Today: The Defeat of ISIS, The Dutch beat the English at Dungeness, 1st Notice of the Holocaust, Royals behaving badly, Christmas Music, . . .
AND MORE [Read more…]
Today: The Defeat of ISIS, The Dutch beat the English at Dungeness, 1st Notice of the Holocaust, Royals behaving badly, Christmas Music, . . .
AND MORE [Read more…]
On September 11, terrorists not only killed 2,996 Americans, they recreated America, turning our world permanently upside down.
When the British surrendered at Yorktown, myth long held that that the assembled British fifes and drums played a popular song called The World Turned Upside Down:
If buttercups buzz’d after the bee,
If boats were on land, churches on sea,
If ponies rode men and if grass ate the cows,
And cats should be chased into holes by the mouse,
If the mamas sold their babies
To the gypsies for half a crown;
If summer were spring and the other way round,
Then all the world would be upside down.
Although it’s probable that this never happened, it made sense: The mightiest country in the world suffered defeat at the hands of its own rag-tag revolutionaries. The world was upside down, indeed!
We Americans got a renewed taste of the world turning upside down on September 11, 2001, although this time we weren’t on the victorious end of that turning wheel. For us, it was a break-point, or hinge point, in history . . . and unlike our Revolutionary War, nothing good came out of it.
Over the years, I’ve written repeatedly published the memorial posts I wrote for Lt. Brian Ahearn, Lauren Catuzzi, and Rick Rescorla. After all these years of reading my own words, in addition to actually knowing Lauren, I sometimes confuse myself and believe, for just a moment, that I knew Brian Ahearn and Rick Rescorla as well. I didn’t, of course, but I wish I had. [Read more…]
Democrat Andrew Johnson was one of America’s worst presidents, for he set the stage for the racial strife that today’s Democrats encourage and exploit.
“This is all Andrew Johnson’s fault,” I said.
“Wah?” asked my companion.
“Yeah, Andrew Johnson. The moment that Johnson, a Democrat, was sworn in as president after Lincoln’s assassination, he set about undoing the racial component of Reconstruction. The military hung onto its strength in the South, which is why there are so many military bases still operating there. Politically, though, Johnson and his administration backed away from every effort to reform Southern culture. This meant that the losers in the war got to continue their previous behavior of denying blacks all civil rights. In other words, Johnson enabled the defeated Southerners to reduce blacks to a perfect simulacrum of slavery, only this was arguably even worse than actual slavery, for it denied blacks the food and shelter (no matter how meager) that slave owners once provided, while adding in chronic racial terrorism. [Read more…]
An excerpt from Andrew McCarthy’s new book, Ball of Collusion, lays out the reality of the attempted coup against Trump.
There really was a collusion plot. It really did target our election system. It absolutely sought to usurp our capacity for self-determination. It was just not the collusion you’ve been told about for nearly three years. It was not “Donald Trump’s collusion with Russia.”
Here is the real collusion scheme: In 2016, the incumbent Democratic administration of President Barack Obama put the awesome powers of the United States government’s law-enforcement and intelligence apparatus in the service of the Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, the Democratic party, and the progressive Beltway establishment. This scheme had two parts: Plan A, the objective; and Plan B, a fail-safe strategy in case Plan A imploded — which all the smartest people were supremely confident would never, ever happen . . . which is why you could bet the ranch that it would.
Plan A was to get Mrs. Clinton elected president of the United States. This required exonerating her, at least ostensibly, from well-founded allegations of her felonious and politically disqualifying actions.
Plan B was the insurance policy: an investigation that Donald Trump, in the highly unlikely event he was elected, would be powerless to shut down. An investigation that would simultaneously monitor and taint him. An investigation that internalized Clinton-campaign-generated opposition research, limning Trump and his campaign as complicit in Russian espionage. An investigation that would hunt for a crime under the guise of counterintelligence, build an impeachment case under the guise of hunting for a crime, and seek to make Trump un-reelectable under the guise of building an impeachment case. . . .
Do read the whole excerpt at NRO. That is a perfect summary of what has happened to our nation over the past three years.
As part of his admirable repudiation of the Wilson Doctrine, Trump absolutely should bring some U.S. troops home and station them on our besieged border.
I caught Tucker Carlson’s show tonight and really liked his opening monologue. It ostensibly went after #NeverTrumper Max Boot, but it really was about something larger, which is the foreign policy establishment’s abiding commitment to using American troops everywhere in the world except where they might actually protect America and Americans — namely, our southern border. Here’s the monologue, if you’re interested:
After the monologue,
Trump Tucker spoke with a retired colonel about the D.C. establishment’s absolute unwillingness to use the American military directly for America’s benefit. The colonel believes that special interests are driving this foreign policy. I think it goes deeper than that. The elite (whether in the military or out of it) all went to the same colleges and they were all weened on the same doctrine — that doctrine being the Wilson doctrine. I wrote about the Wilson Doctrine exactly two years ago. I still like the points I made, so I’m reiterating them here, although I’m refining them and adding new material (I say this lest you think it would be too mind-numbering to re-read an entirely recycled post): [Read more…]
Even though Obama has been gone from the White House for more than two years, the media’s sycophantic love affair with him continues unabated.
Barack Obama recently appeared in Oakland, California, to join with basketball star Steph Curry, at a My Brother’s Keeper event. For those who don’t know, My Brother’s Keeper is an organization that the White House started in 2014. The White House described it as an initiative “designed to determine what works to help young people stay on track to reach their full potential.”
Although framed as something to address all young men (who, regardless of color are falling behind women in every metric), it’s apparent that My Brother’s Keeper really is a black outreach organization. Although that sounds illegal to me on discrimination grounds, I’m not going to quibble because it’s long been obvious that young black men struggle. Of course, I suspect that the organization will not offer the best outreach to all young men, regardless of color or location, which is to avoid crime, stay in school, get a job, get married, have children, and stay married. That’s a proven recipe for success.
Anyway, this post isn’t about My Brother’s Keeper. It is, instead, about the laughably sycophantic article The Marin Independent Journal published regarding the Oakland event. I’ll simply quote here all the lines referring to Obama: [Read more…]
Leftists have a habit of distracting conservatives with irrelevant arguments that obscure the fact that, on the important issues, conservatives should win.
It’s happened to all of us. We approach someone with a legitimate grievance — say, for example, reminding someone that he promised not to drink directly from the milk cartoon anymore — and suddenly we find ourselves arguing about whether human mouths or dogs mouths have more bacteria. The latter debate becomes all-encompassing and effectively distracts from the fact that the other person broke a promise not to do something that spreads bacteria, whether from a human or a dog mouth. Too often, we conservatives find ourselves suckered into the same type of meaningless, vaguely related arguments, without realizing that we hold the high ground on the main issue.
Take for example the endless debate about whether illegal aliens are more likely to commit crimes than legal aliens or actual citizens. It’s a very hot debate now, with data from various states pouring in to prove things one way or another. John Lott is at the center of a battle over which numbers to use. (I side with Lott, who follows the numbers where they lead, whether then doing the Leftist thing of leading the numbers where he wants them to go.)
But whether I side with John Lott is irrelevant, because we’re all missing the fundamental point: Illegal aliens are not supposed to be here. Every single crime they commit is one crime too many.
We all know that there is going to be a criminal element within any society, but we accept it because it comes from within the society. But illegal aliens were never meant to be here. If life were a Star Trek episode, their presence is messing with the time-space continuum. So the only acceptable number for crimes committed by illegal aliens is zero. Kick ’em out and keep ’em out and the time-space-crime continuum returns to normal.
Another example of this argument about things that don’t matter is the whole push, whether from Bob “the Gossip” Woodward or the whiny, cowardly Anonymous, to claim that Trump runs a chaotic White House and is rude to his employees, making him unfit to be president. Therefore we have a battle about what constitutes good management style or whether Trump is a nice boss.
Again, I say “so what?” I don’t care if Trump thrives in chaos, yells at people, or even spends his days watching the Gorilla Channel. (Joke, people. Joke.) The only thing that matters — and the only thing we should be paying attention to as we go into November and decide whether to give him a Congress that will work with him versus one trying to destroy him — is the results flowing from that White House.
According to the media, No-Drama Obama ran a White House that was a sea of tranquility and graciousness. Okay. Fine. I’ll accept that narrative. But what came out of that White House? [Read more…]
Roseanne has learned the hard way that racial insults (or even racial allusions) are forgiven only when white Leftists make them about black conservatives.
You may have heard that ABC, a Disney subsidiary, cancelled Roseanne’s megahit reboot of her old show. The reason given was that Roseanne sent out a tweet criticizing Valerie Jarrett for being a Muslim Brotherhood stooge and likening her looks to a character in Planet of the Apes.
I gather that the offense was not that Roseanne said Valerie Jarrett holds views common to a murderous, genocidal organization that seeks world domination. The horror of it all was the suggest that there’s a simian look to Valerie Jarrett:
ABC promptly clutched its pearls and cancelled an unusually successful show:
ABC Entertainment President Channing Dungey said in a statement on Tuesday that the network would not be producing the show’s second season.
“Roseanne’s Twitter statement is abhorrent, repugnant and inconsistent with our values, and we have decided to cancel her show,” Dungey told Fox News.
A rep for Barr did not return Fox News’ request for comment. She was also dropped from her talent agency, ICM Partners.
I have a bunch of points I want to make, so I’ll just throw them out here in no particular order:
1. I have no problem with insulting Valerie Jarrett. I won’t expand on that here, but you can check out the following links: this, this, this, and this. I applaud anyone who tackles Jarrett, but you have to make a clean tackle to score a point. Roseanne, apparently unaware of the unspoken rules about arguments that implicate race, made a dirty tackle. If you attack Jarrett, attack her political, social, and economic views. They are easy and fair game.
2. There is no way you can compare black people to anything simian without looking bad. One of the internet’s favorite games is likening celebrities, including political celebrities, to their animal twins. Indeed, for eight years, this was probably the top animal = celebrity image:
Although the picture is kind of cute, it was not meant as a compliment. We all remember the “Chimpy-Bush-Hitler” meme.
Bush isn’t the only famous person whom the internet compared to something simian. A 30-second search yield several more celebrity = simian images:
The important thing to note is that all of the men in the above pictures are white. Roseanne transgressed one of America’s major shibboleths, which is that you never liken a black person to any creature in the simian family tree.
I happen to agree with this shibboleth. There are too many centuries of such comparisons in America, and they were always meant to imply that blacks were subhuman. The fact that Roseanne’s comparison was to superhuman simians (the sympathetic, brilliant apes in the rebooted Planet of the Apes franchise) is irrelevant. It simply smells bad thanks to centuries of intentional, demeaning racial prejudice aimed at exploiting blacks and depriving them of the liberties inherent in all human beings. [Read more…]
I refuse to listen to the hypocritical New York Times when it suddenly discovers the rule of law and starts to care about a president’s associates.
A Progressive friend was tremendously excited about an editorial in the New York Times. In it, the editorial board exulted about the fact that the president is exposed for all to see: an unsavory con man with no respect for the rule of law. I think it’s worth quoting a part of it:
Mr. Obama has spent his career in the company of developers and celebrities, and also of grifters, cons, sharks, goons and crooks. He cuts corners, he lies, he cheats, he brags about it, and for the most part, he’s gotten away with it, protected by threats of litigation, hush money and his own bravado. Those methods may be proving to have their limits when they are applied from the Oval Office. Though Democrat leaders in Congress still keep a cowardly silence. . . .
Yeah, you caught me — I switched out president names (Obama for Trump) and political parties (Democrats for Republicans). In fact, the New York Times is in full-throated condemnation about Trump’s disdain for the rule of law, the unsavory characters with which he surrounds himself, his open disrespect for the media and law enforcement, and his shenanigans to achieve and retain power.
Much to my Progressive friend’s dismay, I was not impressed, stating only that the New York Times lacked any standing to voice these concerns because it had been completely silent about Obama’s disdain for the rule of law, the unsavory characters with which he surrounded himself, or his shenanigans to achieve and retain power. The Progressive did not want to hear details, instead castigating me for living in a bubble and having no respect for the rule of law.
Had I not been shut down, I would have said this: First, I knew exactly what kind of person I was getting with Donald Trump. I knew he was sleazy, I knew he was unfaithful to his wives, I knew that he had sleazy friends (witness his friendship with the Clintons), and I knew that he was willing to push his way around the law if he could. I also knew that he loved his country, that he has a deserved reputation for getting things done, and that he was not Hillary, the ultimate grifter, sleaze, and law-breaker. Since he’s been president, I’ve cut all ties with caring about his sometimes less-than-savory past. He’s done nothing but good for American interests at home and abroad, and he’s done so within both the letter and spirit of the Constitution. [Read more…]
Jeff Sessions wasn’t racist for using the term “Anglo-American heritage,” but the outrageous outrage over it is progressive politics at its most disgusting.
I am sure you have heard about this. A few days ago, CNN breathlessly highlighted in a report that Attorney General Jeff Sessions, in a speech to the National Sheriff’s Association, said
Since our founding, the independently elected sheriff has been the people’s protector, who keeps law enforcement close to and accountable to people through the elected process. The office of sheriff is a critical part of the Anglo-American heritage of law enforcement.
Our neo-Marxist proggies went nuts. Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii wrote: “Do you know anyone who says “Anglo-American heritage” in a sentence? What could possibly be the purpose of saying that other than to pit Americans against each other? . . .” Others followed suit, the most obscene being California’s current Lt. Gov. and likely its next governor, Gavin Newsom. He wrote: “Reminder that our Attorney General is an outright racist who wants us all to acknowledge our ‘Anglo-American’ heritage.”
Referring to our “Anglo-American” heritage in respect to government and the law is not merely common, it is the norm. It is one of the fundamental truths of our nation. And while truth may sometimes be uncomfortable, it can never racist.
As Powerline points out, there are multiple examples of Con Law Professor turned President Obama referring to our “Anglo-American legal system.” And, as Powerline also points out, Lawrence Tribe, a well-known progressive attorney, in an act of supreme hypocrisy, tweeted his agreement with Sen. Schatz. Yet only a few years ago, Tribe, writing in the Washington Post used the same “Anglo-American” description to make the argument that British law of the 1600’s acted to limit the power of our President today. What a disingenuous putz.
What Schatz, Newsom, and Tribe are doing is all part and parcel of the progressive neo-Marxist’s project to fundamentally alter our nation without going through the democratic processes specified in Article V of the Constitution. Here is how it works: One, paint the Constitution as a racist, and thus make it a fundamentally illegitimate document undeserving of protection. Two, disconnect the Constitution from its historical roots — roots which are anything but racist. Three, because those roots are Anglo-Saxon, play the race card to delegitimize anyone (not a neo-Marxist proggie) who would refer to them. [Read more…]
For the Bookworm Beat, 2017 has been a wonderful and entertaining year. Moreover, this Bookworm predicts that 2018 will be even better.
I only believe the good polls. While the polling did prove accurate in Alabama, the reality is that for the past couple of years, those people who rely on polls are probably the same people who read their horoscope in the local paper every morning to plan their day. Nevertheless, how can I not like a poll — from Gallup, no less — that sees President Trump as the second most admired man in America, coming in only 3 percentage points behind Obama.
I’m not even bothered that Obama leads. Think of it this way: For nine years, the media has practiced a form of idolatry when it comes to Obama. This is not an exaggeration. From the beginning, he was a “magical negro” and a “light bringer.” He was regularly photographed so it appeared that he had halos, rainbows, or streams of sunlight radiating from his head. He was touted as the smartest man ever to occupy the White House and the greatest president since Lincoln, FDR, and Kennedy combined! Just when one thought the hagiographers couldn’t sanctify him more, they did. They always did.
Meanwhile, to continue the religious analogy, Donald Trump has been the Prince of Darkness. No, not the Prince. The Knave, the Garbageman, the Drug Dealer of Darkness. He’s been castigated as a rapist, a Hitler-esque fascist, a bigot, a homophobe, a misogynist, an antisemite, an Islamophobe, a liar, a traitor, and an incompetent — and that’s just in the news for any single day in the past fifteen months. And yet Trump still manages to be the second most admired man in America. Talk about a tortoise and hare victory for him.
So even though Trump came in second, I call that a strong win — and that’s why this is one poll I believe. [Read more…]
Adam Serwer, who penned “Nationalist’s Delusions,” an article smearing Trump supporters as racists returns; I fisked him then and I’m fisking him again.
Roughly three weeks ago, The Atlantic published what is pretty common fare for that magazine nowadays — a fact-free, logic-free riff posing as an intellectual attack on Trump’s supporters. The piece, by Adam Sewer — er, Serwer, was entitled The Nationalist’s Delusion.
I gave Sewer’s article a well-deserved fisking here. Because Sewer’s piece was so bloated, I stopped fisking halfway through. My brain cells were dying off so quickly I couldn’t afford to spend more time in his world. It was like rolling in muck that had toxic, hallucinatory fumes off-gassing around me. My intellectual well-being is worth more than that.
Well, the Sewer is back again, although not in the pages of The Atlantic. Instead, that magazine sent around an email begging people to spend $120 per year (or $12 a month) to join something called “The Masthead.” As an enticement, the email includes Sewer’s own annotations to his bloated, slanderous, illogical Nationalist’s Delusion.” As I fisked the one, it’s clear I must fisk the other too.
Because Sewer’s annotations appear only in the email, I’ll reprint his annotations in their entirety here. The indented text is from Sewer’s original article. The non-indented text comprises his annotations. My interlineations will be in colored font: [Read more…]
The proggies are trying hard to hide the fact that Obama’s economy was pathetic and that Trumps’ economy is already setting records that win elections.
Always nice to see Ron, isn’t it? That clip is from 1980, when Ronald Reagan ran on a promise to cure President Carter’s “economic malaise.” I put that clip up to make the point that our economy is always at the heart of our elections and at no time more so than when the economy is struggling.
When Bill Clinton ran in 1991 during a mild economic downturn, his tag line was “It’s the economy, stupid.” When Obama ran on a promise in 2008 to cure the economy than in deep crisis, he had no memorable lines, but his opponent did: “The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should.” (Face palm.) And in 2016, when Donald Trump ran on a promise that he could restore a struggling American economy to strength, he used the phrase “Make America Great Again.”
Proggies may pretend that the only reason Trump won in 2016 was because 63 million people suddenly channeled their inner racist (IT WAS A WHITELASH, according to professional race hustler Van Jones), but the clear-eyed among them understand that Trump ran — and was in large measure elected on — the economy. Now that Trump is unleashing the U.S. economy, they are worried indeed. As I wrote months ago: “Trump, if he resuscitates the American economy, if he gives economic life back to the working class, he will be unbeatable in 2018 and 2020.” [Read more…]
Two videos, one from a Bedouin and one from a famed Kuwaiti writer, showing that Muslim Arabs can support Israel and will speak out for her.
This first video is amazing. Adam Milstein, who brought the video to my attention, describes it as incredibly important and, if you watch MEMRI’s video, you’ll see that he’s not exaggerating:
This may be the most important video you’ll see. Period.
Sometimes, the most profound insight comes from the most unexpected sources.
Well known Kuwaiti writer Abdullah Al-Hadlaq, appearing on Kuwaiti TV, made one of the most outspoken, accurate and shocking proclamations about Israel and its place in the world.
The video is important, not just because Al-Hadlaq said what he said; it’s that he said it without immediately being rounded up and executed on that same TV show. [Read more…]
I predicted 8 years ago that Obama’s Iran outreach would throw Israel and Saudi Arabia closer together, an alliance that has significant benefits for both.
Although I haven’t written about Saudi Arabia, I have been paying a great deal of attention to what’s going on in that kingdom. If Prince Mohammed bin Salman can avoid assassination (and I devoutly hope he can), he is a true reformer. He is trying to upgrade women’s status, he is purging the most corrupt members of the royal family and, most importantly, he is behind the outreach to Israel. There have been rumors that a member of the House of Saud made a secret trip to Israel and, assuming that rumor is true, Prince Salman is the best bet.
More recently, the hard-line Saudi Grand Mufti preached a very surprising sermon the other day. Melanie Phillips caught this story:
According to the Turkish Anadolu news agency, reported here, the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Abdul Aziz al Sheikh, has issued a quite remarkable religious ruling. Answering a question on TV about the Palestinian Arab riots over Temple Mount last July, he didn’t merely denounce Hamas as a “terror organisation”.
Much more significantly he actually issued a fatwa, or religious ruling, forbidding war against the Jews; and he said that fighting against Israel was inappropriate.
How can this be anything other than highly significant?
After discussing the Grand Mufti’s conservative stands and enmity towards Israel, Phillips believes something important is happening:
Nevertheless, he is the most senior cleric in the state which has served as the epicentre of Sunni Islamic fanaticism and the most austere and conservative interpretation of a religion which has Jew-hatred at its theological core. If such a man is now saying that war against the Jewish state is not holy at all but must be forbidden on religious grounds, will this not have some impact within the Islamic religious world for which holy war against the Jews is an article of faith?
Phillips and my friend Wolf Howling have reached the same conclusion about Saudi Arabia’s softening towards Israel. This is what Wolf Howling wrote me: [Read more…]