christian civilization like few people before or after. Among 20th-century statesmen, only de Gaulle shared this admirable lucidity and the determination to resist the inhuman totalitarian temptation on the intellectual, military, political, and spiritual fronts. These two great statesmen fully appreciated that World War II was much more than an age-old geopolitical conflict: it was no less than an effort to save and sustain a civilization at once Christian, liberal, and democratic. They still cared for the West as the West, a civilization worth preserving because it alone fully valorized the dignity of human beings who are souls as well as bodies, persons imbued with dignity and not playthings of ideological despotisms that in decisive respects were “beyond good and evil.”

That noble spiritual and civilizational vision is increasingly moribund in the democracies today.

From my well over four decades of avid study of all things WW2, it seems clear to me that the aforementioned “anti-anti-communists” were legion back then, too. Of a certainty, there was a great swathe of the British polity who were adamantly opposed to involving themselves in what they perceived as a Contintental tarbaby which, in their view, posed no imaginable threat to the British Isles. That Hitler might ever even dream of crossing the Channel to invade England was ridiculed as a wholly preposterous notion, considering Churchill’s clairvoyant realism as little more than the mad ravings of an incompetent, drunken paranoiac, all beneath the notice of intelligent people.

To their own eternal disgrace, a not-insignificant contingent of Brits went so far as to advocate some flavor of rapprochement, entente, or even open alliance with Der Fuehrer and his Thousand Year Reich.

The British dismissal of “Hitler’s war” as a strictly European affair, in concert with a strenuous resistance to needlessly becoming enmired Over There only a scant twenty years after the close of what, out of a surfeit of over-optimism and oblivious naivete about some of the darker realities of human nature, had come to be misnomered as “The War To End All Wars,” was held in common with a significant majority of Americans. It was a sentiment of which FDR was uncomfortably aware, one which troubled him a great deal.

FDR had favored US involvement in aid of America’s struggling British ally since the launch of Hitler’s blitzkrieg against Poland. Ever the cunning political animal, Roosevelt was at least astute enough to recognize widespread antiwar feeling among Americans as an obstacle he would need to find a way to surmount before he’d be able to take the actions he felt the quickly-unraveling situation in Europe would demand of him.

Okay, that’s it, no more excerpting. You know what you must do, Glasshoppah.

With “friends” like these, etc etc etc

So, General, sir, I just have to ask: won any wars lately?

Obviously, “those opposed to assault weapon bans” are one hell of a lot more intelligent, Constitution-savvy, and just plain honest than this gun-grabbing shitweasel has any interest in even trying to be. Or does the General, sir, really think himself such a slickster that we’ll swallow the risible notion that it’s his sincere conviction that the difference between military full-auto and cake-eating civilian semi-auto variants is not a “meaningful” one?

Which puffery is all just tail-chasing and doesn’t much matter in the end anyhow, because, y’know, SHALL. NOT. BE. INFRINGED.

LITERAL DEFINITION OF “ASSAULT RIFLE”*: A military rifle typically used by infantrymen which is equipped with a select-fire switch which allows the weapon to be fired in single-shot, three-round burst, or full-auto mode. Depending on what the manufacturer’s design blueprint specifies, the select-fire switch may include a trigger-locking “safe” position also.

Plenty more inane turd-burglary from this Major General Swampy Queefleton Suckbutt, REMF, sir perusable here, for anyone possessed of a strong enough stomach to be able to choke down another pantload of such arrant, purely political flapdoodle without gagging themselves comatose on the insulting bilgewater.

No meaningful difference between military and civilian rifles, eh? Well then, Gen Sucklebutt, REMF, sir would no doubt be eager to lead from the front in a grand experiment wherein a new unit under his direct command will be sent into combat equipped exclusively with single-shot, semi-automatic rifles without benefit of full rock and roll—which benefit, as he has assured us, does not in fact exist—so as to put an end to all the game-playing with “AR-15 semantics” he so deeply deplores once and for all.

Man, I sure do hope the Huns aren’t planning another invasion of France anytime soon, because any army with top brass like this in charge of it ain’t gonna be storming any beaches at Normandy this time around.

* Note: “assault WEAPON” is proactively deceptive goobledegook originally puked up by some hoplophobic pissypants legislator—hailing from Californicateya, natch; a Demonrat shitslurper, needless to say—back in 1984. This conjured-on-demand class of notional battle rifle immediately started to spread faster than crotch-crickets at Woodstock amongst Gen Suckbutt, REMF’s equally prissy fellow travelers for use as a booga-booga scare tactic which hopefully would erode support for the Second amongst no-ball cuntfarts entirely unburdened by any knowledge of or experience with projectile weapons of any kind who nonetheless might still be on the fence.

The requisite Very Bad Things which forever condemn any ordinary sporting arm to the Dread Assault Weapon ban-bin are so vague, nondescript, and easily adjustable as to be completely meaningless. Certainly, they can claim not even a distant kinship with a firearm’s ability to send lead downrange at high velocity; the terms which supposedly distinguish the “assault weapon” from Grampa’s boring old deer rifle are restricted to cosmetics and therefore wholly superficial. Which terms city-dwelling nancyboys, their scowling rage-junkie “life partners,” and the rest of the mewling ignoramii—the entire lot of whom appear to have slept through their local community college’s Introductory Logic night course for the entire week or ten days before the instructor finally chucked their stupid asses out—find extremely terrifying nonetheless.

Publick Announcement

Dammit, after many years of hard use, my aged but ever-faithful old iMac has begun to seriously shit the bed over the last three-four days. Not complaining mind; like I said, the old girl has been through one hell of a torture-test with me and until now has provided nothing but stellar, hiccup-free service. But the past several days, her advanced age (she’s a mid-2007 24-inch iMac) has been showing through via repeated lockups, hard crashes, and some truly frightening video-card glitches which are unlike anything I’ve ever seen. And being a dedicated Mac user since September 1998, believe when I tell you I’ve seen it all by now.

The interesting thing this time around is how fast this death-spiral has been. The other Macs I’ve murdered to death went radically, clinging to their fading existence with a desperate tenacity that was trul pitiful to see, just heartbreaking, honestly. But this time, it’s almost as if my girl just can’t give up the ghost quickly enough. The harbingers and portents have been doubling down on End of Runtime in a way that has left me slackjawed with astonishment.

So after the initial jagged lightning-bolt flashed across the screen, black with a thin white pinstripes all around the edges of it, which blanked out every pixel it lanced over for a split instant, it left me with such an ominous dread deep in my gut that I hastened to start checking the various refurbed-Mac sites I know about to see if there was anything available in my price range, which as usual was dismayingly low. Imagine my surprise when I found several refurbed mid-2017 27-inch iMacs whose asking price was in the five-six hundred dollar range, plus the usual stroke-inducing baksheesh for the goobermint—doable provided I scraped, scrounged, and fasted fiercely enough.

The only hitch is that the one I’ve decided has my name on it comes with free five-day shipping, and it feels like to me that the odds of my old one lasting that long aren’t encouraging. So if things do go sour, as I fear they’re likely to, and you suddenly experience total radio silence from here for a brief spell, well, at least now you’ll know the reason for it. As always, I’m extremely thankful for y’all’s kind attention, and wouldn’t want anybody out there worrying about me unnecessrily. Back soon, all.

11

Pissing in the wind

This poor schmuck has his head so far up his ass he probably has to yawn to see daylight.

Here we are again, trying to make sense of the senseless. Trying to understand what would harden someone’s heart enough to take the lives of innocent human beings. It is impossible to comprehend.

Even though some scream for “common sense” solutions – without articulating what those solutions actually are, and how they would impact the civil rights of Americans – there are no easy answers. There simply is no common solution that would magically cure society’s ills.

Oh yes there is. No, it isn’t magic, of course. Nonetheless, it WOULD definitely cure what ails us; it WOULD be easy, or no more difficult than pulling a trigger, anyway; and, for the legions of us who are good and goddamned sick of the insufferable, smarmy shitbags, it would be a real pleasure as well.

Sadly, about the only thing that is predictable in these situations is the rush to judgment and condemnation. It seems these days that the only constant in these circumstances is the immediate rush to lash out and demonize fellow Americans.

Yeah, well, the fact is there’s a perfectly good reason for that. And it’s one that people like yourself who are terminally afflicted with Stage IV Rodney King Syndrome, a cognitive and emotional malady which presents primarily as a desperate need to cling to the absurd fallacy that we can “all just get along” with the Left—who, by the by, are NOT just playing around when they say (as they incessantly do, without equivocation; in fact, it’s the one and only thing they’ve ever been completely honest about) that they want us either enslaved, imprisoned, or embalmed—badly need to take note of.

Not that this boob will, natch. RKS sufferers, see, are willing to go to any lengths imaginable if they see even the slimmest chance to engage in more “dialogue,” “debate,” and “compromise” with…well, frankly, with demonic shitbags who are so suffused with hatred and contempt for all of us on Our Side it can actually cause great gouts of blood to spurt from their eyeballs sometimes. No shit, I’ve seen it happen. It’ll scare you half out of your wits, assuming you have any.

Oops oops oopsie! I see that I “demonized” my “fellow Americans” just now. “Fellow Americans,” that is, who hate America all to pieces, and are in fact demons. My bad.

But hey, maybe this poor goof is right and I’m all wet; maybe we should run up and try to kick that ol’ football just one more time. What could be the harm, no? All that really needs to be done so we can get this “productive dialogue” with Leftists (who hate freedom, hate Christianity, hate America, and hate Real Americans worse than all the other fine and decent things they hate) is to just go ahead and turn over all our guns to the ruling junta currently fronted by the “Joe Biden” marionette. Great American Yertle McTurtle is so eager to get to work on dousing the last feeble spark of relevance left in the guttering 2A that he’s writhing and squirming in his Senate office chair like Fakir Musafar* forced to take a seat on his patented Stool Of Nails when he also happens to be experiencing the most godawful hemorrhoidal flare-up of his entire life.

Outrageous name-calling, slandering and bigoted attacks on those who choose to exercise a civil right, and those companies that make that right manifest by the products they manufacture is narrow-minded and beneath the dignity of elected officials.

“Dignity”? Dooood, SRSLY?!?

When the firearm industry changed the laws in 16 states to improve and increase the disqualifying data found in background checks for firearms, we helped save lives and prevent these very types of horrific events. This is especially true when we fought for and got huge bipartisan support for legislation that improved background checks at the federal level.

SHALL. NOT. BE. INFRINGED.

Likewise, Project Childsafe® has donated over 40 million firearm safety kits to all 50 states and five U.S. territories through well over 15,000 law enforcement and community organizations. This award-winning program provides real education for gun owners and non-gun owners alike and provides the means to immediately securely store their firearms with a free gun lock. This is what real leadership on an issue looks like and is a true “gun safety” initiative.

Sorry, no. “Real leadership” on this particular issue isn’t needed; in fact, it should be eschewed, seeing as how the actual issue under discussion here in the first damned place is NOT gun safety, but gun control. Which phrase is also a dodge, being Lefty weasel-words for gun BAN, gun CONFISCATION. Which, actually, is just another verbal subterfuge itself; when all is said and done, the shitlib ultimate goal is in truth total civilian disarmament, de facto and completely contra-Constitutional nullification of the 2A, an underhanded end-run around the proper procedure for amending the poor, beaten-down old thing the Founders set up for their posterity.

The message is simple: name-calling and referring to those who may not agree on a particular approach to an issue as “the enemy” is no way to lead.

Perhaps. But one thing I do know for absolute certain is this: if you are so dunderheaded, so polite, or so damned faint of heart, weak of will, or limp of wrist to nut up and call a spade a fucking spade instead of a shovel—or an enemy an enemy, instead of a “fellow American” (puke)—then your fate is already sealed. By your own craven refusal to choose your side in what is incontrovertibly a showdown between Good and Evil and take an honest stand, you doomed yourself.

With “friends” like these, 2A people don’t need enemies.

9

Comments policy

Comments appear entirely at the whim of the guy who pays the bills for this site and may be deleted, ridiculed, maliciously edited for purposes of mockery, or otherwise pissed over as he in his capricious fancy sees fit. The CF comments section is pretty free-form and rough and tumble; tolerance level for rowdiness and misbehavior is fairly high here, but is NOT without limit. Management is under no obligation whatever to allow the comments section to be taken over and ruined by trolls, Leftists, and/or other oxygen thieves, and will take any measures deemed necessary to prevent such. Conduct yourself with the merest modicum of decorum, courtesy, and respect and you'll be fine. Pick pointless squabbles with other commenters, fling provocative personal insults, issue threats, or annoy the host (me) and...you won't. Should you find yourself sanctioned after running afoul of the CF comments policy as stated and feel you have been wronged, please download and complete the Butthurt Report form below in quadruplicate; retain one copy for your personal records and send the others to the email address posted in the right sidebar. Please refrain from whining, sniveling, and/or bursting into tears and waving your chubby fists around in frustrated rage, lest you suffer an aneurysm or stroke unnecessarily. Your completed form will be reviewed and your complaint addressed whenever management feels like getting around to it. Thank you.

Categories

Archives

"Mike Hendrix is, without a doubt, the greatest one-legged blogger in the world." ‐Henry Chinaski

Subscribe to CF!

Support options

Shameless begging

If you enjoy the site, please consider donating:

Allied territory

Alternatives to shitlib social media:

Fuck you

Kill one for mommy today! Click to embiggen

Notable Quotes

"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

"There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." — Daniel Webster

“The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it’s profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater.” – Frank Zappa

“The right of a nation to kill a tyrant in case of necessity can no more be doubted than to hang a robber, or kill a flea.” - John Adams

"A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves." -- Bertrand de Jouvenel

"It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged." - GK Chesterton

"I predict that the Bush administration will be seen by freedom-wishing Americans a generation or two hence as the hinge on the cell door locking up our freedom. When my children are my age, they will not be free in any recognizably traditional American meaning of the word. I’d tell them to emigrate, but there’s nowhere left to go. I am left with nauseating near-conviction that I am a member of the last generation in the history of the world that is minimally truly free." - Donald Surber

"The only way to live free is to live unobserved." - Etienne de la Boiete

"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid." — Dwight D. Eisenhower

"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

"There is no better way to stamp your power on people than through the dead hand of bureaucracy. You cannot reason with paperwork." - David Black, from Turn Left For Gibraltar

"The limits of tyranny are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress." - Frederick Douglass

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

“I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.” - Ronald Reagan

"Ain't no misunderstanding this war. They want to rule us and aim to do it. We aim not to allow it. All there is to it." - NC Reed, from Parno's Peril

"I just want a government that fits in the box it originally came in." - Bill Whittle

Best of the best

Image swiped from The Last Refuge

2016 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

RSS feed

RSS - entries - Entries
RSS - entries - Comments

Contact


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

Copyright © 2022