Giving the hornets’ nest a good, hard shake

Hoo BOY, but Peters has really put his foot in it with this one.

Things have probably never been more dangerous than they are today. At least, not since  election day, 1860. Whatever the outcome of this election, it could result in something like what happened after that election.

Lincoln’s election was intolerable to the people of the South, which shortly after his election in 1860 began to form what became the Southern Confederacy and shortly after that, attempted to withdraw from what it, with cause, saw as a political system that not only did not represent its interests but which it saw, also rightly, as a system that could not represent its interests. That last being an important point rarely, if ever, discussed in the schools established by the government that forced the Southern states back into the “union.”

The North controlled the “union” politically and so actually because the North had the population and the money to dominate federal elections. And so the South had no way to redress its grievances within the construct of the “union.”

It was not the election of 1860, per se, that triggered the South’s attempt to withdraw but rather the realization that future elections would go similarly. What option does a minority have in a political system that is based upon majority rule? The choice is either acceptance of subordinate status and hope the master will be kind – or get away from the master.

It is exactly what the American colonies had done – and for same reasons and realizations – those “four score and seven” years before the election of 1860. Their successful attempt to withdraw from the union – with Great Britain – is celebrated by modern Americans, many of whom also think (if that is the right word) that the failed attempt by the people of the Southern Confederacy to do the same, for similar reasons and on exactly the same basis, in terms of the principle at issue – i.e., that of being governed by themselves rather than a distant people with whom they had increasingly little in common and who wielded political control over them that could not be redressed within the context of the “union” – was, somehow, a kind of crime.

And so, the Southern states – like the American colonies, which were also states – declared their political independence from the “union” and fought for it.

If today’s elections ensconce the power of the political Left, whether legitimately – in terms of the actual votes – or because the votes were jiggered with – the people who are not of the Left will have to face the awful realization that the Left is in perpetual control and that they no longer have any means, within the system, to combat it. That the oppression of the Left cannot be voted away.

It must be gotten away from – or submitted to. The latter being a condition as intolerable to those not of the Left as the subordination of the not-Left is to the Left. This is a matter of irreconcilable differences – and both sides know it, just as they knew it in 1860. Like a failed marriage, it is not what either party wanted at the beginning. But it is what it has become and there is no fixing it except by separating the estranged or forcing the estranged to endure one another in a state of mutual, endless hatred.

That’s about the size of it, yeah. His analysis is perfectly correct, from premise to conclusion, right down the line—and for that heinous atrocity, certain of us will never forgive him. Eric, bless his workaholic heart, has posted a sort of companion piece/post-mort today, which is also well worth a read.

The Bolsonaro’ing of Arizona – and America?
The reference being to the loss at the ballot box of someone who appeared to be far more popular than his opponent and certain to win. Just like the Orange Man.

Until the votes were counted.

The Bolsonaro’ing of Lake being especially similar and even more suspicious in that her opponent was more than just her opponent. Katie Hobbs is also, conveniently, Arizona’s secretary of state, which means she is the state official who has legal oversight and so power over…Arizona’s elections. Including her own. This being kind of like having your estranged spouse’s attorney handle your divorce settlement. For this reason, Hobbs will never be acknowledged as the legitimately elected governor of the state, by millions of people in the state – even if a majority of people did vote for her rather than Lake.

This being catastrophic for “our democracy,” if those who say that cared about that.

What was on the ballot yesterday – and not just in Arizona – was the legitimacy of the system itself rather than who was running for office. The Left may have succeeded in diverting the “red wave” that had been predicted – and which in some cases, as in AZ, seemed certain. But it did so in such a way that the results will only further heighten suspicions that the fix was in, again.

Kari Lake wasn’t just ahead of Katie Hobbs in every poll. She was well-ahead of Hobbs in every poll taken since early October. How does a 3-4 percent lead (in the polls) become a 2 percent loss? Maybe because the polls were wrong. Or maybe because the votes weren’t right. Even if they were, many of those who didn’t vote for Hobbs will never believe the votes were right because of the fact that Hobbs was in a position to assure they were “right.”

Similar uneasiness percolates generally. With reason.

With GOOD reason, INDISPUTABLE reason, more like. Read both the linked pieces, they’re par for Eric Peters’ usual high standard of excellence.

It’s quite painful to have to admit it, but since Our Side always rakes the DemonRats for their extreme resistance to undertaking any honest self-examination after losing an election—a circumstance that’s become more and more rare with every passing biennial—seems to me that after yesterday’s Red Flop squib some soul-searching might well be in order for Our Side this time.

Atop the list of necessary adjustments is a rose-tinted misperception I used to complain about all the time back when Rush Limbaugh repeatedly touted it on-air: the idea that, as he always put it, America is a “conservative-majority nation.” Claptrap, pure and uncut, and the sooner we all wrap our heads around that fact the better off we’ll be. Really, how could any serious person imagine otherwise, after six-seven decades of a dismayingly successful Long March Through The Institutions, wherein several generations of American youth have been brainwashed into unquestioning acceptance of every tenet of hardcore Leftist dogma? If we ever truly were a “conservative-majority nation,” we damned sure are no such thing now.

Which, after yesterday’s debacle, leaves us right back where we’ve long been: standing before the fabled Cartridge Box, all agape and aghast at just how we might ever have come to find ourselves in this sorriest of passes. Attribute it to whatever you like—chicanery, apathy, outright fraud—but yesterday’s sad repeat of what by now has come to seem an eternal cycle amounts to inescapable confirmation of something we don’t wish to admit but have long known just the same.

Yes, Virginia, there really IS no voting our way out of this.

Update! Steyn agrees with me, and has for quite a while now.

At SteynOnline we have been marking our twentieth birthday by strolling back through the archives. (For earlier entries, see below.) This morning we have reached 2008, when there really was a wave – blue, as waves generally are, but augmented by many, many conservative commentators eager to repudiate the Bush years. Here is how I began that year’s morning-after column:

‘Give me liberty or give me death!’

‘Live free or die!’

What’s that? Oh, don’t mind me. I’m just trying out slogans for the 2012 campaign and seeing which one would get the biggest laughs.

My Republican friends are now saying, oh, not to worry, look at the exit polls, this is still a ‘center-right’ country. Americans didn’t vote to go left, they voted to go cool. It was a ‘Dancing With The Stars’ election: Obama’s a star, and everyone wants to dance with him. It doesn’t mean they’re suddenly gung-ho for left-wingery.

Yeah, whatever gets you through the night. Nothing cool about the “President”; no star quality about Senator Fetterman, as we must learn to call him. The Biden-Pelosi decrepit gerontocracy has dissolved your citizenship at the southern border and shriveled your horizons on all fronts from unaffordable gas to unavailable baby formula. And the fathead right will still be bleating their bromides about “a center-right country”. Whatever the country is, the voting machines are “center-left”. Back in the real world, one consequence of last night is that Trump is likely not to run again, and ol’ Joe is – mainly because he could have a Fetterman-sized stroke tomorrow and a state funeral at the weekend, and the Dems would still bet they could get him across the finish line.

“Senator Fetterman.” Hard to believe, ain’t it? But if there were any further evidence needed to show just how badly broken and corrupt America’s “election” system truly is, that alone ought to be plenty enough to convince even the most dewey-eyed Pollyanna currently extant.

Shady strategery

Don’t get cocky, but not for the reasons Glenn seems to be thinking of.

If there is anything that we learned from the 2020 election, it was to prove that elections could be rigged. After all, they did it in the open, bragged about it, then Time Magazine even did an article admitting to their part in it. We know that they will do it again. We know that there has been shenanigans in elections for decades. The only question remains: Can and will they do it again?

The election next month will be the test. We are less than a week and a half from finding out if we still live in a Republic where the democratic process chooses our representatives, or if we are living in a country ruled by oligarch fascisti. All of the polls, all of the data, and even history are pointing to a major landslide to the right in this election.

History usually marks a loss for the sitting president‘s party.

Watch each of those races closely. If a pile of them go the other way, start looking for fuckery.

I have to say, I’ve slowly come around to a somewhat different conclusion on this. Seems to me that perhaps it’s more likely that the DemonRats might well content themselves with laying off said fuckery and allowing the GOPe to appear to prevail this time ’round, thus keeping their election-theft powder dry and ready for 2024. With the integrity of American “elections” shredded to hell and gone by hinky “elections” going all the way back to JFK at least, it’s in the Uniparty’s best interests to bolster the voting public’s fading faith in the whole miserable charade now and again, and I’m sure they know that quite well.

Could easily be all wet on this little speculative theory of mine, who the hell knows anymore.

Update! And right on cue, if maybe a little earlier than is typical for them, the shitlibs start in with the usual howling about how “UNFAAAIIIR!!!” it all is.

What happened? Journalists and other Democrats have already started blaming voters for the party’s (likely) defeat in the midterm elections.

Seriously? Yes. As the Washington Free Beacon reported earlier this month, Democrats and their allies have a history of lashing out when American voters decline to validate their preferences at the ballot box. The election is in 12 days, but things aren’t looking great for Democrats. Polls suggest they are going to lose control of the House and possibly the Senate as well. That’s why the voter-blaming is already underway.

What are they saying? What they always say in these situations.

Follows, a representative sampling of the phony weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth, of which my personal favorite has to be this one:

“It’s terrifying how many Americans will choose literal fascism, female serfdom, climate collapse, and the reversal of everything from Social Security & Medicare to student loan relief [because] they think giving Republicans the power to investigate Hunter Biden will bring down gas prices.”
Joy-Ann (Pro-Democracy) Reid, MSNBC host

Actually, you shrieking bint, not a single one of those notional transgressions you’re sqwee-sqwee-sqwee-ing so hysterically about has the proverbial snowball’s chance of ever coming to pass. By the numbers:

  • “Literal fascism” is YOUR side’s thang, not ours
  • “Female serfdom” doesn’t exist in this country, and never has
  • “Climate collapse” is likewise total bullshit, whether you’re intelligent enough to know it or not
  • The chances of the GOPe ever laying a reform-directed finger on SSI, Medicare, and probably even the “student loan relief” swindle as well hovers exactly where it always has: somewhere between None Whatsoever and Don’t Make Me Laugh, You Bastard

As for the spurious notion that any sentient being believes “investigating Hunter Biden will bring down gas prices,” who the fucking fuck do you think you’re fooling with that transparently fatuous codswallop? The only thing a thorough, honest investigation of Hunter Biden is likely to bring down is Hunter Biden, as well as maybe the Big Guy and his ten percent along with him.

No, what even the GOPe knows for sure and certain—as most shitlibs do, I strongly suspect; they KNOW it, they just don’t LIKE it, that’s all—is that the one and only way to bring gas prices down over the long haul is simplicity itself: take the US domestic-energy industry off the strangulating leash you shitlib idiots have put around its neck and free them to do their fucking jobs—finding, drilling for, and processing the oil we have in plenty. Y’know, as Trump recently confirmed, to the enduring horror of every Swamp creature currently extant.

There are readily-comprehensible reasons why gas, oil, and diesel prices have soared to record-high levels under the maleficent regency of Pedo Joe Biden and his skulkabout minders. Putin, the Ukraine, and Cracky Hunter’s underpants are assuredly NOT among ’em.

Going asymmetrical

Progress, if you like.

In 1337 the “Hundred Years’ War” started. Great armies marched to meet each other in the fields of battle. They fought and 2.3 to 3.3 million men died.

In 1792 the French Revolutionary war started. It lasted 7 years and between 1.2 million and 1.4 million men died in the fields of battle.

In 1803 the Napoleonic wars started. Somewhere between 3.5 million and 7.0 million men died in the fields of battle and in the misery of being on campaign.

Between 1955 and 1975 somewhere between 0.9 million and 3.8 million people died in the Vietnam War. There were around 300 thousand soldiers killed in Vietnam, 58 thousand Americans and 254 thousand South Vietnam.

What was the significant change between the previous wars and Vietnam?

Asymmetrical Warfare.

During the 20 years of “The Troubles” in Ireland 8 to 10 thousand people were active members of the IRA. By the 1980’s it was believed that there were around 450 active members and 300 support members. Yet this small number of dedicated people were able to keep the British at bay.

This equates to around 9/100,000 at the low point and 10/100,000 at the high point. If there was this level of asymmetric warfare in the US that would be around 30,000 active participants every year. Even with people rotating in and out.

In 2021 there were 38.5 million hunting licenses issued. If we assume 12/100,000 this would be 4632 people with the right equipment in hand to take a deer sized target at 100 to 200 yards. Not to mention all the other firearm owners that don’t hunt but are proficient with their firearms.

So at a low end we would have somewhere around 5000 and at the high end about 50,000 actives in the such warfare in America.

All of these people look just like the people they are living with. We saw what this was like in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition there is a higher probability of members of the resistance existing unseen within the government/military complex.

We look at what people with minimal industrial knowledge were able to accomplish. Their ability to make hand crafted firearms, their ability to create IEDs. All of that knowledge from people that don’t have the same level of education as most of the people that read this blog.

Do not take counsel of your fears, do not despair, no matter what. As history tells us, even at the lowest ebb, when the situation looks bleak and all seems lost, hope endures.

Forbid it, Almighty God!

Ask a silly question.

But Will Elections Change Anything?

If they could, they’d be illegal.

It’s coming up in a fortnight. For many people, all their hopes rest on the outcome. I get it because these seem like very dark times. We cannot live without hope. But we also need realism. The problems are deep, pervasive, scandalously entrenched.

Many people won financially and in terms of power from lockdowns and have no intention either to apologize or give up their gains. What’s more, for that to have happened to this great country – and many great counties – indicates something far more pernicious than a policy error or an ideological mistake.

The fix is going to require vast change. Tragically, the elected politicians may be the least likely to push for such a change. This is due to what we call the “Deep State” but there ought to be another name. It is rather obvious now that we are dealing with a beast that includes media, technology, nonprofits, and multinational and international government agencies and all the groups they represent.

That said, let’s deal here with the most obvious problem: the administrative state.

The plot of every episode of Yes, Minister – a British sitcom that aired in the early 1980s – is pretty much the same. The appointed Minister of the Department of Administrative Affairs waltzes in with a grand and idealistic statement left over from his political campaigns. The permanent secretary who serves him responds affirmatively and then cautions that there might be other considerations to take into account.

The rest follows like clockwork. The other considerations unfold as inevitable or manufactured behind the scenes. For reasons mostly having to do with career concerns – staying out of trouble, advancing through the ranks or avoiding fall down them, pleasing some special interest, obeying the Prime Minister whom we never see, or coming across well in the media – he backs down and reverses his view. It ends as it begins: the permanent secretary gets his way.

The lesson one gains from this hilarious series is that the elected politicians are outnumbered and outwitted on all sides, only pretending to be in charge when in fact the actual affairs of state are managed by experienced professionals with permanent positions. They all know each other. They have mastered the game. They have all the institutional knowledge.

The politicians, on the other hand, are skilled at what they actually do, which is win elections and advance their careers. Their supposed principles are just the veneer put on to please the public.

What makes the series especially painful is that viewers can’t help but put themselves in the position of the Minister of the Department of Administrative Affairs. How would we have done things differently? And if we had, would we have survived? Those are hard questions because the answer is not obvious at all. It seems like the fix is in.

Now, to be sure, in this series all of the players have elements of charm. We laugh at the bureaucracy and their ways. We are delighted by the oddly emerging lack of scruples by the politician. In the end, however, the system seems to work more or less. Maybe this is just how things are supposed to be. It was ever thus and must always be.

Anyone can be forgiven for believing that just a few years ago. But then the last three years happened. The rule by the administrative bureaucracy in every country became highly personal when our churches were closed, the businesses were shut down, we could not travel, we could not go to gyms or theaters, and then they came after every arm insisting that we accept a shot we did not want and most people did not need.

The laughter of the sort Yes, Minister inspired is over. There is far more at stake. But just as the stakes are high, so too the problem of implementing a solution – representative democracy as a means to reobtain liberty itself – is also exceedingly difficult.

Not difficult, utterly impossible. Can there ever be a wrong or inappropriate time to remind ourselves once more of the deathless words of Patrick Henry? I think not.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it. I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging the future but by the past.

And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free– if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending–if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained–we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace– but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Indeed. American liberty was won at the muzzle of the gun and the point of the sword. T’was ever thus; I can recall offhand not a single instance when corrupt and fraudulent “elections” such as ours have ever been sufficient to the task. The miserable curs of Our Side’s chattering class who preemptively abjure any resort to the very dear coin with which our Founding Fathers bought freedom for their posterity disgrace themselves by their pusillanimous break with true American history. They insult the bloody sacrifice made by our Founders even as they cheapen the very idea of liberty itself with their puling, girlish squee, squee, squee-ing. When Henry asks of them “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?” they can but answer in the affirmative, if they have a shred of integrity left about them.

Not that I’m recommending anybody should rush to this last, most desperate resort, mind. But those who would rule it out forever—as if reclaiming our unique American heritage of freedom and individual self-determination could ever be accomplished as cheaply, easily, and painlessly as merely casting a ballot in yet another sham “election”—have effectively demonstrated for all to see just how little they really value those priceless things, whether they know it or not.

(Via WRSA)

Fascism For Dummies

Know thine Leftist enemy.

It blows my mind how little many of those on the political left know about the insults they hurl at their political opponents, but when you call people fascists or compare the “We’re Number One” sign one sees when their team wins a sporting event to the Nazi salute, you show your own stupidity.

Or you show your own dishonesty, which is just as bad.

Fascism was designed as a ‘middle road’ that recognized three flaws in Marx’s model:

1) Marx’s model provided no incentive system, relying instead on the selflessness of everyone,

2) Marx viewed the communist model as being global, and while a global system may SOUND nice, nothing is implemented at that level. As such, fascism was a national, and not a global, model, and

3) Fascism was not utopian in nature, recognizing governance as a permanent fixture of any system.

The guy who invented fascism (Giovanni Gentile) was not trying to make a brand new political or economic system so much as he was trying to fix Marxism by removing its fatal flaws – primarily the lack of any incentive for anyone to work.

Giovanni Gentile was trying to take Marxism and apply the profit system – tightly controlled by the government – on top of it.

The Nazis were fascists, but they differed from other fascists in one critical area – they defined a ‘nation’ based on ethnicity rather than based on national borders. In other words, it was a very racist form of fascism.

Fascism existed all over Europe and South America before, during, and after WWII. Spain remained fascist until Franco died in the 1980s. Other than Germany, none of the fascist nations had a racist sense of ‘nationalism.’ Other than Germany, they all viewed ‘nation’ as something geographic, and when we look at the primary thing fascism tries to do, which is to have the state take control of the means of production while still allowing a state-controlled profit incentive to incentivize work – riddle me this: what modern political party does that sound like?!?

Three guesses, first two don’t etc. And if you think that’s just some kind of crazy coincidence, you don’t know your Leftists well enough. Try as they might to deceptively label fascism as a phenomenon emanating strictly from the Right, it just ain’t so. The whole mess can be summed up in one insightful sentence.

Fascism does not and cannot come from the American right, as the American right believes in limited government, individual liberty, and free markets – which are the literal opposite of what fascism calls for.

Yep, that’s about the size of it, and tells you all you’ll ever need to know about the Left. Unlimited, all-powerful government; invidious constraints on true liberty and the individual’s right to self-determination; tightly-controlled markets entirely under the thumb of government—these are the foundations on which Left ideology sits. In keeping with the Opposite Rule, under which the very thing Leftists scream most vehemently about the Right doing is exactly what they themselves are ACTUALLY doing…well, as the Good Book tells us, by their fruits ye shall know them, dig?

Same old same old

I know it’s pointless, that there’s nothing worthwhile to be gained by responding to it. I just felt like I could have a little fun with it, that’s all.

The national media have spent the last several weeks insisting that after enduring months of record inflation, unaffordable gas and electric bills, plus a completely avoidable war costing taxpayers billions (and counting), the country is now feeling a new sense of affection for Biden. I’m sure. Now they’re hyping up the Democrat line about some “extreme MAGA ideology” (what?) and “authoritarian leaders” who “represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic.”

Those are all quotes that Biden slurred his way through last week in Philadelphia, but the sentiment was just as sweetly captured the previous day in a New York Times column by Thomas Edsall. But instead of targeting the unnamed yet ever-so-fearsome “MAGA Republicans,” Edsall and a round of scholars went after Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, aka God’s Chosen One.

“The fact that Ron DeSantis … is favored to win re-election is a clear warning to those worried about declining support for democratic institutions and values in the United States,” wrote Edsall.

Should DeSantis win reelection, he wrote, it would indicate that voters in a major swing state “will tolerate, if not actively embrace, the abuse of traditional political norms by domineering leaders.” It’s unclear what Edsall meant by “abuse of traditional political norms,” but he noted that the governor “has made no secret of his intent to use executive authority to the fullest extent.”

If an elected official’s use of authority “to the fullest extent” is “the abuse of traditional political norms,” it would be interesting to know what Edsall makes of Biden unilaterally spreading hundreds of billions of dollars of student loan debt among taxpayers, including many who never went to college and many who had already paid off their own. It would be interesting to know what he makes of Biden’s failed attempt at coercing millions of workers to inject themselves with an experimental drug.

Those weren’t an abuse of traditional political norms. Those were bold progressive actions!

Edsall went on to cite some of DeSantis’s more widely known achievements in office, including his crackdown on public schools that were teaching children that to be white is a problem; punitive measures he took against corporations that get tax breaks and then get mouthy about politics; and his removal of a state attorney general who openly said he would not adhere to a Supreme Court ruling.

That’s the real problem, see. DeSantis has actually accomplished things, running the Sunshine State less like your standard-issue Vichy GOPe collaborationist and more like a for-real, hand-to-God Goldwater conservative—governing as if the US Constitution was still extant; as if liberty and limited government really, truly matter; as if he believes the relationship between the sovereign States and FederalGovCo needs to be re-calibrated and brought back into the proper balance.

No wonder Leftard shitweasels like this guy hate him so fanatically.

This is where Edsall introduced his trusty gang of “experts” to make the case that despite DeSantis having broad appeal among the people who would have to hand him any higher office he has designs for — we call this an “election” — such a victory would mean certain doom for democracy.

T’is a consummation devoutly to be wished, seeing as how we AREN’T a “democracy,” never HAVE been, and were never INTENDED to be—democracy being a system cordially and correctly loathed by the Founders as “mob rule,” nothing more nor less than the prelude to national disaster.

And this is where the Opposite Rule—ie, whatever the Democrats are denouncing Republicans most hysterically for is exactly what they themselves are doing—kicks into full effect. For instance:

Larry Diamond, a senior fellow at Stanford’s Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, told Edsall that what would worry him about a “Trump Republican” like DeSantis in office is “the extreme politicization and abuse of federal government power, the targeting of political enemies and the mobilization and emboldening of the violent, well-armed, extremist fringe of Trump followers.”

Gee, none of THAT sounds at all familiar.

UCLA law professor Richard Hansen was then allowed by Edsall to dream up a scenario where former president Trump runs for a second term and “fails to win legitimately but finds a route to being installed as president,” which, according to Handsen, would mean the United States “ceases to be a democracy.”

Nope, nothing familiar there either.

The piece went on like this at length, with various scholars and professors consulting their dream diaries about what a future second term for Trump or first term for DeSantis would mean.

—“Certain groups would be more vulnerable. These include historically marginalized groups, who might find new restrictions on voting. Or members of the L.G.B.T.Q. community who are treated as second-class citizens.”

Actually, I’d gladly settle for not being forced to prostrate myself at their feet and worship them as if they were Morally Superior Beings anymore, myself. As for new restrictions on voting, we’re currently in most dire need of that.

—“One might imagine the [Republican Party] in power during unified government would seek to dramatically expand the number and size of the federal courts, then fill these new positions.”

Um, whut? Who and when the hell has anyone mentioned anything like that?

—“There could also be soft or harder controls over the media. There would be tremendous uncertainty over what a postdemocracy period would look like in the United States.”

Again: not a democracy, jackass. And since the media insists that we all agree to turn a blind eye to their transparently-partisan politicking for the shitlib agenda entire, yeah, I’d say they of right ought to be treated as the propagandists they in fact are. Which of necessity means harder controls on them, which as far as I’m concerned can’t be imposed fast enough.

Edsall concluded his piece by asserting that whether DeSantis wins a second term as governor, it will be “a referendum on democracy, and the odds do not look good.”

Eh, not so much. A referendum on DeSantis, absolutely. Heck, I’ll be big about this and call it a referendum on Democrats if you like. Whatevs, Poindexter.

That we got from Point A — DeSantis is an exceptionally skilled and popular policy executive — to Point B — DeSantis as president would turn America into an authoritarian hellscape — should leave everyone reading this with severe neck pain from straining to find the logic.

To call this talk “divisive” is to give it way too much credit. This is panicked.

It is no such thing. What it is, in truth, is a pep talk, of a piece with Biden’s historic Satanic Speech. They’re preaching to the choir, motivating, inciting, and inspiring their Leftist base to aspire to greater heights of derangement and blank-brained hate than ever before attained. This is how fascist dictators have always prepared their peoples for war, since the days of Hitler and Mussolini. Not that Our Side dares to take the explicit threats being made against us as unserious, without danger, or purely as a matter of rhetoric alone. The other way in which they’re a lot like their ideological forefathers: they’ll really fucking do it, and fully intend to.

Out and proud of totalitarian folly

Don’t know when I’ve ever seen as concise and capacious a rundown of recent FederalGovCo criminality, abuse, and perfidy than in these first two ‘graphs.

The globalists’ programs for mass control of humanity have become glaringly obvious. They don’t even hide their intentions anymore behind veiled language, secret club meetings, or slanderous aspersions against their critics. They just say right out in the open, “Yep, we want to reduce the human population; control all energy used for commerce; regulate food productioncensor all information antithetical to our goals; cynically divide humanity against itself by promoting meaningless wars, racial hostilities, and ludicrous social conflicts; and force the vast majority of the remaining humans in the future to survive as indentured servants who will own nothing and subsist on a diet of bugs.” That is an ugly, depressing, awful future to advertise. Yet so overconfident are the Great Resetters in their control over emerging artificial intelligence technologies, central bank digital currencies, biological warfare, and mass surveillance that they say exactly what they plan to do.

So confident is the permanent D.C. bureaucracy in its abilities to control all Americans that it no longer disguises its two-tiered “justice” system or pretends it cares a whit about hard fought American freedom. Raiding the personal residence of political “outsider” President Trump to intimidate other prospective adversaries to Washington’s corrupt Uniparty? Check. Murdering, hunting down, and imprisoning MAGA voters under the pretense of a bogus “insurrection” narrative supported by an equally corrupt news media and criminal “justice” system? Check. Hiring massive armies of IRS agents and other bureaucratic mercenaries to execute deadly force against American citizens while simultaneously cataloguing gun-owners in an ongoing effort to disarm the civilian population? Check. Using the “climate change” farce and fantasies of “systemic racism” to implement widespread political Marxism and economic redistribution of wealth indistinguishable from classic communism? Check. Intentionally subverting immigration law to flood American communities with drugs, human-trafficking, slave labor, and social disintegration? Check. Manipulating elections with fraudulent mail-in ballots and scant identification requirements? Check. Printing and spending U.S. dollars until inflation and inevitable currency collapse destroy Americans’ private wealth and leave them entirely dependent upon government-dispersed welfare? Check. Attacking religiously devout Christians as threats to the State? Check. Censorship of all dissenting opinion, confiscation of private property under the guise of tax and regulation authorities, Soviet show trials, and politically sanctioned professional demotions for anyone courageous enough to challenge the regime’s power? Check, check, check, and check!

Hubris. Absolute hubris. And we should love it. We couldn’t ask for a better drug to cloud the judgment of our enemies.They’re hooked, they can’t see clearly, and they will not change now or in the foreseeable future. What they possess with hollow overconfidence, they lack in sober wisdom. They’re drug addicts now, deluded in the supremacy of their own enduring power. These are dangerous people but people who are no longer grounded in any sense of reality. They think they control the quaking ground beneath their feet and believe that they alone will decide what stays in place. They see themselves as gods, and as with all false gods, their vanity will consume them.

Go back and find a time in history when hubris succeeded in subsuming the world to man’s will. What conqueror has ever succeeded in holding total power for long? When has overbearing authority not produced an equal and opposite human force of organic rebellion? When has the lust for total global dominion not fractured into a million tiny pieces from the uncontrollable energies of once inconsequential humans yearning to be free? When has the desire for One World Government — that seductive enticement that grips the minds of unscrupulous men, much like Tolkien’s “one ring to rule them all” — ever succeeded? Still waiting! The hunger for a global government where an aristocratic “elite” rules over everyone else has existed throughout human history, and just as with every misguided attempt to construct a perpetual motion machine or every alchemist effort to transform lead into gold, those who wish to rule humanity from the seat of an earthly throne always fail. They drown in the floods unleashed from their own magnificently destructive hubris. Show me a group of men who seek to rule the world, and I’ll tell you the tale of their ultimate annihilation. That is the story of man’s struggles in this life, and anyone too drunk with delusions of domination to know what’s coming will pay the price.

True enough that every tyrant carries the seed of his own eventual destruction within himself, but it’s of little if any comfort nevertheless. Nemesis can often be quite a long time a-coming, affording the despot an extended opportunity to inflict one hell of a lot of pain and misery on those unlucky souls anxiously awaiting her arrival.

Second look at the Bundy Ranch standoff?

The Bundy family’s take on our awful central government’s true nature was more accurate than they’ve ever been given credit for.

BUNKERVILLE, NEVADA—The Bundy Ranch roundup has understandably stirred thin-stretched emotions as the federal government seizes cattle belonging to the Bundy family. The family settled in the late 1800’s and has ranched in the area since. The federal government allowed Nevada ranchers to graze their cattle on federal tracts of land adjacent to their private properties for generations. The federal government later created the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to administer and “protect” the vast swaths of federal land—including the land the Bundy family’s livelihood was—and still is—dependent upon. The BLM began restricting ranchers’ usage of federal lands to protect various species, and the BLM decided to restrict the Bundy family’s usage of the federal land they historically grazed. The federal government told the Bundy family that a tortoise existed on the land and therefore the land’s usage for cattle would have to decrease—thus creating a scenario where the Bundy family could make fewer resources. A 20-year legal battle ensued.

There exist a number of elements to the story that inject shades of grey into the dominant media narrative. Perhaps hundreds of Bundy supporters have already shown up to the ranch area to “protect” the family and their land—which is federal land—but federal land such usage was promised to the family in the government’s efforts to get people to settle the West after Mexico ceded the land to the U.S. Court documents—discussed later in this article—reveal that the Bundy family decided at some point that the federal government was illegitimate and that they no longer had to give heed to the federal courts. The Bundy family patriarch has openly stated his willingness to use force against federal agents if they take his cattle off of the federal lands; the federal agents stand ready to use force against the family or their supporters if they interfere with the cattle removal. Both sides are armed, both sides are frustrated, and the rhetoric and hyperbole surrounding the entire matter has left many onlookers from around the world confused as to what is actually happening.

In the immediate aftermath of the infamous cattle roundup, Cliven Bundy granted a number of high profile media interviews continuing to deny—to the point of absolutely ignoring family history—what the federal courts have twice told him.

“I believe this is a sovereign state of Nevada,” Bundy recently told a radio reporter. “…I abide by all of Nevada state laws. But, I don’t recognize the United States Government as even existing.”

Oh, it exists right enough, I’m afraid. Cliven and several of his compatriots ended up finding that out the hard way. The thing I remember being struck by more forcefully than anything else at the time was the near-universal condemnation of the Bundys from the Right. Even folks whose ideological inclinations might be taken as suggestive of deep antipathy for FederalGovCo, its minions, and its nefarious works were suddenly tripping over themselves to join [wpdiscuz-feedback id=”hw7r99ujes” question=”Comments? Complaints? Thoughts?” opened=”0″]the mad rush to take the Almighty State’s side[/wpdiscuz-feedback] on this one.

“Resist, or be swept away”

No way I can improve on that perfect title. Although I have to say, regretfully, the author’s idea of what constitutes effective “resistance” has precious little in common with my own.

There is a great deal of consternation in liberal precincts regarding the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. This is good. It is the right of every American to voice their grievances. Abortion is a contentious issue and worthy of debate. There are reasonable positions both sides may debate which will likely reverberate for years to come. Unfortunately, most of the noise from liberals isn’t discussion the issue deserves, but a whirring, whining cacophony reminiscent of a fit a child might throw if told he can’t do something he really…really…really wants to do.

Jill Filipovic joined the cacophony, writing in the Guardian, “[T]he US Supreme Court should officially be understood — a tool of minority rule over the majority, and as part of a far-right ideological and authoritarian takeover that must be snuffed out if we want American democracy to survive.” Consider Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer’s diatribe: “I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.” On June 22, a deranged man considered snuffing out Justice Kavanaugh and is awaiting trial for attempted murder. A near universal outcry from liberals contends that abortion is a “constitutional right.” It is hard to see how the republic overcomes such radical mindsets and notions.

No, it isn’t. On the contrary, it is simplicity itself; to overcome such mindless radicalism, all purveyors of insensate balderdash must be purged, by means of hard-handed violence if that’s what it takes for the Republic to rid itself of it, to preserve the culture and way of life of its citizens. The hard thing isn’t “seeing” that harsh reality, it’s accepting it, and then acting accordingly.

Liberals have convinced themselves that Republican presidents who win the electoral vote while losing the popular vote are illegitimate. Ms. Filipovic notes in her article that five of the conservative judges sitting on the Supreme Court were “appointed by Presidents who lost the popular vote.” America is a constitutional republic. Presidential elections are decided by the Electoral College. This is the only legal method of electing the president. A presidential election decided any other way would be illegitimate.

What liberals are really saying is that conservatism is illegitimate. Liberals consider conservatism a bastard ideology, conceived illegitimately, existing to unravel democratic institutions so conservatives may invoke a fascist state. Conservatism must be “snuffed out” so democracy survives. Any strategy or tactic that avails liberals the slightest advantage or damages conservatives is endorsed. Ethics, morality, and the well-being of the American people are irrelevant. The ends justify the means. This is the pathetic ethos of liberalism today.

Subscription to this ethos isn’t enough; the body politic must be purged of conservatism. Schumer’s threat is real. Conservatives have “released the whirlwind and…will pay the price.” To be “snuffed out” and “pay the price” is language of trepidation and violence. Biden’s Department of Justice (DOJ) has determined that parents displaying raucous behavior at school board meetings are enemies of the state while senators and citizens that threaten and intimidate Supreme Court justices are patriotic Americans participating in democracy. Looting, arson, and anarchy are to liberal protesters what nirvana is to Buddhist monks.

Liberals dominate the Executive and Legislative Branches of the federal government and many states. The federal bureaucracy is a cudgel used to benefit the liberal elite. Liberals dominate popular and news media. Corporations, increasingly leery of the bureaucratic cudgel, toe the line for liberals. Educators propagandize the country’s youth with twisted liberal dogma. Conservatives are swimming upstream against a powerful liberal current to maintain their political, cultural, and commercial identity.

The Constitution is an island rising above this powerful stream. Americans must embrace the Constitution and the laws that underlie it because liberals won’t be bothered by the rule of law. When liberal elites consider judicial decisions illegitimate and remedy the undesirable decision by packing the court with friendly judges, the rule of law is meaningless.

All indubitably correct so far—grim, bleak, factual reality, offered full-strength with nary a flinch nor backfill. But you know what’s coming next, don’t you? Wait for it…wait for it…WAAAIIIT FOR IT

Conservatives are the bulwark of the republic, the last line of defense against a treacherous liberal ideology that seeks to dominate the body politic while destroying anyone that resists. The American people must elect politicians that will compete with this dangerous ideology, returning government to the people before the nation is swept away in a current of chaotic liberalism.

Sorry, bub, but if you think electing politicians to “compete” can ever be sufficient to discourage, dissuade, and/or defeat remorseless, implacable, Hell-spawned Leftist fiends, you got some more thinking to do. Any fool knows that in wartime, one’s chosen weapon must have power adequate to dispense with the foeman one confronts. No stampeding rhino was ever brought down with a flyswatter and a spray-bottle of sugar water, after all. Any thinking person would scrupulously guard himself against the slightest implication that he might actually take such twaddle at all seriously, lest his reputation be forever ruined.

Either you believe these scoundrels and their ideology to be “dangerous” (HINT: they most assuredly are, in every imaginable sense of the word), or you do not. Having used the very word yourself, you undermine not only your own argument specifically but your overall credibility as well when you tout weak-tea, ineffectual countermeasures as a response in the same damned sentence.

Another opinion released

This one is sure to be of interest to everyone, since it comes from a renowned, widely-respected, and highly-regarded Constitutional law scholar and all. I mean, we’re talking here about a man whose words on the topic have for many years carried one hell of a lot of weight, and rightly so.

Joe Biden said he is “deeply disappointed” with the Supreme Court’s decision Thursday to strike down a New York law that restricted access to concealed carry permits of handguns, saying in a statement that it “contradicts both common sense and the Constitution.”

Oh, shut the fuck up, you old fool. Like you have the vaguest clue about either one of those two things, or ever did have your whole squandered life long.

In a statement released hours after the Supreme Court released its decision, Biden expressed his deep disappointment in the ruling, and said it should “deeply trouble us all.”

The statement continues:

In the wake of the horrific attacks in Buffalo and Uvalde, as well as the daily acts of gun violence that do not make national headlines, we must do more as a society — not less — to protect our fellow Americans. I remain committed to doing everything in my power to reduce gun violence and make our communities safer. I have already taken more executive actions to reduce gun violence than any other President during their first year in office, and I will continue to do all that I can to protect Americans from gun violence.

I urge states to continue to enact and enforce commonsense laws to make their citizens and communities safer from gun violence. As the late Justice Scalia recognized, the Second Amendment is not absolute. For centuries, states have regulated who may purchase or possess weapons, the types of weapons they may use, and the places they may carry those weapons. And the courts have upheld these regulations.

I call on Americans across the country to make their voices heard on gun safety. Lives are on the line.

New York Governor Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, also condemned the ruling, calling it a “dark day” for New York that “is sending us backwards.

Hochul stated when the 2nd Amendment was written, U.S. citizens only had access to muskets and that she was “prepared to go back to muskets” through gun regulations.

Fuck you, liar. US citizens at that time had “access” to all and every type of weapon, exactly as the Founders intended, up to and including privately-owned artillery pieces. An interesting little tidbit you may not have known about until right this very minute:

Even in 1934, when Congress responded to media-hyped Prohibition and Depression-era outlaws such as the Dillenger gang by regulating machine guns, suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns under the National Firearms Act, they kept artillery pieces fully legal and free to own without Uncle Sam getting involved. Ironically this meant that for three decades you could buy a functional military surplus field gun, cash-and-carry, but had to pay a $200 tax and undergo a background check process to get a .22LR suppressor.

That “loophole” was eventually closed.

It was in 1968, that the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, introduced as H.R. 5037 by U.S. Rep. Emanuel Celler (D-NY) and signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson (D), regulated most “destructive devices” with a bore over .50-caliber. This meant that modern artillery “such as bazookas, mortars, antitank guns, and so forth” were placed under ATF restrictions in a kind of retroactive addition to the NFA. Before that time, you could buy surplus hardware such as working Boys and Lahti anti-tank rifles at local outlets, cheap.

With all that being said, modern breechloading artillery is still available in the “Land of the Free and Home of the Brave,” provided it is registered with the federal government and properly taxed. Still, legacy artillery systems like muzzleloading black powder field guns, such as Hamilton and Madison would be familiar with, do not require tax stamps.

For now, anyway.

Honestly, I had no idea that a fella could legally buy himself a breech-loading field piece to this very day. Then again, familiar as I am with what the tax-and-fees bite amounts to for Class III (ie, full-auto) rifles and subguns—HELPFUL HINT: as high as balls on a giraffe, as Goose likes to say—I can just imagine what you’d have to shell out for FederalGovCo’s permission to park a breech-loader out on the front lawn. Be that as it may, it’s nice to know they’re still legally allowed, even if they’re priced well out of my personal reach.

Better yet is knowing how batshit-apoplectic the ongoing legal availability for private purchase of a nice Napoleon, Howitzer, or 24-pound siege gun would make Plugs Biden if he only knew. Which, you can be sure he doesn’t. Somebody oughta mention it to him over porridge one morning before the addle-pated old fart goes down for 9AM nappies. The grand mal flailing and flopping about as a result would surely be the most epic and hilarious to date, which is really saying something.

Ain’t it funny, though, how shitlibs from sea to shining sea have suddenly conjured in themselves this awed reverence for the sanctity of States’ Rights and the unchallengeable primacy of State over Federal Law after oh, about a century and a half or thereabouts of reflexively dismissing such notions as peurile claptrap, antiquated bosh of the purest ray serene. But hey, whatever gets you through the next fifteen minutes, eh, Proggy?

Headlines from a better world

The Bee checks out the news in an alternate universe, wherein Trump is serving his second term as President.

  • Nancy Pelosi announces 38th impeachment proceeding against President Trump.
  • Unemployment reaches 0% for first time in history, stock market gets so high they have to add another digit to the counter.
  • Trump holds ecumenical church council to unify all the denominations under the true gospel of Jesus Christ.
  • Ukraine invades Russia.
  • United States purchases Greenland in tremendous deal.
  • Americans save $1600 on July 4 BBQs.
  • American troops pulled from Afghanistan in careful, strategic, slow withdraw; 0 Americans stranded; utopia breaks out.
  • New York Times publishes article explaining why $1/gallon gas is bad and racist.

Naaaah, we’re MUCH better off staying here in Bizarro World with Grampy Gropey and his pinhead crew. I left a good few for y’all to click on through for, but even so there are two more I just can’t resist putting up.

  • President gives coherent speech.
  • Everyone who ever took their kids to a drag show arrested.

Heh. Yep, obviously not OUR universe, more’s the pity. Neither of those last two things could ever happen in this shitty timeline we’re all stuck in.

Democracy? NO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As Welch explained in his 1961 speech:

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

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

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

Don’t look now

Looks like somebody didn’t get the “Saddam had NO WMDs” memo.

Gulf War Syndrome mystery SOLVED: US scientists blame the condition on SARIN gas released into the air when Iraq’s chemical weapons cache was bombed

  • Quarter of veterans who served in Gulf War suffering unexplained symptoms
  • Scientists left flummoxed by the cause fatigue, memory problems and body pain
  • But now US study has found the usually fatal nerve gas sarin is to blame

UNPOSSIBLE, I SAY!!! I have been assured by All The Best People that Saddam had no WMDs, never did have them, and had no interest whatsoever in acquiring any. The whole thing was just a lie dreamed up by Chimperor Shrub II to provide an excuse for launching his Forever War against an entirely blameless nation for the sole reason that the damned drunken fool believed that Saddam was plotting to assassinate Daddy Shrub. All those truckloads of WMDs that were seen filing into Syria for safekeeping just before Operation Desert Shrub opened had no WMDs in them, either.

In fact, there’s NO SUCH THING AS WMDs, period. Even if there were, Moslem shitrapies in the Middle East would be the last place you’d be likely to find them, Pisslam being the Religion Of Peace™ and all that. Hey, did you know that the word “Islam” actually means “Peace” when translated into English? Because it does. I bet you didn’t know that at all, did ya, H8R? Well, you do now.

“The Insurgency Lesson of Michael Collins”

Turns out, he has much to teach us.

In 1916, while the Irish rebels were led to a near certain death after having been defeated during the Easter Rebellion, Michael Collins decided he would fight the world’s most powerful empire differently, if he ever got the chance. Michael Collins got that chance in 1918, and he fought differently. In fact, modern successful insurgencies are largely modeled on Collins’ strategic concept.

Collins recognized that the oppressive powers that had their boots on the necks of the Irish people enjoyed power over the economy, information (news papers at the time), police, military, and the courts. No one was going to fight the British and win using British strategies. The only way to win was to fight differently.

For the preceding six-plus decades, the Irish Republican Brotherhood built a parallel state within Ireland. This was necessary for two reasons: (1) if independence was achieved, an Irish managerial class and network needed to step in and manage Ireland; (2) in order for independence to be achieved, Irish rebels needed competent intelligence resources. Collins recognized the value of both and used them successfully. But how did Collins win Irish independence when sixteen prior attempts failed? The targeting of bureaucrats.

The Irish Flying Columns disrupted British rule in the countryside, but they never really landed a true killer blow. What they did achieve, however, was that each successful attack (A) shook confidence in British capacity among Irish locals and (B) invested the locals in asymmetric attrition warfare. Melting back into the farms was critical to Irish successes outside of Dublin. Meanwhile, simultaneously, Collins and his Squad (or Twelve Apostles) of hitmen targeted mid-level bureaucrats for assassination.

Collins, a former bureaucrat himself, understood that senior leaders in British bureaucracy were fairly useless political appointees – not unlike the United States today. Targeting them was useless. The middle managers were the true strength of the British Empire – collecting taxes, disseminating intelligence, feeding news sources, etc, etc. By killing them, Collins was eliminating functional British Rule.

More importantly, not only did each lost beaureaucrat take critical business continuity knowledge to the grave, junior bureaucrats feared promotion. Why accept the role of Deputy X, even with higher pay and prestige, if Deputy X keeps getting killed? This began to destroy British capacity in Ireland.

The insurgency lesson of Collins, therefore, was not to simply attack the teeth of the oppressor, but to dismantle the ability of the teeth to strike – by selectively targeting individual bureaucrats for elimination.

This is a pluperfect primer on how insurgents might remove the tyrant’s boot from off their necks, to which I have nothing to add.

(Via WRSA)

The nobility of losing

Taking the high road.

Times Square Billboard Exposes Taylor Lorenz for Doxxing Libs of TikTok

Starts off well enough, looks like. So are we finally about to see some real Back atcha!! action dealt out here, a little of the gander’s sauce spooned onto the goose’s plate? Or will our billboard renters stop well short of doing anything more than spending a crapton of their own money to make a supremely futile gesture which shitlibs will react to not with fear and horror, but with derisive laughter and mockery?

Three guesses. First two etc.

Two political commentators teamed up this week to rent a Times Square billboard exposing Washington Post journalist Taylor Lorenz for a report in which she revealed personal information about the Twitter user who runs the Libs of TikTok account.

Commentator and podcast host Tim Pool on Tuesday tweeted a video of the billboard, which reads, “Hey [Washington Post], democracy dies in darkness. That’s why we’re shining a light on you. Taylor Lorenz doxxed @libsoftiktok.”

The commentators disseminated their message in response to Lorenz’s controversial Washington Post report on Libs of TikTok, a conservative Twitter account that showcases teachers who attempt to indoctrinate their students and others who espouse radical left-wing ideology. Lorenz not only revealed the identity of the anonymous person who runs the account but also included a copy of the person’s real estate license, which showed her home address. The Post later removed the home address from the story, then lied about it, saying, “We did not publish or link to any details about her personal life.”

Lorenz, who has a history of taking offense at legitimate criticisms, called the billboard “so idiotic” and said “these campaigns have a much darker and more violent side.”

And then she went back to her home, confident that her address was and would remain private and secure, in marked contrast to how she had treated poor LoTT—WITH THE CONNIVANCE AND ACTIVE ASSISTANCE OF HER EMPLOYER, WHICH HAPPENS TO BE ONE OF THE BIGGEST AND MOST WELL KNOWN ESTABLISHMENT PROPAGANDA MANUFACTORIES IN THE ENTIRE FUCKING WORLD.

SO: for the barbarous crime of quoting the Left’s own words back to them without embellishment or exaggeration, LoTT will spend the next few years fielding entirely credible death threats; finding nasty notes taped to her front door or the tires on her car slashed day after day; being screamed at in random public spaces by wild-eyed, purple-faced moonbats; and just basically living in constant, eminently justified terror, never knowing where the next deranged assault, the next profane diatribe, the next chest-bumping, pushing-and-shoving denunciation might emerge from.

Lorenz, on the other hand, will get a raise, a bonus, and eventually a Pulitzer for her outstanding achievements in “journalism.” Neither harm nor even unpleasantness will befall her; nothing scary or embarrassing will happen to her. Nobody on our side will so much as give her a sniffy look in the restaurant or the movie-theater line.

Because, y’know, that’s not who we are.

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