FUBAR

Codevilla reveals that the illusion of America’s supreme military might is just that: an illusion.

News that the wargames which the RAND corporation runs for the U.S. government show U.S. forces getting “its ass handed to it” by Russia and China have elicited disbelief: “how could this possibly be?” The short answer is that the U.S. armed forces are utterly corrupt: the very definition of parade ground forces, superbly equipped, fabulously paid (to look good)—but utterly incapable of winning the wars that our even more corrupt national security establishment defines for them. Corrupt, and un-serious.

Specifically: U.S. forces fail in the wargames, and would fare worse in real life, because they would be sent to fight the Chinese for control of the Western Pacific, and Russia for control of areas west of the Niemen river, as well as north of Crimea. The Chinese and Russians, respectively, would enjoy advantages in these areas. U.S. forces, configured as they are because of inter- and intra-Service corporate priorities, because of military-industrial collusion, and above all because of the national security establishment’s self-regarding prejudices and proclivities, are not based, sized, or equipped seriously to contest those advantages. Above all, they lack realistic plans for doing so. In sum, U.S. forces would lose these wars because of classic mismatches between ends and means. All entirely foreseeable. I repeat: Corruption.

The wargames dealt only with operational/tactical factors on the conventional level in the theaters of operation. But China and Russia are nuclear powers whose missiles can deliver nuclear warheads to the U.S. Neither has been shy about pointing out that they might force the U.S. to choose between its objective in their back yard and the loss of one or more American cities. Moreover, longstanding U.S. policy, most recently reaffirmed in 2019, is not to have any equipment that can defend against Russian or Chinese missiles. If, perchance, Chinese or Russian forces should have difficulty disposing of U.S. challenges, raising the nuclear specter would surely force the U.S. side to reconsider why we engaged in war in others’ back yards without the capacity to protect ourselves at home. Since nuclear weapons are fully integrated into Russia’s ground forces, this rude awakening would likely come in the course of ordinary operations. On the Chinese side, we might well see the annihilation of Guam. But, one might respond, “U.S. nuclear missile forces are so superior to China’s!” Sure. Superior for what? What good would killing a couple of million Chinese do?

What forces against what, where, to do what, is the nub of the military matter. The Chinese and Russians, respectively, have good strategic, operational, and tactical answers. The U.S. side does not.

Skeptical, are ya? Insist on some proof, do ya? Okay, here ya go:

The Ford class has become a major crisis. In February 2018 the navy confirmed that it had major problems with the design and construction of its new EMALS (Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System) catapult installed in its latest aircraft carrier; the USS Ford (CVN 78) and the three other Ford-class carriers under construction. During sea trials, the Ford used EMALS heavily, as would be the case in combat and training operations and found EMALS less reliable than the older steam catapult. EMALS was also more labor intensive to operate and put more stress on launched aircraft than expected. Worse, due to a basic design flaw, if one EMALS catapult becomes inoperable, the other three catapults could not be used in the meantime as was the case with steam catapults. This meant that the older practice of taking one or more steam catapults offline for maintenance or repairs while at sea was not practical. The navy admitted that in combat if one or more catapults were rendered unusable they remained that way until it was possible to shut down all four catapults for repairs. During the initial at-sea tests the EMALS failed once every 75 aircraft launches. The standard for steam catapults is one failure every 4,166 launches. The landing and recovery system also had reliability problems, failing once every 76 landings, which is far below the standard of one failure per 16,500 landings. In effect, these problems with launching and recovering aircraft make the Fords much less effective than the older Truman (and other Nimitz class CVNs). The navy has long had a growing problem with developing new ships and technology and the Ford is the worst example to date. With no assurance as to when and to what extent the launch and recovery systems would be fixed (and be at least as effective as the older steam catapults) the navy was overruled and told to keep the Truman.

The navy also asked for another delay in performing mandated shock tests for the Ford, in which controlled explosions were set off near the hull that generated at least 66 percent of the amount of force the ship was designed to handle. This would reveal what equipment was not sufficiently built or installed to handle shock and make changes as well as confirming that the hull can handle the stress overall. The navy wants to wait until the second Ford-class carrier enters service in 2024 because, it admits, it is unsure how badly shock tests would damage new systems and design features. Meanwhile, there are some other major shortcomings with the Fords, including electronics (the radars), some of the elevators and a few other mechanical systems. But none of these are as serious as the malfunctioning catapults. Progress is being made in improving the reliability of the new launch and recovery system but such progress has been very slow and there is no convincing plan to achieve parity with steam catapult systems any time soon.

Some of the problems with EMALS were of the sort that could be fixed while the new ship was in service. That included tweaking EMALS operation to generate less stress on aircraft and modifying the design of EMALS and reorganizing how sailors use the system to attain the smaller number of personnel required for catapult operations. But the fatal flaws involved reliability. An EMALS catapult was supposed to have a breakdown every 4,100 launches but even after some initial fixes, in heavy use, EMALS actually failed every 400 launches. By the end of 2017, the Navy concluded that an EMALS equipped carrier had only a seven percent chance of successfully completing a typical four-day “surge” (multiple catapult launches for a major combat operation) and only a 70 percent chance of completing a one-day surge operation. That was mainly because when one EMALS catapult went down all four were inoperable. In effect, the Ford-class carriers are much less capable of performing in combat than their predecessors. The navy hopes they can come up with some kind of, as yet unknown, modifications to EMALS to fix all these problems. In the meantime, the new Ford carrier is much less useful than older ones that use steam catapults.

There are no easy solutions.

Of course not, nor cheap ones either. There never are.

But the Ford Class CVNs are hardly the only depressing example of decay into second- or even third-rate-power status. There are also the USN sailors who can’t enter an international harbor without crashing into other ships, navigators who can’t navigate, and so on. The Air Farce has pilots who have done almost all of their “flight” training in simulators only, limited to a flight-hours standard officially deemed “not ready for combat” in the 80s and 90s. We rely on a fleet of combat aircraft already in an advanced state of decrepitude, kept aloft with spare parts robbed from Jet-On-A-Stick museum pieces that were retired long ago.

Let’s just sidle on around the smoking ruins of that ground-bound pig, the F35, shall we? With several countries backing away from earlier commitments to buy the faltering, ruinously expensive albatross, the less said about it, the better.

Of course, when the populace lacks the will to prosecute its wars to a victorious conclusion whatever the cost, neglect and decay of its armed forces is inevitable. In turn, the American polity has ample reason for such skittishness; having been led into many costly, pointless conflicts across the globe in which victory was neither defined nor sought, reluctance to blindly support still more endless nation-building boondoggles begins to look like no more than simple good sense. The US military isn’t to blame for that situation; to the contrary, it’s another victim of it.

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: this country shouldn’t even DREAM of engaging in any war without clearly-defined objectives and a solid, realistic battle plan at least reasonably capable of achieving them. Should those conditions be met and politically agreed upon, overwhelming force should be deployed in pursuit of those objectives, without the hindrance of absurd, politically-correct ROEs that put US interests hindmost. Enemy complaints about “atrocities” and “war crimes” should be measured against a standard that assumes they’re propaganda until proved credible. Should the America-hating liberal media establishment decide to be complicit in such manipulation by the enemy, the consequences for them ought to be immediate and severe.

FOBBITS, staff, S1, S2, S3, and all the rest of the REMFs should be made fully mindful that their role is exclusively and entirely to support, not to interfere, hinder, or second-guess. JAG lawyers particularly should be informed in no uncertain terms that targeting, patrolling, and all other tactical decisions will NOT be passed across their desks for approval first, or at all. Their involvement in heat-of-the-moment combat decision-making must be ended, with the men at the pointy end in unquestioned charge; the days of these prissy, pious rear-area scolds looking over the shoulders of front-line grunts is by God over. If such as they really want a combat role, let them man up and carry a rifle.

When it comes to fixing our military, those are the problems that have to be corrected first. If they aren’t, no amount of fiddling and fussing with the tech, the weaponry, and the other gear will avail us a blessed thing in the end.

Lots more NOTHING

This is what trying to make a case when you don’t have one looks like.

Retired Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz gave what may be the most persuasive case against impeaching President Donald Trump while in the well of the U.S. Senate on Monday evening.

Speaking as a representative of Trump’s defense team, the lifelong liberal Democrat urged senators to not “let the feelings about one man, strong as they may be, cause irreparable damage” to the fate of other presidents. “Passion and fears of the moment must not blind us,” he pleaded.

Before Dershowitz took the lectern before the Senate, there was considerable debate about an obviously strategically-timed leak of information from former National Security Adviser John Bolton’s unpublished book.

Dershowitz had an answer to the New York Times’s leak in which Bolton believed the worst about President Trump’s delay of aid to Ukraine, saying it was “inconceivable” to the founders that a quid pro quo was an impeachable offense.

As I’ve been saying right along: EVEN IF TRUMP ACTUALLY DID EVERY SINGLE LAST THING THEY COMPLAIN ABOUT, THERE’S STILL NOTHING REMOTELY CRIMINAL ABOUT ANY OF IT. The one and only thing this man is actually guilty of is trying to do what he was elected to do. “Quid pro quo” conditions on foreign aid, is it? One of the reasons his supporters voted for him is because he said he hoped to eliminate whacking great gobs of foreign aid ENTIRELY.

So riddle me this: if investigating the obvious corruption of a manifestly corrupt politician like Senile Uncle Gropey and his odiferous offspring is to be off the table just because he’s running for office yet again, to whom does that new standard apply? Is it just Gropey & Son? All Democrat-Socialist grifters and goniffs? Can we expect the same hands-off consideration for Republican office-seekers too? Is this sweet little break for all politicians, or just state level and up? Is it for presidential aspirants only?

It’s a basket of bollocks, is what it is. To wit:

When Brett Kavanaugh was nominated for a seat on the US Supreme Court, not only did the GOP have a clear majority in the Senate and, thanks to Harry “no, really, it was an exercise band not a gay escort that knocked my eye loose” Reid there was no filibuster to contend with, but Kavanaugh seemed an smart, doctrinaire, and squeaky clean conservative. Everyone expected the left to attack his opinions, but there were no skeletons here.

Then came the accusations by fabulist Christine Blasey Ford about an incident that took place in high school (she couldn’t provide an exact time or location) when she was sexually assaulted by a young Kavanaugh. Close on the heels of that allegation, a woman named Deborah Ramirez claimed Kavanaugh, while a college student, had waggled his penis in her face. Then we were treated to a soon-to-be convicted felon named Michael Avenatti producing a woman named Julie Swetnick who claimed that Kavanaugh ran a gang rape ring. A woman later identified as Judy Munro-Leighton claimed Kavanaugh raped her in a car.

All of these allegations were false. They were all easily batted down. But they served a common purpose. What should have been a pro-forma hearing of two or three days, followed by a confirmation vote turned into a month-long ordeal that involved a “supplemental” FBI investigation. And the volume of similarly themed allegations left some people wondering if there was a pony underneath that pile of horse dung, was Brett Kavanaugh a serial sexual predator in the Bill Clinton mode?

If one looks at the Trump impeachment trial, one sees the outlines of a similar pattern.

Oh, one most certainly does. And there’s a reason for that: as with Kavanaugh, as with many others going all the way back to Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork, now taken to truly stupefying extremes with Trump, these are assuredly NOT matters of “principle,” of “conscience,” of concern for “our democracy” or the Constitution. These are no more than tactics, stratagems, subterfuges—sleazy partisan black-ops mounted by conniving, twisted, soulless DC shitweasels sick on their insatiable greed for power and all that comes with it.

Slow-motion suicide update! When you got nothin’, you got…nothin’ to lose.

So what happens in the never-ending impeachment story, once the current impeachment indictment leads to an inevitable Senate vote of exoneration?

Another Stormy somewhere? A follow-up to Operation Crossfire Hurricane? Tax returns redux? Whistleblower 2.0? Another New York Times anonymous op-ed resister? Bob Woodward’s sequel? More leaked phone calls? Another impeachment hearing, and another impeachment vote? Schiff’s new version of a presidential call? One more Ivy League psychiatrist distance-diagnosing Trump as nuts? An emoluments clause do-over? More FISA warrants? A newly discovered Trump phone call to Poland, Romania, or Mexico? Lt. Colonel Vindman’s twin?

I mention these post-impeachment psychodramas because they are symptomatic of a sick Democratic patient. Yet the endless effort to destroy Trump before the election in the progressive mind has a certain logic given the current Democratic dilemma.

The Democratic Party is currently struggling with the weakest field of candidates since 1972 or 1984, well apart from the irony that a party that hectors the nation on proportional representation and disparate impact is fine with an all-white debating stage.

The Democratic platform will likely include the “Green New Deal,” a wealth tax, Medicare for All, tuition debt cancellation, higher income taxes, veritable open borders, an end to deportation and perhaps ICE as well, reparations, and a leftwing version of Obama’s failed foreign policy.

In other words, the Democratic agenda is weaker even than the unlucky candidate who will be expected to run on it.

Gee, guys, didja ever consider maybe rethinking some of those century-plus-old collectivist shibboleths of yours and trying out some new ones that might actually, y’know, work for a change?

Case: CLOSED update! No matter how empty, how weak, how just plain bad you may think the Democrat-Socialist “case” is…it’s worse.

The House managers’ argument is simple. It alleges that President Trump withheld military assistance from Ukraine in order to force that country’s new president to investigate — among other things — why and how former Vice President Biden’s son became a director of a corrupt Ukrainian energy company. A subsidiary argument is that Trump also refused to provide, for the same reason, a White House meeting with President Volodymyr Zelensky.  In withholding the assistance and the meeting, the House managers argue, Trump used the power of the U.S. government for his own political purposes — a corrupt act that they claim warrants his impeachment.

The president’s lawyers, however, in their short two-hour summary of what they will say this week in more detail, fatally undermined this case. They began with the famous July 25 transcript that recorded a conversation that day between the two leaders. In the transcript, as the lawyers pointed out, neither Trump nor Zelensky made any reference to the military equipment for Ukraine that Trump was allegedly using to pressure his counterpart. (Zelensky did mention that Ukraine was “almost ready” to buy more Javelin anti-tank weapons, but they were not part of the withheld assistance.)

Even more important, there is nothing in the transcript that suggests Zelensky was aware — at least on July 25 — that anything was being withheld from Ukraine. Obviously, Trump could not be pressuring Zelensky by holding back military assistance if the latter was not aware of it. This is a fatal flaw in the House managers’ argument.

The president’s lawyers then produced strong circumstantial evidence that officials in Ukraine were not aware, until Aug. 28, that anything was being withheld. Through the rest of July and almost all of August, U.S. officials who would regularly hear from their Ukrainian counterparts heard nothing about the military assistance. But on Aug. 28, Politico published an article saying that Trump was withholding aid. This immediately set off a storm of calls from officials in Ukraine to their U.S. counterparts, showing that Ukrainian officials had been unaware that anything was being delayed. Again, if those officials had been in the dark, Trump could not have been using withheld aid to force Ukraine into investigating the Bidens.

What’s left for Senate Democrats is an attempt to get 51 votes for additional witnesses. But it’s a fool’s errand. Now circulating in the media is a story about a book by John Bolton in which he allegedly says the president directed him to hold up delivery of the assistance until Biden was investigated. The president no doubt says many things to many people that he trusts. But all these statements of intention are irrelevant if he never told the Ukrainians that the assistance was being withheld. Without such knowledge, President Zelensky was not being pressured.

There’s simply no “there” there. Bottom line: the Shampeachment farce is not about a single damned thing the lying Democrat-Socialists claim it is, and they know it full well. In reality, it’s about two elections: the one they lost in 2016, and the one they fear they can’t win in 2020. Period, full stop, end of story.

FUD with words

Tangentially related to that last post, another example of how the Left rewrites history to suit its own nefarious purposes.

Serious problems exist with some of the narrative spun about (Martin Luther) King, in particular, and the civil rights struggle, in general. Part of the problem, of course, is that King died young, enabling others, as with the two Kennedy brothers, to fill in the rest of the story and use it to further certain political agendas. King died short of his fortieth birthday; had he lived longer, presumably he would have evolved and, possibly, become a very different man than he was when he died–we will never know. What we do know is that the Democratic Party and their “progressive” media and education machines have rewritten the history of the civil rights struggle. This was driven home to me some years ago while visiting a college campus. The students assumed King was a Democrat, and the segregationists confronting the peaceful marchers, and using fire hoses, snarling police dogs, and truncheons, and wearing white hoods were Republicans. They assume a Republican killed King–today’s college kids probably believe the Tea Party had him killed. That the exact opposite is true, shocks many. King came from a staunchly Republican family–his father, a prominent leader in his own right–openly endorsed Richard Nixon against JFK in the 1960 presidential election. The Democrats had a one-party lock on the South. The party of slave owners and secessionists, had become the party of Jim Crow, school segregation, anti-miscegenation laws, poll taxes, and on and on.

Many Americans, not to mention foreigners, do not realize not only that the Republican party was formed in opposition to slavery and that Lincoln was a Republican, but that the famous Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren, whose rulings dismantled the legal basis for segregation and put serious limitations on the power of police, was a former Republican Governor of California. It was, furthermore, war hero and Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who sent troops to Arkansas to enforce court-ordered desegregation at Little Rock Central High School. Congressional Republicans were the main supporters of civil rights legislation; their votes ensured passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, over the opposition of a significant bloc of Democrats–let us also not forget that Congressional Democrats for years blocked Republican efforts to pass federal anti-lynching legislation. All this, of course, is history, but an important chunk of American history that is being lost, distorted, or otherwise flushed down the memory sewer–along with the fact that anti-leftist J. Edgar Hoover proved the most formidable foe of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), an organization founded and staffed by Democrats, such as long-time Democratic Senator Robert Byrd.

Before I get back to King, let me address another issue that has been badly distorted and become something of a meme among the quasi-literate left. I refer to the idea that the parties have “switched places.” This is something I have heard from some lefties who, knowing the true history of the Democratic and Republican Parties when it comes to race and civil rights, try to argue that that was then, and this is now. Since FDR or so, they argue the Democratic and the Republican Parties “switched” places on the race issue, with Republicans taking the role of protecting white privilege and keeping minorities, especially blacks, down. The truth is quite different. What happened was that the old party of slavers, segregationists, lynch mobs, and secessionists figured out that government programs and intervention were the means to deprive Republicans of a significant voter bloc. The aim was to keep black Americans dependent on the largesse of government and Democrat-run urban political machines. Anyone who doubts that should read the crude comment in which President Johnson revealed the real purpose underlying his massive social program expansion, i.e., to keep black Americans voting Democratic. The Democrats have succeeded admirably at this objective.

The truth is ALWAYS “quite different” when the Democrat-Socialists are the ones telling it. This is NOT a coinkydink, I assure you. Folding, spindling, and mutilating the very language we speak is an age-old tactic of theirs, beginning with their hijacking of the term “liberal” its very self to mean the exact opposite of the original definition. Bejamin Dierker calls it “linguistic activism,” but I prefer the more direct and concise “lying” as a descriptor, myself.

This isn’t innocent linguistic drift or slang; it is a conscious effort to reshape society. The schemes include redefining words for personal gain, using modifiers to alter the meaning of a word, replacing technical words with colloquial ones, and creating new words. Each of these is a bullying tactic, which distort effective discourse.

It starts with misusing words or defining them based on circumstance rather than objective meaning. The entire purpose of defined language is to hold constant meaning so others can understand. Situational use starts to condition how people feel about words, building up a new connotation.

The classic example is the word “liberal,” which the far-left co-opted. It was adopted because of its positive connotation, and used as a cover for imposing greater leftist control under the guise of liberty. In reality, there is nothing liberal about failing to protect life, burdening individuals with regulations and taxes, or forcing individuals to provide services to others. This is no accidental misnomer, but strategic messaging to influence people. Who doesn’t want to support a policy that is “progressive,” “pro-choice,” or “affordable”?

When they use a word it means just what they choose it to mean, neither more nor less—but the meaning is always subject to change without notice. The question is, which is to be master—that’s all.

Steyn unloads on Shampeachment

Why don’tcha just come out and tell us what you really think, Mark?

The left, being not terribly imaginative, always accuse you of what they’re doing themselves. So, in this case, President Trump is charged with interfering with the 2020 election by men who have been interfering with the 2016 and 2020 elections for over three-and-a-half years now. Which is why we have the preposterous spectacle of four Democrat presidential candidates preparing to vote to remove from office the guy they’re running against.

This is a joke. I gave up on it when, on the eve of the trial, the laughably named “Government Accountability Office” released its supposedly entirely separate conclusion that Trump had acted “illegally”. Aside from the fact that that “finding” is flat out wrong, I wonder whether the permanent bureaucracy ever thinks, “Gee, maybe we should be a little more subtle about putting our Deep State thumbs on the scale.”

But no. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? To whom is the “Accountability Office” accountable? Apparently nobody – just as with James Comey’s FBI and Rod Rosenstein’s DoJ and Lois Lerner’s IRS and all the rest. If bureaucrats want to get political, they should do what politicians do and run for office. But why bother if, simply by being a “career public servant”, you have a license to obstruct mere elected transients and their “policies”? The permanent state is one reason we have so many permanent problems.

Man, when Steyn is on, he is flat-out ON, ain’t he? Meanwhile, rising star Elise Stefanik has got herself a notion:

Representative Elise Stefanik is a member of President Trump’s defense team. In this interview the issue of the deficient articles is raised surrounding witnesses.

House witnesses who gave testimony when the articles were framed could be considered appropriate, if needed, when debating those articles in the Senate. However, witnesses not called by the House; and therefore not used in the assembly of the articles being debated in the Senate; are not valid for consideration.

It is not the responsibility of the Senate, nor is it constitutionally valid, for the Senate to attempt to rehabilitate improperly constructed articles simply because the House refused to assemble with due diligence. Any evidence, including witnesses, that falls outside the originating assembly of the two House articles should be considered null and void.

Limbaugh has a notion himself:

I really think the Republicans ought to bring Schiff in here and put him front and center and I think they ought to call him. I think they ought to make everything the Democrats are doing related to Adam Schiff. This guy needs to upheld front and center as the energy, the face behind this entire thing, because he’ll fold. Folks, he hasn’t said much that is the truth since this began.

I really think it’s critical to expose Adam Schiff in this, I think. If we’re gonna start calling witnesses (we’ll talk about that), get Schiff up there first. Everything revolves around Schiff. You are looking at human slime. I don’t like saying that. You’re just looking at a bad guy, folks. You’re looking at a really bad, poisoned guy. The guy is so partisan that he has just abandoned all pretense of decency — and he cannot tell the truth about any of this.

He’s just openly lying about things, and it’s the poison of this hatred that he’s got for Trump. Adam Schiff is typical of this radical left mentality that has taken over the Democrat Party. It is unreasonable, it is indecent, it has no boundaries of propriety. So I think the guy needs to be exposed. I think he needs to be brought front and center. He’s the guy with ties to the whistleblower, Ciaramella — who we now know has been working on this for two weeks after Trump was inaugurated.

Maybe forcing Schiff to testify under oath could explain the origins of this entire fiasco.

I’m all for it. Put the oleaginous, wormy little fuck under oath and grill his ass until those bug-eyes plop out of the sockets into his lap, and his toddler-size collar begins to constrict that pencil-neck so tightly he strangles. Sweat him old school, like a cheap dimestore hood in an LAPD hotseat circa 1947 or so. Make him squirm, wriggle, and writhe so painfully even I begin to feel pity for him. Senate Republicans could begin taking the air out of this overinflated, treacherous little blowhard by interrogating him on this:

Lead House impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) may have been an anonymous source for the Washington Post as it reported allegations that have led to the impeachment of President Donald Trump.

Schiff may have outed himself during his opening arguments in the Senate trial of the president on Wednesday, as he cited an opinion article written by the Post editorial board — an odd reference in a presentation of factual evidence.

Notably, the Sep. 5 editorial closely tracked the accusations that were contained in the so-called “whistleblower” complaint, whose claims were not yet known to the public at the time.

The Post editorial helped create an atmosphere of suspicion and anticipation that led to the complaint’s release and the impeachment itself. And on Wednesday, the Post editorial conveniently provided a “fact” — a “reliably told” story — that Schiff could cite in his case for Trump’s removal.

But Schiff did not explain why he would treat an opinion article as “fact.” Editorials are not typically reliable sources of original reporting.

The most logical explanation is that Schiff considered the article “factual” because he himself was the source.

Having been caught in an ever-widening death-spiral of lie after lie after lie this early in the festivities, Schiff-for-brains and his Klown Kar Koup co-conspirators haven’t thought this through very well, it would seem. The stiffest possible price must be exacted from them, pour encourager les autres, lest the filthy swine take another run at their perfidy someday.

What did the Ogabe junta know, and when did they know it?

Dirty as they come.

Fox News host Laura Ingraham reported Wednesday evening that she obtained a chain of State Department emails stemming from a standard request for comment from New York Times journalist Ken Vogel, whose reporting helped generate scrutiny of Hunter Biden’s ties to Ukrainian gas company Burisma.

On May 1, 2019, Vogel contacted State Department official Kate Schilling about a story he was working on regarding an Obama administration meeting in January 2016 with Ukrainian prosecutors and mentioned the name of the CIA analyst believed to be the whistleblower whose complaint sparked impeachment proceedings that led to two articles of impeachment: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

Ingraham did not state the name of the alleged whistleblower — Fox News hosts are banned from doing so until the identity is confirmed — and blacked out the name when showing excerpts of documents. However, she likely was referring to Eric Ciaramella, who some Republicans and conservative media figures believe is the whistleblower.

In the email, Vogel wrote, “We are going to report that [State Department official] Elizabeth Zentos attended a meeting at the White House on 1/19/2016 with Ukrainian prosecutors and embassy officials as well as … [redacted] from the NSC … the subjects discussed included efforts within the United State government to support prosecutions, in Ukraine and the United Kingdom, of Burisma Holdings, … and concerns that Hunter Biden’s position with the company could complicate such efforts.”

Trump, his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, and other allies claim Joe Biden improperly used his role as vice president to pressure Ukraine to fire Shokin, who was widely seen as corrupt, in 2016 to protect his son from an investigation into Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian energy company at which Hunter Biden held a $50,000-per-month position on the board. But the European Union, the International Monetary Fund, and other allies had the same objective, and Joe Biden was repeating U.S. policy that had been set out by Washington’s ambassador to Kyiv in the preceding months and was briefed by White House staff just ahead of the trip.

Joe Biden has dubbed the allegations as “false, debunked conspiracy theories” about him…

Why, of course they are, Gropey. Bizarrely, Honest Joe issued a more vehement and formal denial to his libmedia pals, urging them to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain:

Former vice president Joe Biden’s extraordinary campaign memo this week imploring U.S. news media to reject the allegations surrounding his son Hunter’s work for a Ukrainian natural gas company makes several bold declarations.

The memo by Biden campaign aides Kate Bedingfield and Tony Blinken specifically warned reporters covering the impeachment trial they would be acting as “enablers of misinformation” if they repeated allegations that the former vice president forced the firing of Ukraine’s top prosecutor, who was investigating Burisma Holdings, where Hunter Biden worked as a highly compensated board member.

Biden’s memo argues there is no evidence that the former vice president’s or Hunter Biden’s conduct raised any concern, and that Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin’s investigation was “dormant” when the vice president forced the prosecutor to be fired in Ukraine.

The memo calls the allegation a “conspiracy theory”  (and, in full disclosure, blames my reporting for the allegations surfacing last year.)

Uh huh. Which would no doubt be why you so obnoxiously bragged about it later, I guess.

It is irrefutable, and not a conspiracy theory, that Joe Biden bragged in this 2018 speech to a foreign policy group that he threatened in March 2016 to withhold $1 billion in U.S. aid to Kiev if then-Ukraine’s president Petro Poroshenko didn’t immediately fire Shokin.

“I said, ‘You’re not getting the billion.’ I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money,’” Biden told the 2018 audience in recounting what he told Poroshenko.

“Well, son of a bitch, he got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time,” Biden told the Council on Foreign Relations event.

Yet more actual facts follow, every last word of which entirely damns Senile Uncle Gropey as precisely what he is and always has been: a wholly corrupt, dishonest, manipulative, and singularly incompetent political hack. Nick Arama poses the pertinent questions, saving the most important one for last:

Did someone squash it so as not to hurt Biden? Was this whole Ukraine call scam/whistleblower game cooked up to prevent all this from coming out because Trump had raised the issue of the case being possibly improperly shut down? And is it really not just to protect Biden but to protect the Obama administration in general from yet another scandal?

Oh, I think we can all guess the answers easily enough, thanks. The burning query at this point is simplicity itself: what, if anything, will be done about this?

Update! Hey, did somebody mention fake “whistleblower” and conniving Deep State grubworm Eric Ciaramella earlier?

Make no mistake. Although Democrats have tried mightily to convince America that their (fourth) impeachment effort developed spontaneously out of the patriotism of a career civil servant, the truth is, anti-Trump operatives in the president’s own NSC were already plotting to remove the president from office two weeks into his term. All they needed was a pretext to get the ball rolling. The Ukraine phone call in July 2019 provided the pretext they and their Democratic allies in the House had been waiting for.

As a former White House official told Sperry: “They had a political vendetta against him from Day One.”

I originally thought to include the meat ‘n’ potatoes of the Ciaramella revelation in the excerpt, but decided just to go with Heine’s closer instead. You’ll want to read all of it, though; it’s a veritable Who’s Who of Ogabe stay-behind saboteurs seeded throughout the FedGovCo permanent bureacracy, from shadow-government skulker Ciaramella to REMF doughboy Vindman, every last one of whom ought of right to be rockin’ orange for their acts of treason and sedition before too much more time passes.

Gloves: OFF

Shut ’em the fuck DOWN.

The Democrats just lost their third battle of Trump’s impeachment trial as the Senate voted against subpoenaing Ukraine documents THREE TIMES.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) wanted to subpoena the White House for documents regarding Ukraine and his amendment got tabled in a 47-53 vote along party line.

Schumer’s amendment requested documents related to Trump’s phone calls to the Ukrainian government and ‘delayed’ military aid.

The Democrats also asked for any communications from White House staffers and their efforts to investigate crooked Joe Biden.

In a separate second request, Democrats asked for State Department documents related to Ukraine and copies of Rudy Giuliani’s communications.

Republicans voted to reject the subpoena for State Department documents again in a 47-53 vote.

The Senate again voted to reject another amendment requesting to subpoena documents from the Office of Management and Budget.

‘Cocaine’ Mitch vowed to table ‘premature’ amendments, “Nobody — nobody will dictate Senate procedure to the United States Senators.” he said.

Nor should they be allowed to. Letting the Dem-Soc scum turn the already-risible Shampeachment into another Schiff circus would be an egregious, unpardonable mistake which could very well break the Republican party like Humpty Dumpty. As canny a professional politician as he is, McConnell has to know that. For him to proceed otherwise would be to open a Pandora’s box likely to create disastrous havoc reaching far beyond the confines of the Senate chamber.

Update! Teh Ted brings the pain.

In a move that likely foreshadows the bare-knuckle fights ahead, the seven House impeachment managers appointed by Speaker Nancy Pelosi wrote White House counsel Pat Cipollone on Tuesday attacking his role on the Trump defense team while alleging he is a “fact witness” to the events in question.

But Sen. Ted Cruz struck back hard in a Facebook post with an argument few Democrats likely want to face.

Describing the letter as “Democrats’ opening salvo,” the Texas Republican had one question: What do they say about Rep. Adam Schiff?

“The Sixth Amendment provides the accused the right ‘to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense,’” Cruz wrote. “Note that the Sixth Amendment does not apply to the prosecution; it protects only the accused. Under the standard put forth by the House Democrats today — that any potential fact witness cannot serve as counsel in the impeachment hearing — there is an obvious person who should be disqualified: Adam Schiff.

“Schiff, it has been alleged, spoke directly with the so-called ‘whistle-blower’ and may even have helped him draft the complaint that launched this entire impeachment.

“So, maybe we should disqualify Schiff as a lawyer, and schedule him instead as a witness to explain his role in creating the ‘evidence’ in this proceeding?”

“Maybe”? No sir, ain’t no “maybe” to it. Put the lying, pencil-necked, bug-eyed shitstain under oath and grill his ass but good. Then put him in cuffs and shackles, dress him in an orange jumpsuit, toss him in a bus with bars on the windows, and march his puny punk ass off to federal lockdown with a sign around his neck saying “Free chew-toy!” Lather, rinse, repeat with Comey, Brennan, Strookzzzzcchkkk, Page, Clapper, and the whole goddamned gang of Klown Kar Koup conpirators right the way up to Ogabe himself.

Then Trump should repeal FISA; dismantle the FBI root, branch, and bough; sharply snap the CIA to heel, and remind them of what their job is actually supposed to be; and hold each and every Foggy Bottom department up by the ankles, shaking violently and pounding their heads against the ground until they all vomit and pass out. Go through the Deep State swamp like a tornado through a trailer park, until not one brick is left standing upon another. Burn the ruins, scatter the ashes, and salt the earth under them.

While we’re at it, the Prez should then hold a press conference to announce that, effective ten minutes ago, all press passes and privileges heretofore adhering to CNN, MSNBC, the WaPo, the NYT, and ABCBNBPBS are officially revoked, and that any “journalists” tarrying about the White House grounds at precisely five minutes from now will be arrested for criminal trespass and, possibly, conspiracy to commit terrorism. Announce that a federal bounty of 25,000 US dollars has now been issued for the delivery of the scalp of Jim Acosta, Shep Smith, Brian “Tater” Stelter, Paul Krugman, Rachel Madcow, Jessica Valenti, or Bill Maher for starters, with another 25k bonus for bringing in the entire pelt. More names to be added later.

Then have lunch, and take a nice nap.

Yeah, I know, I know. But a guy can dream, can’t he?

It’s on!

Somebody finally found a way to pressure Stretch Peelousy into staggering on over to the Senate to deliver her Shampeachment “articles” to McConnell and Co for further processing. It appears she’s also had some sober person name the Shampeachment “managers” for her as well. Funny thing about this bunch, though.

Six of the seven impeachment managers selected by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi supported the impeachment of President Donald Trump before the whistleblower complaint was filed.

Gee, the shockers just keep on coming fast and furious today, don’t they?

The seven impeachment managers’ roles are very much like the roles of prosecutors, as the members are responsible for presenting the impeachment inquiries to the Senate, to make the case as to why Trump should be impeached with the evidence they have gathered.

Pelosi had continued to withhold the articles of impeachment, saying she doesn’t think the Republican-led Senate will hold a trial that both sides can agree on.

Given the indecent, contra-Constitutional flea circus the House just conducted, I should certainly hope not. In any event, your own role in this charade is now officially over and done with, bitch. The Senate runs the show from here on out, and your “agreement” is neither necessary nor relevant. But let’s not make any assumptions about a Senate acquittal of Trump on these self-evidently spurious “charges” being a given, a “slam-dunk.” Rand Paul sounds the tocsin on that.

EXCLUSIVE: Sen. Rand Paul Says GOP Will Shaft Trump, Allow Democrat Witnesses and Block His Requests — Warns Colleagues Not to Commit Political Suicide

In an interview with The Gateway Pundit about the impeachment effort on Wednesday, Senator Rand Paul warned his colleagues who plan to let the Democrats choose witnesses that they will lose their reelections.

Senator Paul, who has seemingly been leading the charge to defend the president during this process, also explained that he would vote for Rep. Adam Schiff and Speaker Nancy Pelosi to have to testify, especially since Schiff has a staff member who is friends with the whistleblower — potentially making him a material witness.

Additionally, Sen. Paul stated that he wants the impeachment process to be over as soon as possible, but that if the Democrats are allowed to call witnesses, President Trump must be afforded the same right.

When asked if any other Republicans have been supportive of Sen. Paul’s assertion that he wants to call in the whistleblower and Hunter Biden to testify, he asserted that there are a lot of people who do, but that they have been quiet. 

In an interview with The Gateway Pundit about the impeachment effort on Wednesday, Senator Rand Paul warned his colleagues who plan to let the Democrats choose witnesses that they will lose their reelections.

Senator Paul, who has seemingly been leading the charge to defend the president during this process, also explained that he would vote for Rep. Adam Schiff and Speaker Nancy Pelosi to have to testify, especially since Schiff has a staff member who is friends with the whistleblower — potentially making him a material witness.

Additionally, Sen. Paul stated that he wants the impeachment process to be over as soon as possible, but that if the Democrats are allowed to call witnesses, President Trump must be afforded the same right.

When asked if any other Republicans have been supportive of Sen. Paul’s assertion that he wants to call in the whistleblower and Hunter Biden to testify, he asserted that there are a lot of people who do, but that they have been quiet. 

In our interview, Sen. Paul warned that his Republican colleagues may be in trouble when they go up for re-election if they defy the president and allow Democrats to run amok, like they did in the House.

“What I keep trying to convince my colleagues, particularly the ones that might vote to allow the witnesses that the Democrats want to call, is that if they do that and they don’t vote to allow the president to bring his witnesses in, I think the Republican base and Trump supporters are going to be very very unhappy with them. I think it will have electoral consequences — which is sort of my way of saying that maybe they should reconsider having any witnesses at all,” Sen. Paul said. “My hope is some will reconsider and we will just be done with one vote.”

I hate to say or even think it, but considering A) the wafer-thin GOP majority in the Senate; B) the presence therein of treacherous, conniving Trump-haters like the despicable Mittens Romneycare; and C) the presumed presence of at least a few longtime GOPe Senators whose loyalty to the Deep State and its preservation will likely outweigh any other consideration, I don’t think any of us can be at all certain of which way this will end up going.

Rand is right: if there are to be witnesses, then Trump should be allowed to get his innings in too, as a matter of both legal propriety and elementary fairness. If he isn’t, then the US government’s true nature will have been undeniably exposed for all to see, any question about what kind of country this really is definitively answered. Then Americans will have some seriously difficult and unwelcome choices thrown into their laps.

What the hell, why not

The most accomplished man in human history.

Barack Obama had something to celebrate today because the Netflix documentary he and wife Michelle produced, “American Factory,” was predictably nominated for an Oscar for best documentary.

“Glad to see American Factory’s Oscar nod for Best Documentary,” Obama tweeted. “It’s the kind of story we don’t see often enough and it’s exactly what Michelle and I hope to achieve with Higher Ground.”

Higher Ground is the name of the Obamas’ production company. Last year they were accused of “deplorable behavior” over a trademark dispute over the name of the company.

Barack Obama has already won two Grammy awards for Best Spoken Word Album, and Michelle Obama was recently nominated in the same category for her memoir, Becoming—and I’ll bet a thousand dollars she’ll win. In fact, if you look at the nominations and winners in that category, you’ll find a lot of Democrat politicians and pundits have a knack for scoring nominations and winning the Grammy in that category, while their conservative counterparts don’t even get nominated. Nominees for Best Spoken Word Album include Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Al Franken, and Jesse Jackson.

All of them won at least once.

Back to the Obamas. Barack Obama was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize within a month or so of taking office and ultimately won the award over several more appropriate choices. His victory was so ill-considered that the Secretary of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee, Geir Lundestad, regrets Obama being given the award.

Well, Barky has certainly gotten incredible mileage out of that make-work stint as a “community organizer” back in Chi-town, you gotta give him that much. He’s parlayed it into all these major awards, even into the White House itself. Pretty heady stuff for a guy who never held a real job or did a day’s honest, useful work in his life—all the more so, after parlaying his 400k per annum presidential salary into a multimillion dollar mansion or three to boot. One can only tip one’s cap in respect for such a consummate grifter.

Tooth and claw, hammer and tongs

This. This right here.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., on Monday said if his fellow Republicans allow Democrats to have the witnesses they demand in the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, he will demand Hunter Biden testify.

Paul tweeted:

“My colleagues can’t have it both ways. Calling for some, while blocking others. If we are going to give a platform to witnesses the Dems demand, I look forward to forcing votes to call Hunter Biden and many more!”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who also opposes witnesses in the trial, has warned against them for just such a tit-for-tat reasoning.

McConnell told Fox News Radio in December that a calling of witness by Democrats coud lead Republicans to want Hunter Biden and even the whistleblower who’s identity has never been officially revealed.

And that would be just AWFUL, wouldn’t it? Such a destructive “tit for tat” risks unearthing all sorts of worms the Deep State would much prefer to keep covered. Why, the American knave-class might even get above their station to the extreme of insisting on justice being visited on all sorts of high ‘n’ mighty, untouchable types! The whole phony “of the people, by the people, for the people” charade might collapse! IT’S UNTHINKABLE!!

Other Republicans, such as Maine’s Susan Collins and Utah’s Mitt Romney, have been more open to possibly allowing witnesses. Democrats needs only four Republicans to cross over and vote with them to get their wish. CBS News reported Monday they likely have found four Republicans to join them.

They’ll likely get more Republicrat/Uniparty turncoats than that, I’d bet, with plenty of those willing to vote for conviction, too. Well, let ’em sow that dangerous wind. Just so long as they don’t mind reaping the whirlwind, too.

Predictable as the sunrise

In an otherwise good piece, Roger Kimball whiffs bigly on one important thing:

The disaster of Flight 752 took place in the context of the liquidation of the terrorist mass-murderer Qasem Soleimani last week by the United States on the order of President Donald Trump. But that courageous and far-seeing act itself took place in the context of Iran’s decades-long assault on American and, more broadly, on Western institutions that promote a culture of tolerance and religious freedom.

The fact that many U.S. news outlets and Democratic politicians instantly coalesced around Soleimani as a “revered” military leader tells us what great inroads Stockholm Syndrome has made among American elites. 

Sorry, Rog, it does no such thing. What it actually tells us is just how low those treasonous blackguards are willing to stoop to attach themselves to true, real-world evil if they think they might somehow grub some cheap political points from it; how reflexively they will always side with America’s enemies, no matter what; how deeply, deeply desperate they are to somehow hold onto power and position by attacking Trump; and how there can be no more fitting, just, or accurate a condemnation of them than to simply name them as traitors, the unabashed enemies of this country.

Last week, Donald Trump eliminated one of Iran’s most potent emissaries of death and destruction. All the beautiful people huddled together and wailed that Trump had just “destabilized” the Middle East (had it been stable beforehand?), that his “unilateral” action was illegal, counterproductive, immature, that, ultimately, he may have started World War III.

That was then. Now it looks as though he may have sparked the great unraveling of theocratic totalitarian control in Iran. And this just in: the Iranians apparently have just arrested the British ambassador. Arrested. In civilized countries, if there is an issue with a diplomat, one expels him. In civilized countries. But this is the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Someday, the world will stand back and applaud Trump for his canny and farseeing statesmanship. I do not assert that that recognition is coming any time soon. But come it will.

Most likely, yeah. But not from the Treasoncrats and Enemedia—not unless and until they can use Trump as a weapon for dishonestly smearing some future candidate as the new Second Coming Of Literally Hitler, they won’t.

Update! Schlichter calls ’em out.

You spent the last three years babbling like idiots about “traitors” and “treachery.” Well, head docs call that “projection.” You are siding with the enemy in a war against the United States. And yeah, Iran has been at war with the United States for 40 years, ever since your peanut-farming, half-wit fellow Dem handed over the keys to the country to a bunch of Seventh Century Pennywises. The least you could do is show a little respect to the people trying to clean up your party’s mess.

Your party’s latest triumph is blaming Donald Trump because these drooling morons shot down a passenger airliner the night they launched missiles at our American soldiers. What the hell is wrong with you? Are you sick? Are you stupid? Are you huffing that funny powder you found in Hunter Biden’s medicine cabinet? What would ever have possessed you to start making excuses for people trying to kill Americans?

It’s nothing new for them. After all, it was, what, like two days after 9/11 before they all started preachifying in their oh-so-superior way that we had that coming too? They can’t help themselves; it’s who they are, it’s what they do. They’ve been this way for far too long already, and couldn’t stop now if they tried. Go ahead and ask the scorpion not to sting the frog while you’re at it, you’ll end up with the same result.

What price?

Less talk, more action. Sir.

FBI Director Chris Wray announced that the FBI’s response to the agency’s FISA Abuse and the criminal spying on the Trump campaign will result in extra training.

He sent out out a training video.

And no one will be disciplined for the criminal acts.

This is unacceptable!

President Trump called out Wray and asked him if any of the “dirty cops” are going to pay the price for the fraud they committed.

TRUMP: “FBI Director apologizes for FISA Errors (of which there were far to many to be a coincidence!).” @FoxNews Chris, what about all of the lives that were ruined because of the so-called “errors?” Are these “dirty cops” going to pay a big price for the fraud they committed?

Ummm…sorry to bring it up and all, but YOU HIRED HIM. That means that you can also, y’know, FIRE HIS ASS. So why the bleedin’ hell haven’t you already? More, and worse:

But it’s not just Wray’s fecklessness in the aftermath of the Horowitz report that merits his ouster. The chief has tried to cover up and excuse the scandal since he took the reins of the agency in August 2017. 

Wray strenuously objected to the release of the February 2018 memo prepared by then-House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, which detailed how Comey’s FBI used the bogus Steele dossier as evidence in its application to the court and then withheld disclosing Steele’s Democratic funders.

Wray appealed to then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, conflicted because he signed the final renewal on Page’s FISA application, to do whatever he could to stop Nunes from making his memo public. Rosenstein and Wray met with Trump’s chief of staff to warn that the memo’s release could “set a dangerous precedent.”

Wray refused to fire the disgraced Andrew McCabe—the acting FBI chief who served in between Comey and Wray—despite mounting evidence of McCabe’s misconduct. (Attorney General Jeff Sessions fired McCabe just hours before he could retire with full benefits.) Wray also has stonewalled requests for communications from McCabe.

During his Senate testimony in May, Wray rejected Attorney General William Barr’s assertion that the FBI spied on the Trump campaign. “That’s not the term I would use,” Wray told the Senate Judiciary Committee. “Lots of people have different colloquial phrases. I believe the FBI is engaged in investigative activity and part of investigative activity includes surveillance activity of different shapes and sizes.” Wray confirmed that a “number” of surveillance warrants were obtained on the Trump campaign.

So, spying.

Wray bristles at the term “deep state.” He has repeatedly rejected that label to describe his employees, telling ABC News shortly after the release of the Horowitz report that its an “affront” to the 37,000 men and women of the FBI to claim they are part of the “deep state.” Not exactly a reassuring response; Wray clearly does not recognize the severity of the problem before him.

Not quite there yet, Jules, you stopped well short of the mark. Wray doesn’t recognize any “severity” at all, because he doesn’t think there IS a problem. And that is why, as you say, he is NOT the man to “reform” the FBI, which cannot BE reformed anyway. Being just another power-drunk, conniving, treacherous Deep State weasel marching in a long parade of reprobate FBI heads, Wray likes it just the way it is.

“One long continuum of exactly the same behavior”

There is no reforming corruption this deep; the rot goes clear to the bone, part of their DNA from the very beginning.

In June 2018, in response to an IG investigation, while denying the FBI had any political bias, FBI Director Christopher Wray promised anti-bias training for all agents. In response to the “challenges” identified by the report, the FBI “appreciates the opportunity” to provide more “support” to our employees.

In December 2019, in response to another IG investigation, while denying FBI agents would intentionally act illegally, FBI Director Christopher Wray notified the FISA court a Senior FBI investigative lawyer named Kevin Clinesmith intentionally falsified evidence on a FISA application.

In response to the FBI notification, late December 2019 the FISA court demanded to know what corrective actions the FBI was going to take; and what other applications FBI Lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith, was involved in.

In response today FBI Director Christopher Wray promises more training.

Throughout 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 and through today, across both administrations, the corrupt group within the FBI in DC were/are protecting themselves. The FBI redacted the Lisa Page and Peter Strzok text messages. The FBI removed Page and Strzok texts and emails. The FBI hid texts and emails from Lisa Page to Andrew McCabe. The FBI kept documents from congress. The FBI has leaked false information to media to cover their tracks; and yes the Trump FBI have participated.

The corrupt FBI under James Comey, Andrew McCabe and James Baker is being protected and facilitated by the corrupt FBI under Christopher Wray, David Bowditch (San Bernadino infamy) and Dana Boente.

It’s one long continuum of exactly the same behavior.

Of course it is. The FBI is a mirror-image of the Mafia they claim to abhor: both shadowy brotherhoods regard the law as an inconvenience at worst; both go to great lengths to keep their dirty doings hidden from scrutiny; and both put looking out for their own near the top of their list of priorities—not as a matter of morality and decence, but of self-interest.

CF Archives

Categories

Comments policy

NOTE: In order to comment, you must be registered and approved as a CF user. Since so many user-registrations are attempted by spam-bots for their own nefarious purposes, YOUR REGISTRATION MAY BE ERRONEOUSLY DENIED.

If you are in fact a legit hooman bean desirous of registering yourself a CF user name so as to be able to comment only to find yourself caught up as collateral damage in one of my irregularly (un)scheduled sweeps for hinky registration attempts, please shoot me a kite at the email addy over in the right sidebar and let me know so’s I can get ya fixed up manually.

ALSO NOTE: You MUST use a valid, legit email address in order to successfully register, the new anti-spam software I installed last night requires it. My thanks to Barry for all his help sorting this mess out last night.

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.

CF Glossary

ProPol: Professional Politician

Vichy GOPe: Putative "Republicans" who talk a great game but never can seem to find a hill they consider worth dying on; Quislings, Petains, Benedicts, backstabbers, fake phony frauds

Fake Phony Fraud(s), S'faccim: two excellent descriptors coined by the late great WABC host Bob Grant which are interchangeable, both meaning as they do pretty much the same thing

Mordor On The Potomac: Washington, DC

The Enemy: shitlibs, Progtards, Leftards, Swamp critters, et al ad nauseum

Burn, Loot, Murder: what the misleading acronym BLM really stands for

pAntiFa: an alternative spelling of "fascist scum"

"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:

Correspondence

Email addy: mike-at-this-url dot etc

All e-mails assumed to be legitimate fodder for publication, scorn, ridicule, or other public mockery unless specified as private by the sender

Allied territory

Alternatives to shitlib social media: A few people worth following on Gab:

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

Claire's Cabal—The Freedom Forums

FREEDOM!!!

"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

“When I was young I was depressed all the time. But suicide no longer seemed a possibility in my life. At my age there was very little left to kill.”
Charles Bukowski

“A slave is one who waits for someone to come and free him.”
Ezra Pound

“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 Sensing

"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

"If the laws of God and men, are therefore of no effect, when the magistracy is left at liberty to break them; and if the lusts of those who are too strong for the tribunals of justice, cannot be otherwise restrained than by sedition, tumults and war, those seditions, tumults and wars, are justified by the laws of God and man."
John Adams

"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

Finest hosting service

Image swiped from The Last Refuge

2016 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

RSS feed

RSS - entries - Entries
RSS - entries - Comments

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

Copyright © 2026