The Liberal Way of War

The fight is forever

Posted on March 8, 2020March 8, 2020 by Mike

Sundance quotes a bit from a classic old Mike Vanderboegh post, which I just had to track down and excerpt some of myself.

Are we not already two different countries, the liberals and we traditional believers in free men and free markets? If we cannot agree on something so philosophically findamental as the sanctity of life, what else can we agree on? Have we not just been agreeing to disagree on when the next American civil war will break out?

We must admit that the reason we are losing the world war for western civilization both at home and abroad is because we have elected not to fight it. And we will continue losing it until we do.

Those of us who long for the restoration of the Founders’ Republic are out of time. We cannot allow ourselves to pushed back from our God-given, inalienable liberties any longer. WE MUST REFUSE TO BE SUBJUGATED A THIN SALAMI SLICE AT A TIME. We must refuse to concede to our own enslavement. In the end, and it may come sooner rather than later, we must fight.

This is no small thing, to restore a republic after it has fallen into corruption. I have studied history for years and I cannot recall it ever happening. It may be that our task is impossible. Yet, if we do not try then how will we know it can’t be done? And if we do not try, it most certainly won’t be done. The Founders’ Republic, and the larger war for western civilization, will be lost.

But I tell you this: We will not go gently into that bloody collectivist good night. Indeed, we will make with our defiance such a sound as ALL history from that day forward will be forced to note, even if they despise us in the writing of it.

And when we are gone, the scattered, free survivors hiding in the ruins of our once-great republic will sing of our deeds in forbidden songs, tending the flickering flame of individual liberty until it bursts forth again, as it must, generations later. We will live forever, like the Spartans at Thermopylae, in sacred memory.

Along those same lines, Aesop is all in.

It cuts against the grain. Because when they’re enforcing just laws in a just manner, the police are doing Good. I am neither a copsucker nor a knee-jerk cop-hater, and my record in calling out the douchebadges when they royally screw the pooch is beyond reproach. But there’s still quite a lot of them doing God’s work all the time. (In Chicongo, not so much. But I digress.) If I were a bank robber, a rapist, or a murderer, caught red-handed, that would include shooting me in the face.

But when the only alleged “crime” is that some shrieking nancypants got the hebejeebees because I own a gun (or ten, or fifty, or whatever I’m up to these days), and anyone – president, congress weasels, governor, district attorney, hysterical mother, or some black-robed fuckwit too stupid to get into a STEM program – thinks that gives them the a priori right to circumvent Natural Law, the Constitution, and due process in one fell swoop, and send Officer Jackboots And His Merry Men to come take them, without any bill of indictment, witnesses, defense, or any other shred of due process in common law going back to Magna Carta, you’d better send your minions in their serious Kevlar underpants, with their insurance paid up and their wills up to date, and leave the married men at home. Because at that point, the range is now hot in both directions, I shoot Expert, and that red range flag means “No quarter given, nor expected.”

Now, go home and think about your wife and kids. Your friends, family, and hobbies. Everything you hold dear.

That’s what you’re risking for me, and for you, when you decide a paycheck trumps the Constitution.

So think long and hard about whether today is a good day to die, for treating me like a criminal, when we both know I’m not.

Doing that is the day you decide to become a criminal.
And you’ll answer for it, both here, and hereafter.

The war may well end, someday, and either my side or yours will win.

But you won’t live to see it, if I have anything to say about it.
So, do you really want to make all kinds of enemies out of the last people in the country who think what you do is something worth having?

Instead of being so tewwibly, tewwibly fwightened of all those big mean scary-looking guns, they probably ought to be afraid of guys like Aesop, and the millions upon millions more of us out here nodding our heads in quiet agreement with his sentiments. Because it’s as Heinlein’s Sgt Zim said: There are no dangerous weapons; there are only dangerous men.

Aside: I’m going to put Vanderboegh’s hallowed halls into Ye Olde Blogrolle. Yes, I know Mike’s gone and the blog is defunct as of 2016, alas. But his stuff is every bit as pertinent now as it was back then, so I’m gonna provide myself with a handy reminder to go back and poke around in his archives now and then.

End game? Ain’t none

Posted on March 8, 2020March 7, 2020 by Mike

Too much: never enough.

There simply is no stopping point or ideological boundary line for the left.  There’s no point where the general liberal consensus says, “OK, we’ve arrived at our destination.  Hallelujah, we’re here!  We’re now liberal enough!”  Just when you think they’ve finally reached the point of maximum possible craziness, they march on.

For this reason, I foresee that many more liberal icons will be destroyed in the future, simply because at some point in their lives, they made the mistake of thinking, “The here-and-now is pretty much where we’ll stay.  The here-and-now is the end point of our liberal ideology.  The actions or comments that are appropriate and safe today will always be appropriate and safe.”  Nope.  The leftward drift will continue ad infinitum, such that acts that seem OK and reasonable today will soon be viewed as evidence of some unpardonable sin that is treasonous to the cause.

Bernie Sanders is not the left’s political end point, either.  He may seem extreme today, but in the not too distant future, we’ll look back at Bernie with nostalgia for how quaintly midstream he was.

What, you mean the way opposition to gay “marriage” went from being a perfectly reasonable, near-unanimous sentiment to unalloyed Nazi genocide in about, ohhh, twenty minutes or so?

Quoth moi, from one my very own song lyrics: A hundred miles an hour/Ain’t no brakes. To wit:

I didn’t know I was writing about “liberalism” when I came up with that one, I promise I didn’t. And yet it works just the same, in this case anyway.

But see (just to meander a bit further afield here), that’s the magic of songwriting: one’s audience can individually glean many different meanings, including contradictory ones, from the self-same set of words. And they will, to. Shoot, if I had a nickel for every time some female walked up to me after a show or some other place to sassily proclaim “You wrote that one about ME, didn’t you? I KNOW you did!!” I’d be…well, I’d be something other than a failed musician, at the very least.

Never mattered a bit whether I actually knew the dame or not, seemed like. She would always know, of a rock-solid certainty, that SHE was the one I’d had in mind throughout the wearing struggle of the creative process—humbly begging the favor of The Muse via downing shots of whiskey and staring endlessly at a blank sheet of paper—when all I had really been doing was just trying to cobble something together that at least rhymed half-decently and wasn’t too embarrassingly trite, nonsensical, or just plain goddamned stupid to be performed onstage night after night and/or distributed internationally on thousands of CDs.

But hey, what the hell do I know, right?

Civility now not!

Posted on March 6, 2020March 6, 2020 by Mike

Hate speech and explicit threats of violence from “statesmen” Chuckles Schemer.

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz called for Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to face censorship for threatening Supreme Court Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch.

Schumer is facing backlash after he issued a threat to the two justices as the high court readies itself to rule on cases relating to abortion regulation.

“I want to tell you Gorsuch, I want to tell you Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price,” Schumer, 69, said Wednesday at a rally for abortion rights. “You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

Schooomer naturally lied his ass off trying to walk his hateful blunder back once he was called out on it, but Cruz ain’t having any:

“That is an unambiguous threat. Now, whether it’s a threat of political retribution, or something even worse, that’s not clear. But whatever it is, it’s judicial intimidation,” Cruz said, adding that he believes the comments are unacceptable. “The Senate should seriously consider taking disciplinary steps. When you have the leader of one of the two parties going to the steps of the Supreme Court, threatening and trying to intimidate Supreme Court justices, that undermines the rule of law, it undermines the judiciary, and it’s just flat-out wrong.”

Ahh, but you’re missing something, Ted: vile Democrat-Socialist creatures such as Schemer give not a single shit about such arcane irrelevancies as the rule of law, and never have. Sefton reminds us that it’s certainly nothing new:

What’s equally sickening is the moral equivalency in claiming Schemer was merely responding to Trump’s “attacks” on the Wide-Load Wiseass Latina and Ruth Bader Meinhoff. Ridiculous on the face of it since Trump was responding to attacks on him and his response was both non-threatening as well as appropriate, given both of their open animosity and vitriol of the President and his administration. The blowing way past the red line of Schemer’s statement, at least from my recollection and knowledge of historical criticism of SCOTUS, is unprecedented but it’s not unique. You’ll recall Obama’s thinly veiled threat and rebuke of the court, specifically aimed at the time at Justice Samuel Alito at a State of the Union address and when before the last foul word left his mouth, Schemer leapt to his feet, clapping like a retarded seal.

So what’s going on here? Is this a deranged reaction to being helpless as one of the Left’s sacraments, baby-killing dressed in drag as women’s health and freedom of choice potentially smashed like the golden calf? Or is it the totality of their complete failure at taking out President Trump hitting them square in the face? Whatever is going on, the words coming not from some unhinged troll in his parent’s basement but from political and cultural (allegedly) leaders have chilling and in many cases deadly effects, as we have seen now time and time again. That said, I am no fan of Laurence Tribe but I applaud his unequivocal rebuke of Schemer, who is a longtime friend and fellow traveler, and defense of what is supposed to be an independent court that is due the deference and respect of the other branches. But it’s the same old story. The Left observes the laws, traditions and customs of America as founded only when it advances their cause, and that’s virtually never. Other times it uses the Constitution as both a shield and cudgel to defend and attack us. That is, when they’re not wiping their ass with it.

Even mild-mannered Yertle McTurtle blasted the pernicious reprobate:

THE MINORITY LEADER OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE THREATENED TWO ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, PERIOD. THERE’S NO OTHER WAY TO INTERPRET THAT. EVEN WORSE, THE THREAT WAS NOT CLEARLY POLITICAL OR INSTITUTIONAL. AS I’LL DISCUSS IN A MOMENT, THESE KINDS OF THREATS ARE SADLY NOTHING NEW FROM SENATE DEMOCRATS. THIS WAS MUCH BROADER, MUCH BROADER. THE DEMOCRATIC LEADER TRAVELED TO THE WORKPLACE OF THE TWO JUDGES, AND IN FRONT OF A CROWD OF ACTIVISTS, HE TOLD THOSE JUDGES YOU WILL PAY THE PRICE, RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE SUPREME COURT BUILDING. AND YOU WON’T KNOW WHAT HIT YOU, HE SAID, RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE SUPREME COURT BUILDING. IF ANY AMERICAN HAD THESE WORDS SHOUTED AT THEM FROM THE SIDEWALK OUTSIDE THEIR OFFICE, THEY WOULD HEAR THOSE THREATS AS PERSONAL. AND MOST LIKELY THEY WOULD HEAR THEM AS THREATENING OR INCITING VIOLENCE. THAT’S HOW ANY AMERICAN WOULD INTERPRET THOSE WORDS IF THEY WERE DIRECTED AT US, AND THAT’S CERTAINLY HOW THE PRESS AND LEADING DEMOCRATS WOULD HAVE CHARACTERIZED THEM IF PRESIDENT TRUMP OR ANY SENIOR REPUBLICAN HAD SAID ANYTHING REMOTELY, REMOTELY SIMILAR. WE’VE SEEN MUCH MORE HAY MADE OUT OF MUCH LESS.

PERHAPS OUR COLLEAGUE THINKS THIS IS ABSURD. PERHAPS HE WOULD LIKE THE MOST GENEROUS POSSIBLE INTERPRETATION THAT HE GOT CARRIED AWAY AND DIDN’T MEAN WHAT HE SAID. BUT IF HE DIDN’T EVEN ADMIT TO SAYING WHAT HE SAID, WE CERTAINLY CANNOT KNOW WHAT HE MEANT. AT THE VERY BEST, HIS COMMENTS WERE ASTONISHINGLY, ASTONISHINGLY RECKLESS AND SUPPLEMENTAL IRRESPONSIBLE, AND CLEARLY, AS THE CHIEF JUSTICE STATED IN A RARE AND EXTRAORDINARY REBUKE, THEY WERE, QUOTE, DANGEROUS, END QUOTE. BECAUSE NO MATTER THE INTENTION, WORDS CARRYING THE APPARENT THREAT OF VIOLENCE CAN HAVE HORRIFIC UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.

IN THE MOST RECENT YEAR ON RECORD, MADAM PRESIDENT, THE UNITED STATES MARSHAL SERVICE TRACKED THOUSANDS OF THREATS AND INAPPROPRIATE COMMUTATIONS AGAINST THE JUDICIARY. THOUSANDS OF THREATS AGAINST THE JUDICIARY. LESS THAN THREE YEARS AGO, OF COURSE, AN UNHINGED AND UNSTABLE LEFT-WING ACTIVIST ATTEMPTED A MASS MURDER OF CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS AT A BASEBALL FIELD RIGHT ACROSS THE RIVER.

A SENATE LEADER APPEARING TO THREATEN OR INCITE VIOLENCE ON THE STEPS OF THE SUPREME COURT COULD LITERALLY BE A MATTER OF DEADLY SERIOUSNESS. SO I FULLY ANTICIPATE OUR COLLEAGUE WOULD QUICKLY WITHDRAW HIS COMMENTS AND APOLOGIZE. THAT’S WHAT EVEN RELIABLY LIBERAL LEGAL EXPERTS LIKE LAURENCE TRIBE AND NEIL KAGEL HAVE PUBLICLY URGED. INSTEAD, OUR COLLEAGUE DOUBLED DOWN, DOUBLED DOWN. HE TRIED TO GASLIGHT THE ENTIRE COUNTRY AND STATED THAT HE WAS ACTUALLY THREATENING FELLOW SENATORS, AS THOUGH THAT WOULD BE MUCH BETTER. BUT THAT’S SUFFICIENT.

AND THEN A FEW HOURS LATER, THE DEMOCRATIC LEADER TRIPLED DOWN. INSTEAD OF TAKING CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS’ SOBER STATEMENT TO HEART, HE LASHED OUT AGAIN AND TRIED TO IMPLY THE CHIEF JUSTICE WAS BIASED, BIASED FOR DOING HIS JOB AND DEFENDING THE COURT. LET ME SAY THAT AGAIN. HE TRIPLED DOWN AND HE LASHED OUT YET AGAIN…

Because of course he did. Question now is: will he get away with it, as he so clearly assumes? As so many other bloodthirsty, lawless Leftists already have?

Official censure is the mildest reprimand Chuckie Crazy Eyes ought to get. As a dangerously unhinged lunatic, he has clearly forgotten he’s a member of what was originally conceived as the more sober, reflective, and judicious branch of Congress. The crooked, power-drunk son of a bitch ought to be forcibly removed from the office he’s besmirched and degraded for so many long years—perp-walked out rockin’ a pair of those fancy chrome bracelets, with a burly, stone-faced US Marshall on each flank to prod him along.

You never make deals with Muzzrat savages

Posted on March 3, 2020March 3, 2020 by Mike

You kill them. As many as you can, as quick as you can, with extreme prejudice. Then you salt the earth, smear bacon grease on the corpses, and leave.

Nothing illustrates the folly of our 18-year-long nation-building mission in Afghanistan better than the partial peace bought by a months-long negotiation breaking down after just 72 hours.

AFP also reports, “three killed, 11 injured in blast in east Afghanistan,” so you know the Taliban wasn’t kidding around. The “operation,” as the Taliban likes to call it, or “savage terror attack,” as any honest person would call it, was in response to confusion between the Trump White House and the Afghan central government over the release of up to 5,000 Taliban prisoners.

“Release” them? That’s another thing you never, ever do with Mooselimb terrorists. Then again, the first mistake there was taking live prisoners at all rather than going full Black Flag on their primitive asses. At this late date, the esteemed Miz Kelly has the right of it:

With few exceptions, America’s longest war is largely ignored by our political class while the costs and casualties mount. Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) held a hearing last month on the Washington Post’s explosive and infuriating series on the war in Afghanistan: Only three of his colleagues bothered to attend. The sole Democrat in attendance was the committee’s ranking member, Senator Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.).

“Doing nothing is no longer an option for any senator or member of Congress with a conscience,” Paul said, perhaps during a moment of wishful thinking.

The long-time proponent of ending the Afghanistan war ticked off the stats: Nearly 2,400 dead U.S. servicemen and women with more than 20,000 wounded. Soldiers who have faced numerous deployments since the war began in 2001. And nearly $1 trillion in U.S. tax dollars—an average of $50 billion per year for almost 20 years, as Paul pointed out—spent in a backward nation that still ranks near the bottom of the list of the world’s most economically and politically free countries.

“What has that $1 trillion bought us? What do we have to show for it?” Paul asked. “Did a trillion dollars make Afghanistan more stable…[or] move us one step closer to victory?”

The answer, of course, is no. Barack Obama’s 2009 troop surge didn’t work; as his vice president now campaigns for president, it’s important to remember that three-quarters of the total troop fatalities in Afghanistan occurred during the Obama presidency.

The war in Afghanistan is a catastrophic failure by every measure. It should cast a permanent shadow of shame over those who continued to promote it despite clear evidence for years that it was a disaster with no hope of a positive outcome.

Afghanistan is not worth one more life, one more grievous injury, or one more tax dollar to maintain our military’s presence there. Those who insist we remain only do so out of vanity and self-interest; to concur with Trump at this point would concede that their planning and execution have been wrong all along.

Even the peace plan’s detractors cannot come up with a compelling reason to stay other than hollow warnings about national security threats to the homeland. That claim, according to Jordan Schachtel, a D.C-based foreign policy analyst and journalist, is bunk.

“There is no threat to America from Afghanistan, a land of desolate poverty, which is occupied by subsistence farmers and families living in mud huts,” Schachtel told me by email. He thinks the peace deal is a “stall tactic” designed to fail and should have no bearing on whether the U.S. stays or leaves Afghanistan. “The best path forward does not include a deal. Just leave the country.”

A. Friggin. MEN.

“Nation-bulding” is the bunk. If you’re going to fight a war, you fight the ever-loving hell out of the damned thing. You use absolutely every weapon available to you, employing their destructive capabilities to the verymost maximum. You throw everything at the enemy you can get your hands on, without reference to the folly of gentlemanly niceties, sentimentality, or misguided “code of honor” that your enemy will never comply with himself or, in this case, even comprehend. You kill people and break things—savagely, ruthlessly, and mercilessly—until your enemy’s will to resist is irrepairably broken. You rain almighty Hell-fire and brimstone down on his head with neither pity nor surcease, until sheer terror at the merest fleeting thought of doing battle with you reduces him to a state of gibbering catatonia.

If you lack the will or the cold practicality to do all those things, you stay the fucking fuck home.

Sherman said it best: “War is cruelty, there is no use trying to reform it; the crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.” He later added: “War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want.” Yesirreebob. All they want, plus a stiff measure more, so as to discourage future misbehavior.

Erroneous assumptions

Posted on February 29, 2020February 29, 2020 by Mike

It’s not that they don’t know anything. It’s just that so much of what they know isn’t so, as Reagan so memorably quipped.

Somehow this weird talking point is still seen as a mike drop by gun control nuts even as the U.S. scrambles to cut a deal to end 18 years of grueling quagmire warfare against an enemy that lives in caves and has no F-15s or Hellfire missiles. https://t.co/FxWHZeq4P4

— John Hayward (@Doc_0) February 28, 2020

Ace extols Hayward’s premise:

Great point.

The left is always claiming that we mustn’t go to war in this shithole country or that one, because peasant militias can always defeat Colonialist Invaders.

But when it comes to America, they claim that Bubba can’t do a damn thing with his AR-15.

That contradiction comes as no surprise. After all, we’re talking here about people s guns than they do about warfare, other than that they’re terrified witless of both. Ace then breaks the Tweetstorm out into manageable text for us, bless his cold, shriveled heart.

Of course it’s vapid, but it’s also vicious. They think they’re judo-flipping the rubes out in flyover country and pinning them to the mat with their reverence for the U.S. military. “You hayseeds can’t possibly think you could beat those awesome soldiers in a GUNFIGHT?”

One of the obvious problems with this “you can’t beat the U.S. military so guns are no use against the military” idiocy is that tyrants around the world very clearly DO fear the prospect of an armed populace. That’s why they always aggressively disarm their captive people.

The track record of lightly-armed insurgencies against professional military forces in the modern era is actually pretty good, even when the military forces are vastly more aggressive and willing to inflict collateral damage than the U.S. armed forces ever would be.
 To even speculate on how things would go if the U.S. armed forces became a gang of ruthless killers under some communist or fascist American tyrant is to enter the realm of science fiction. Healthy respect for the 2nd Amendment helps to ensure things never get that far.

An armed population of sovereign citizens goes a long way toward keeping tyranny from ever getting off the ground. Of course collectivist Democrats with their hive-mind thinking don’t consciously understand it, but the 2A is helping restrain their worst impulses RIGHT NOW.

They’re trying to reassure each other that THEIR power is absolute while YOU have none at all. Once they trick you into submitting to socialized medicine, forced population shifts, or one of their other doomsday schemes, you’ll be helpless. Deep down, they’re not so sure.

But long before you dip into left-wing psychosis or apocalyptic scenarios of armed revolt against a tyrant, you have the way armed citizens see themselves differently than disarmed ones. The first two amendments in the Bill of Rights profoundly shape the nature of citizenship.

The 2nd Amendment UNDERMINES tyranny long before anyone has to think about FIGHTING it. If we stand tall as sovereign citizens and cherish our rights AND responsibilities – the 2nd Amendment is where they meet! – we won’t get stuck with rulers we have to “take on.” /end

More good stuff here.

I can’t claim to be quite so sanguine and positive about all that as John seems to be, but in the main he’s correct: however lax we’ve been about vigorously defending our liberties from incremental encroachment, there’s little doubt that the Left’s tyrannical tendencies have been at least somewhat attenuated by the uncertainty an armed populace instills in them.

Some gaps have been knocked into the Constitutional fence that encircles and safeguards American rights from predation, admittedly. But the fact is that its protection, while not as sturdy and complete as it might be, has not been entirely removed even yet. And it can be repaired and made strong again, any old time we choose to take the trouble.

Blago gets some

Posted on February 28, 2020February 28, 2020 by Mike

A shiv for Barky.

Convicted former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich went on Fox News in his first post-release interview and held very little back about Barack Obama’s involvement in the scandal that put him in prison, while the first black president was never held accountable.

Appearing on “Watters’ World” with Jesse Watters, Blagojevich was quickly asked about the 2008 Senate-seat-for-sale scandal, in which Blagojevich had negotiated appointing an Obama-approved candidate, in exchange for a cabinet position.

“Did you ever talk to Barack Obama about this Senate seat? Did he have any knowledge about what was going on or not?” Watters asked.

“President Obama began the whole conversation because he sent someone to me as a middleman, a mediator — not unusual in politics — on the night he was elected president to say that he’d like to talk about his choice for the Senate and to see what I might be willing to ask for,” Blagojevich told him. “Political horse-trading, not what those corrupt prosecutors said it was.”

“So it was Barack Obama’s understanding that his liaison was going to work with you to appoint the guy that was going to fill Barack Obama’s Senate seat, and Barack Obama, incoming president, wanted to know what was going to be in exchange for the seat, is that what you’re saying?” Watters asked.

“Yeah, he was basically, you know, asking whether—the emissary that represented President-elect Obama was interested in a candidate for the Senate, and he asked what would you be interested in, those kinds of things, and we began a discussion over the telephone on what we might or might not ask for as part of a horse deal. It was routine politics, not anything corrupt or illegal like they tried to say it was,” Blagojevich replied.

The host then asked whether money was involved as part of the deal.

“I never said that there was money in exchange for the Senate seat. We talked about Cabinet positions, we talked about, frankly, federal money for the state of Illinois to address some of the issues we had in our state, we talked about ambassadorships,” Blagojevich explained.

No need to be so crude as to discuss a direct exchange of money, seeing as how once you get the seat the money will follow just as surely as night follows day. Blagojevich can deny that these backroom deals are illegal all he likes; hell, he may even be right about that. No doubt they’re every bit as common as he says too, just another part of the begrimed fabric of end-stage American political decay. But such “horse-trading” is indubitably corrupt, as well as sordid and dishonorable—all in all, completely contrary to the phony “not a whiff of corruption” facade so laboriously constructed around Ogabe to cloak his squalid history.

Blago hints at plenty more dirt and old-school Chicago sleaze yet to come. Hopefully he can get it all dished up before his shocking “suicide.”

Ship: SAILED

Posted on February 28, 2020February 28, 2020 by Mike

Wait, you mean to tell me that Red Bernie is a *gasp!* COMMUNIST? And that Amerika might actually be in danger of lapsing into *GASP!!!* SOCIALISM?!?

Why, SAY IT AIN’T SO, MCGEE!

Democrats are almost out of time to change the trajectory of the race, although it remains to be seen if Sanders fantasizing about Cuban literacy rates slows him down. Some Democrats are begging the New York Nondisclosure Agreement to carpet bomb the airwaves and social media with attacks on Sanders knowing that if Sanders sails into the convention with a significant lead, they will be left holding a menu with a couple of equally horrible choices, the political equivalent of Brussels sprouts or liver and onion.

Their hope to pull off a convention bait and switch works only if somebody can keep the delegate count close. But who can pull it off? Mike Bloomberg? Not without a charisma transplant and the removal of layers of baggage. So far, he and Shrill Indian have combined to net one more delegate than is currently in the hands of the candidate from Minnesota who nobody has noticed is in the race. Joe Biden? He was last seen fantasizing about running for the Senate, even as his South Carolina firewall is fraying. Pious Pete, the Bible “scholar”? Sanders could not have hand-selected a better field of awful candidates to propel him.

An increasing number of Democrat talking heads are resigning themselves to the Sanders storm rolling in and trying to prepare the ground to receive its rain. Liberal revisionists have tried out two lines while the race is still somewhat in play: the Paul Krugman he’s not really a crazy Marxist…he just plays one on TV special and the one about vote for Bernie because he won’t be able to do the crazy stuff he has promised. These are political losers, but they are just the warm-up act for the socialism revisionism to come. Today’s Democrat Sanders critics will soon pivot to singing homilies to socialism.

Um—”WILL SOON pivot” etc?

Just now noticing all this, are ya? But Red Bernie ain’t the biggest problem we have here, not by a long yard.

So how did we get to the point where the nation founded by champions of liberty is on the cusp of nominating a man who is a fellow ideological traveler with history’s greatest foes of liberty? The Democrats have been on a steady march toward this Marxist moment for generations.

Ronald Reagan, in one of the greatest American orations, delivered back in 1964, saw that we were heading toward the moment, noting that “back in 1936, Mr. Democrat himself, Al Smith, the great American, came before the American people and charged that the leadership of his Party was taking the Party of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland down the road under the banners of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin.”

We are now 84 years past that 1936 Al Smith epiphany, and we are nearing the finish line, which is not surprising, since socialism is the natural destination for big-government Democrats as each successive generation ups the ante on the generation that came before.

Most Americans don’t yet appreciate just how much Marxism and its grievance-mongering offshoots have become the university mainstream in America, but this is of profound importance. America’s colleges, with a few notable exceptions, have been churning out Marxists for decades, which is why an old Marxist who looks like a madman is this year’s surprise hot political commodity.

The short-term problem for Democrats is that there are still too many older voters they need with an understanding of history who are horrified at the prospect of socialism.

But the long-term problem for Republicans is that the balance is tilting farther toward Marxism with each passing year as academia continues to crank out Marxist voters and influencers who are changing the ideological balance of society. Even if Sanders gets demolished in the 2020 election, Democrats will not tack to the center, since socialism is now the beating heart of their party. Sanders’s candidacy is the outcome of this tectonic shift, not the cause of it.

Although I’d argue that it isn’t “are changing the ideological etc,” it’s “HAVE changed,” that last bit is nothing but solid, 24k gold truth. Which then brings us right ’round to another ugly but inescapable fact, one I keep repeating: The war for America was lost long, long ago. The battle to reclaim it, should there ever be one, must be initiated in the Leftist indocrination factories we’re pleased to misnomer “public schools” to have any hope of attaining anything but the most transitory success. So far, I see no sign whatsoever that enough of us even realize that, much less that any such battle is being waged.

If the US was anything remotely like the nation it properly should be, the very idea of an avowed Marxist—particularly a buffoonish, all-thumbs crackpot as just plain stupid as Bernie The Klown—making a serious run for President would be so preposterous as to make the welkin ring with gales of laughter from sea to shining sea. Instead, somehow…well, here we all are.

America, let this once seemingly impossible concept sink in, and sink in deep: It can happen.

Sanders can win. Not just the party nod. The election.

The Wall Street Journal fretted recently: “Democrats are waking to the prospect of a nominee who wants to eliminate private health insurance, raise taxes on the middle class, ban fracking and put government in charge of energy production, make college a taxpayer entitlement, offer free health care to illegal immigrants, raise spending by $50 trillion, and tag every down-ballot Democrat with the socialist label.”

Journal editorial writers apparently believe simply repeating those erstwhile bogeymen will ensure McGovern 1972-style catastrophe for Sanders and his party in the fall.

Inquiring readers want to know: what country are they are living in?

And that “socialism” word: will younger voters really desert Sanders in droves over a couple comments praising Cuban communists? The Berlin Wall fell before a substantial bloc even drew breath. Communist China is our biggest trading partner. Millennials and beyond have a vague notion that socialism has been bad for Venezuela, but not why.

“Moderate” Democrats tried the Journal’s roundhouses on Sanders Wednesday, and didn’t lay a glove on him. Sanders countered with research purporting to show his Medicare for All budget-buster would save money. Cited praise for the Castros from the sainted Barack Obama. Ridiculed efforts to align him with the NRA.

And he pointed to strong head-to-head polling numbers against Donald Trump and burgeoning grassroots support.

Not to come off too Eyore-ish on y’all or anything, but don’t for a moment kid yourselves that it can’t happen, people. For one thing: know how our side likes to point to the humongous, wildly enthusiastic crowds every Trump rally draws as evidence of his grass-roots invincibility? Well, don’t look now, but guess who else is beginning to enjoy a similar level of support?

The above article’s title quite correctly states: “This is not McGovern’s America.” Once again: THAT, not Red Bernie or any other specific individual, is where our real problem lies.

Waiting.

Update! Did somebody mention the government schools just now?

It has been long known that American “education” institutions are spectacular failures at teaching the rising generation about their birthright to self-governance. The famous 1983 report “A Nation at Risk” declared it a national crisis that “In many schools, the time spent learning how to cook and drive counts as much toward a high school diploma as the time spent studying mathematics, English, chemistry, U.S. history, or biology.” Things only got worse.

Today, 4 in 10 Americans who are younger than 39 disagree that the United States “has a history we should be proud of,” according to a 2019 poll by FLAG/YouGov. The poll also found that half of all Americans agree the United States is a sexist and racist country, including two-thirds of millennials. Millennials showed the lowest level of agreement with the statement, “I’m proud to be an American.” Thirty-eight percent of “younger Americans do not agree that ‘America has a history that we should be proud of,’” according to the poll.

2019’s annual poll from the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation found that 37 percent of millennials think the United States is “among the most unequal societies in the world.” Despite their curricula’s obsession with so-called multiculturalism and diversity, they clearly have zero sense of what life is like in most of the world, and how that contrasts with the United States’ singular freedoms and opportunities.

The VOC poll found that 70 percent of millenials said they are likely to vote for a socialist. It also found that “57% of Millennials (compared to 94% of the Silent Generation), believe the Declaration of Independence better guarantees freedom and inequality over the Communist Manifesto.”

That poll also found that large percentages of younger Americans said communism was presented favorably in their elementary, middle, and high schools.

But of course. The one is what gets you the other. Cause and effect, man.

Yet another thing I’m beginning to sound like a broken record on, I know: Gramsci was a diabolical genius, the Long March Through The Institutions he inspired a most horrifying success.

Hey, they don’t call it the Surveillance State for nothing, you know

Posted on February 27, 2020February 27, 2020 by Mike

Rand Paul has an idea for a good start.

WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump told Sen. Rand Paul that he does not support a clean extension of expiring surveillance authorities, throwing the future of the program into doubt ahead of a fast-approaching March 15 deadline to re-up key features of the Patriot Act.

The Kentucky Republican told reporters that Trump made the comments to him on Wednesday, just a day after Attorney General William Barr told GOP senators that Congress should extend the expiring provisions regarding roving wire taps, lone wolf actors and the most controversial provision: call data collection.

Asked about the discrepancy between his conversation with Trump and Barr’s remarks to senators, Paul said there was “misinformation that got out from some people in the administration” about the expiring surveillance authorities.

“The president was out of the country and somebody mischaracterized his positions. I’ll leave it up to y’all to figure that out,” Paul added.

Paul said Trump is “very supportive” of his amendment to prevent the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act from targeting Americans, a reflection of conservative unease over the way the Trump campaign was surveilled in 2016.

“FISA warrants should not be issued against Americans,” Paul said on Thursday afternoon. “Americans shouldn’t be spied on by a secret court. I think he agrees completely with that and that’s the amendment that I’m going to insist on. I’m not letting anything go easy without a vote on my amendment.”

Paul’s amendment is all well and good as far as it goes; certainly, it’s a vast improvement over the Barr proposal, which McConnell and Graham also endorse. Myself, though, I’m with Sundance all the way.

Yesterday CTH warned of a scenario where congress would attempt to slip a clean renewal authorization into the Coronavirus appropriations bill. Today, that exact scenario was being discussed on Capitol Hill.

Following the conversation with President Trump, Senator Rand Paul is planning to propose legislation that would force reform to the current FISA authorities.

While CTH disagrees with the Rand Paul proposal, and would rather see the bulk data gathering/collection and opportunities for exploitation eliminated, at least Senator Paul is attempting to stop the system from being abused against political campaigns.

Two issues…and again CTH is not attempting to dismiss the righteous effort by Senator Paul…However:

(A) Isn’t it already illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional and grossly corrupt, to use FISA as a political surveillance tool? If so, why do we need another law or rule change to make it more illegal, more unlawful and more grossly corrupt?

(B) Why do only elected officials or candidates for office get protection from having their fourth amendment rights violated by exploitation of the FISA courts? Shouldn’t the same standard of protection apply to everyone?

CTH understands what Rand Paul is attempting to do, but it’s the FISA process being used against *any* American that is the problem. No American should have their constitutional rights travel through a secret court in order to usurp them. Let FISA apply to “non Americans”; and if there is a need for surveillance or collection of information on Americans, then let the government approach regular Title-3 courts for domestic warrants.

Unfortunately, we know all too well just how likely Deep State operatives are to relinquish as powerful a tool as FISA—a grotesque affront to absolutely every principle this nation was founded upon—has turned out to be for them.

Monsters!

Posted on February 27, 2020February 27, 2020 by Mike

Whoever fights Deep State monsters should see to it that in the process she does not become a monster herself. And if you gaze long enough into the Swamp, the Swamp will gaze back into you.

Because socialism is preferable to someone tweeting mean things about the media. https://t.co/1dXoJ2tkAB

— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) February 26, 2020

Poor Megan—now a fully-paid-up DC doyenne now completely adapted and in sync with her environment thanks to her comfy, cozy WaPo sinecure—and her fellow NeverTrumpTard Old Guard pundits still keep using that word, “libertarian.” I do not think that it means what they think that it means. Ashley so-deftly administers the coup de grace:

"I support limited government" and "I want a socialist president" is pretty hard to square up

— Ashley (@luvofUSA) February 26, 2020

Oh, it ain’t merely “pretty hard” there, Ash. It quite literally cannot be done. As they say, one of these things is NOT like the other.

“The un-American Deep State and the malevolent Obama administration”

Posted on February 24, 2020February 24, 2020 by Mike

Extremely apt nomenclature and some harsh reality courtesy of John Nolte.

There is no justice in this country, only them the persecutors and we the persecuted.

Democrats and their Deep State allies can lie and leak to destroy innocent people, they can destroy evidence, they can seek to manipulate and overturn democracy, and all they get are movie deals, book contracts, speaking fees, and cable news cash.

And now there’s this…

The Democrat frontrunner for the 2020 presidential nomination, Bernie Sanders, was briefed last month that Russia is attempting to help him win the nomination.

Did you catch that?

Bernie.

Was.

Freakin’.

Briefed.

Briefed.

Bernie got a briefing, y’all — a heads up, a warning…

And you know what? That’s appropriate. That is exactly what should have happened. But…

If you’ll recall, that is not what happened to Donald Trump in 2016.

Nope, in 2016, the un-American Deep State and the malevolent Obama administration did not offer the Trump campaign a heads up, did not give them the courtesy of a briefing over potential Russian interference.

Oh, no…

Instead, the un-American Deep State and malevolent Obama administration chose to use Russian-interference-that-didn’t-end-up-interfering-in-anything as an excuse to spy on the Trump campaign using spies, to wiretap the Trump campaign using wiretaps, to commit perjury against the Trump campaign using forged warrants filled with perjury.

And then, after Trump won in an electoral vote landslide, the un-American Deep State and the malevolent Obama administration committed crime after crime (classified leaks, more perjury) to launch a coup against Trump by way of a three year drip-drip-drip investigation, even though the investigators knew the investigation was bullshit on day one.

We are second class citizens in our own country.

Sad to say, but I think most of us know that by now, or at least we should. Which makes the only pertinent question confronting us all the more unpleasant: What, if anything, are we gonna do about that? The answer:

It’s all got to come down… All of it.

Yep, ‘fraid so.

Nothing to see here, folks

Posted on February 23, 2020February 23, 2020 by Mike

I’m SURE it’s all on the up and up.

Philip Haney, the author of “See Something, Say Nothing: A Homeland Security Officer Exposes the Government’s Submission to Jihad,” has died at the age of 73. In addition to being an author, Haney was a long-time Department of Homeland Security expert with a focus on Islamic extremism.

Reports of Haney’s death first appeared on the morning of February 22. Fox News’ contributor Sara A. Carter tweeted regarding Haney’s death saying, “Somebody I deeply respected and considered a friend Phil Haney – a DHS whistleblower during the Obama Admin was apparently killed yesterday in Southern California. Pray for his family and pray they find the person who murdered him. Still trying to get confirmation on details.”

A few quotes, emphasis mine, to set the stage:

Phil Haney spoke out against CAIR in an interview in October with Barry Nussbaum on American Truth Project.

Philip Haney: CAIR is the acronym for the Council on American Islamic Relations. It’s probably the best known Muslim organization in the country, but unfortunately, it’s also connected, irrefutably proven to be connected to the Muslim Brotherhood. Now, the Muslim Brotherhood has been already designated in several countries around the world, including Middle Eastern countries…as a front group up to and including Hamas, which we know as a designated terrorist group itself…We’ve been continuing to track this group and other ones that are part of the Muslim Brotherhood. And I have to say with great distress that if anything, they’re more woven into the fabric of different branches of our government today, 2019 October than they were when I was still active duty within DHS. And yeah, that does seem like a bold statement. It seems like it ought to be impossible, but I think that’s what we’re going to go over today.

Barry Nussbaum: So I get it. And let’s talk specifics. So why in the world Phil with the FBI, the premier law enforcement agency in the world, and certainly our number one national police force whose mission it is to protect us internally within the boundaries of the United States what the heck is the FBI doing in bed with CAIR?

Philip Haney: Well, first of all, let’s make sure to make the point that they are. This isn’t something that started years ago and was taken care of. I’m talking just in the last week or two. CAIR and other Muslim Brotherhood front groups have been meeting by invitation from the Department of Homeland Security and/or branches within the U.S. State Department to help implement and develop policy here in the United States. And before I forget it, I should mention that the new focus of the Department of Homeland Security has just released in their new twenty nineteen strategic documents, about 20 to 40 pages, is a focus on white supremacy, not so much Islamic terrorism…And that brings us to the relationship with CAIR. They have now asked groups like CAIR and the Muslim Public Affairs Council and the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations all part of the Muslim Brotherhood to come and help them implement this new policy of focus on white supremacy.

Haney’s death was hastily declared a “suicide” by California authorities, via “a single self-inflicted gunshot wound.” Emphasis mine again:

A screenshot taken from Frank Andrew Bostom’s Twitter feed shows what appears to be a statement from Frank Gaffney, the Executive Chairman of the Center for Security Policy.

“As you may know, we lost this week one of our most brilliant, most dedicated and most devout comrades-in-arms: Philip Haney.

While the details are sketchy at the moment, Phil went missing on Wednesday in the area he called home in northern California to which he returned after the passing of his beloved wife, Francesca, following a long struggle with a series of terrible health afflictions. On Friday morning, a sheriff’s deputy finally found his body with a gunshot wound to the chest.

So, Haney committed suicide by shooting himself…IN THE CHEST?!? Nope, no malodorous funk wafting off of that entirely believable story, nosirreebob. I mean, I suppose it maybe happens that way once in a rare while. But it’s hardly the usual way of going about it, which ought to raise questions all by itself.

Why yes, there IS more to consider. Such as: did this guy ever really do or say anything so extreme and/or incriminating as to alarm some of the Ogabe junta‘s more shadowy henchmen, perhaps even enough to have him offed?

During a 2015 appearance on Fox News, Haney said that his work in the Department of Homeland Security had been curtailed and that if it were able to continue, it may have prevented the 2015 San Bernardino shooting. According to Haney, among the places that he was investigating was a mosque attended by the shooter, Syed Farook. Haney alleged that his investigation was curtailed by the Obama administration. Haney said, “Either Syed would have been put on the no-fly list because association with that mosque, and/or the K-1 visa that his wife was given may have been denied because of his association with a known organization.”

In 2016, Haney testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee chaired by Senator Ted Cruz to allege that the Obama administration had acted irresponsibly with regard to Islamic extremism. Haney claimed that the administration had acted in favor of “political correctness” rather than take actions that may have prevented the June 2016 Pulse night club shooting in Orlando or the San Bernardino shooting in December 2015.

Haney also alleged that the Obama administration destroyed or changed 800 of his files relating to the Muslim Brotherhood because they were deemed offensive to Muslim people.

Hmmm. Well, okay then. But that really isn’t enough, is it? I mean, Haney would have had to represent a real, credible threat to Ogabe and his minions before they’d go to such extraordinary lengths, wouldn’t he?

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) issued a statement Saturday night on the death of Obama DHS whistleblower Philip Haney, who was found dead Friday by police in Plymouth, California. Police said the 66-year-old Haney had what appeared to be a self-inflicted gunshot wound, but that an investigation was “active and ongoing”.

King posted to Twitter, “Phil Haney was a friend & patriot. He was a target because of all he knew of Islamic terrorist coverups. He insured his life by archiving data that incriminated the highest levels of the Obama administration. Phil Haney didn’t kill himself. RIP, Phil.”

Um. Well, okay then. But hey, Haney was no doubt distraught over losing his wife. It’s scarcely unthinkable that a person in such straits might lose all hope and kill himself, right? In fact, people close to him were probably concerned about just such a possibility, I’d expect.

A statement on author Andrew Boston’s Twitter page, said that Haney had returned to California following the death of his wife. That statement also said that Haney was engaged to be married later in 2020. The statement adds that friends of Haney’s say that there was “no way” he would have taken his own life.

Uh. Well. Okay, then. Still. If Haney DID have the goods on Ogabe’s mollycoddling of Moslem terrorists; and DID seem to be coping with the loss of his wife well enough to be planning to get on with his life and remarry; and his relatively positive state of mind has been unequivocally attested to by people close to him; and he was aware that his unflinching realism concerning Moslem terrorist groups, along with his insider knowledge of Ogabe’s treasonous, criminal behavior, would seriously antagonize Ogabe And Pals…wouldn’t he then have expressed concern somewhere along the line about all this having effectively painted a bullseye on his back?

Haney’s close friend Jan Markell, a radio host, author and speaker, tweeted out this from her last conversation with Phil Haney.

My friend Phil Haney was found shot yesterday in CA. I had lunch with him a month ago. He warned something could happen to him. He was to get married in a month. It will be falsely called a suicide.

WELL. Okay, then.

Of course, it’s just absurd to go too far with all this wild-eyed conspiracy mongering. I’m sure we all feel perfectly confident that none of our most powerful professional politicians would ever dream of resorting to such outré measures just to cover their own asses. Right?

RIGHT?!?

Important note to Rod Blagojevich: better be checking your six, buddy.

Misfire

Posted on February 22, 2020February 22, 2020 by Mike

Hrm.

John Bolton Admits Last-Minute Impeachment Leak Was A Publicity Stunt

Curiously, the rest of the article doesn’t quite seem to support its sensational headline.

Former National Security Advisor John Bolton admitted Wednesday that his testimony in President Donald Trump’s recent impeachment proceedings involving Ukraine would have had no impact on the trial’s outcome even after sections of his upcoming book leaked attempting to convict the president in its final days.

“People can argue about what I should have said and what I should have done,” Bolton said at Vanderbilt University Wednesday night during a forum with his predecessor Susan Rice, according to ABC News. “I will bet you a dollar right here and now my testimony would have made no difference to the ultimate outcome.”

“I sleep at night because I have followed my conscience,” Bolton added.

In the final days of the trial however, sections of Bolton’s upcoming book were leaked to the New York Times, featuring Bolton accusing Trump of tying the nearly $400 million in military aid to Ukraine with politically motivated investigations as Democrats alleged. The leak happened to come on the same day the book became available for online pre-order revealing the move as nothing more than a publicity stunt.

Bold mine. Now I don’t doubt for a moment that the move WAS a publicity stunt, mind. But the above hardly amounts to Bolton himself “admitting” to any such, openly and in plain language; his “confession” in the first ‘graph is pretty specific, and obviously refers to something else altogether, albeit related.

Bolton’s acknowledgment that his testimony wouldn’t have altered the outcome of Shampeachment could be construed as kind of a left-handed, backdoor way of admitting to the leak’s publicity-stunt nature, I suppose, however great a stretch that might be. And lord knows I am not in the least bothered by our side using hyperbole and misdirection as a means of attacking our enemies, just as they’ve always done to us. But such weapons must be wielded competently, craftily, to be most effective. And they ought not be wasted on an irrelevancy, a disgruntled, treacherous non-entity whose 15 minutes of (minor) fame already ticked away.

Could be there’s a case to be made for Bolton having actually confessed to perpetrating a “publicity stunt,” somewhere, somewhen. But if there is, I can’t find it in this brief article.

Unaware, or just doesn’t care?

Posted on February 17, 2020February 17, 2020 by Mike

Oh, but this one’s rich.

There has always been a common theme in the Democrats’ attacks on Barr. I noted last year that Democrats repeatedly accused Barr of doing for Trump exactly what Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch did for Obama.

That method of attack took a hilarious turn Friday when Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post had the nerve to accuse AG Barr of “playing the role” of Trump’s “wingman.”

“Since taking office a year ago, the attorney general has energetically inhabited the role of presidential wingman,” Marcus wrote. “Including pre-spinning the special counsel’s report to Trump’s benefit.”

Presidential “wingman”? Where have I heard that before?

Oh right, it was Eric Holder who literally referred to himself Obama’s wingman back in 2013 during an interview on the Tom Joyner radio show. He made the comment while dismissing a question about him possibly leaving the administration. “I’m still enjoying what I’m doing, there’s still work to be done. I’m still the president’s wingman, so I’m there with my boy.”

Holder unapologetically announced his loyalty to Obama, not the rule of law, but the Washington Post never called him out on it, or even referenced Holder’s “wingman” comment in this attack piece on Barr, even though you can bet Marcus’s choice of words most certainly came from Holder.

Marcus’s lack of mention of Holder and his partisan loyalty to Obama is stunning.

Hardly. What it is is brazen—a declaration of contempt so arrogant, so utterly audacious, that it reveals Marcus’s absolute confidence that she runs no risk whatsoever of being harmed, professionally or in any other sense, as a result of someone calling her out on her partisan hypocrisy. The odious Marcus is neither forgetful nor oblivious. She’s merely unconcerned.

Stunning? SRSLY? Is there any reason to expect anything else, after having seen the very concept of “journalistic ethics” itself most egregiously flouted via the flagrant trampling of every last one of ’em (purely notional though they now are) by the Enemedia herd—over and over and over again, continuously, for decades?

Where in the hell did you ever acquire the risible notion that Marcus feels any obligation to uphold any standard of fairness, impartiality, integrity, or honesty? She and her fellow jackals consider themselves and their work to be bounded by but one constraint, less idealistic but more practical: does my writing/statement/action help the Democrat-Socialist Party to further the hard-Left agenda?
f
Sorry, Matt, but if you really are “stunned” by this, you just haven’t been paying attention, son.

Virginia is just the beginning

Posted on February 13, 2020February 13, 2020 by Mike

None of this is random. The enemy thinks long, and is working a plan.

They’re coming for you next: Much has been made of the onerousness gun control laws passed by the Democrats in the Virginia state legislature this past week.

When it became clear that the Democrats were going to pass such laws, having gained control of both the legislature and the governorship, 95 counties and cities in the state made it publicly clear they would not enforce these laws, announcing that they were now second amendment sanctuary counties. Then, more than 22,000 Virginians gathered in protest at the statehouse, peacefully but forcefully declaring their opposition to these proposed laws.

None of that mattered to the modern Democrats now in charge in Virginia. They passed the laws, one of which gives the state “the authority to confiscate certain types of magazines that are considered ‘high capacity.’” I don’t know how they think they will enforce that confiscation right, but since they think it appropriate and just, don’t be surprised if they impose new laws to strengthen their ability to do so, including the right to do house-to-house searches.

Most of the the discussion about this story has been focused on the opposition to the laws themselves. I want to focus on what it tells us about the modern Democratic Party. You see, these fascist actions — which do nothing to reduce violence or crime while making law-abiding citizens criminals — are being planned by practically every local Democratic Party operation across the nation. All they require to make them law is to obtain power, as they have in Virginia.

My proof?

He has plenty, all of which you should read. But it all boils down to the simple fact stated in the headline: “Democrats in VA and AZ issue a warning: “We will oppress you if you elect us!” They most certainly will, just like every other Marxist dictatorship throughout history has; as the scorpion told the frog, it’s what they are, it’s what they do. No Democrat-Socialist candidate, for ANY office, should be able to garner even a single damned vote from anyone not already a dyed-in-the-wool fellow traveler living in one of America’s Democrat Urban Blight zones.

And yet.

(Via Sefton)

The biggest question of them all

Posted on February 10, 2020February 10, 2020 by Mike

Boy, talk about questions the Democrat-Socialists don’t want to see asked.

At what point is it fair to say that a political faction presents a threat to the country?

Wherever that point may lie, I think we can safely say that we’re well past it now. Heck, they’ve been all but openly telling us for a goodish while now; it’s probably about time Americans start taking them at their word, and responding accordingly.

This question loomed over impeachment week, which saw the country struggling to digest a disorienting series of dramatic contrasts. First we had the Democrats’ demoralizing meltdown in Iowa, followed by Trump’s optimistic but sometimes staid State of the Union Tuesday night and his subsequent victory over impeachment. All of that was followed by the president’s formless, angry victory speech against his enemies on Thursday.

In a way, Trump’s State of the Union was “fake.” Most of those addresses are forgettable by design, but this time convention was taken to the limit. Trump’s address was solemn, uplifting, and occasionally boring. The theme, a “Great American Comeback,” powerfully evoked a yearning for national renewal, as Trump predicted, “the best is yet to come.”

But the elephant in the room, of necessity, was left out of the speech: the gravest threat to the State of our Union is internal.

…Trump was not there (the victory speech—M) for a speech or a news conference, he said, but to celebrate. But what he had to say was terribly sad. President Trump has spent the majority of his first term fighting a war of succession. To the ruling class, Trump’s election was a catastrophe like no other in American history because it placed a man who they had not vetted in the halls of power. They responded by taking the country on a deranged, three-year detour through Eastern Europe.

First it was a maundering Russian fever dream that held its target audience, the corporate leftist media, in rapt attention for the better part of two years, then a Ukranian soap opera that was somehow even more esoteric and insane. It was a joke from start to finish, but also it wasn’t. It did profound harm to the nation. Nothing like it has ever happened in American history.

Trump spoke about America the way that all presidents customarily spoke about it before America was taken over by people who obviously despise it.

In a normal country where the people’s priorities are paramount, his remarks would have been received with unanimous enthusiasm. But Democrats crabbed. Pelosi glowered the whole time, then petulantly ripped Trump’s speech in two at the finish. The media denounced Trump’s “partisan” tone, but what they clearly found most bothersome were his patriotic themes. The president gave a full-throated defense of America with zero apologies. Democrats proved how much they love America by hissing.

What they call dictatorship is a democratically elected president appearing, at least momentarily, to get the upper hand over a managerial elite. To them, it’s as if endless night has settled over the land. In this deep darkness, the only Republican they find palatable is Mitt Romney, because he does exactly what they tell him to do. This was never about the Constitution or Ukraine or military aid or Russia or what Trump said on a phone call or even Trump.

It was about power.

DINGDINGDINGDINGDING!! We have a winner!

The neat-o twist here is that the moment any faction demonstrates such maniacal lust for untrammeled power is also the moment the people must resolve to go to any lengths to ensure they never get it.

This one is a real scorcher, folks, a flat, no-bull statement of a stripe that’s somewhat unusual at American Greatness. Yes, it’s really nothing you guys haven’t seen plenty of already from Ye Olde Blogghoste here. Yes, AG hosts firebrands like Julie Kelly right alongside more sober and staid analysts like VDH and Codevilla. No, I would NOT call AG milquetoast, or timid, or even reserved, not at all. Still, to see a piece as explicit, maybe even radical, as this over at AG comes as a bit of a surprise, at least to me. An encouraging one, of course; the Democrat-Socialist threat to America’s future won’t ever be nullified via pulled punches and Queensberry rules. It will have to be widely acknowledged under its rightful name before we can hope to overcome it.

CF Search

Login, RSS, &c

CF Archives

Categories

2A/Mostly Guns

Alt-American

Big Dogs

Essayists

Mil

Nuttin’ But News

Odds Bodkins

Overseas/Non-US

Portals

Pure Bloggery

REAL Journalism

Substack Scalawags

The Funny Pages

Comments policy

CF Glossary

Subscribe to CF!

Shameless begging

Correspondence

Allied territory

Notable Quotes

RSS feed

.