Skip to content

S P E C I A L - N O T I C E S . . .

MARIZELA PEREZ IS STILL MISSING: For the latest news on the search for this young lady, please visit the special website that has been set-up: Her cousin, Michelle Malkin has more pictures of her here.
For The Latest News on the KIMBERLIN / RAUHAUSER SAGA: Follow John Hoge's blog HOGEWASH. He's doing one huckuva job covering the story.
RING-A-DING-DING! & DOOBY-DOOBY-DOO! -In honor of the 100th anniversary of the birth of Francis Albert Sinatra [born 12-DEC-1915], Friend In The Ether Pundette has set up a website, SINATRA CENTENARY, where she'll be celebrating for all of 2015. And Mark Steyn is doing his own list: Sinatra Song of the Century.

The Lost Republic Diaries – Part XVIII

13 May 2015 @ 20:54

Another entry in a Diary that chronicles the End Days of The American Republic. Another example of why The Republic is terminal and why we must work to save what we can however we can…

From The College Fix, Samantha Audia reporting, we learn [tip of the fedora to Darleen Click]:

If someone says anything mean-spirited at the University of Colorado Boulder – campus administrators want to know about it. Not only that – they want to know the offender’s name, age, email address and more.

University of Colorado-Boulder has launched a new campaign encouraging students to report any “bias” they come across to campus authorities, who collect details including offenders’ names, birthdays, genders – even social security numbers – along with a description of the “incident.”

The “Bias Incident Reporting” effort aims to “address the impact of demeaning and hurtful statements as well as acts of intolerance directed towards protected classes,” CU Boulder’s website states.

Examples of bias, according to a corresponding poster campaign highlighting the reporting system, include calling people names or making fun of their culture.

“This in no way is meant to curtail free speech,” campus spokesman Ryan Huff told The College Fix in an email. “We support the First Amendment and want our students to challenge one another in academic ways. We don’t support, however, the use of racial slurs and other demeaning bias-motivated acts.”

Students who perceive or witness “bias-motivated incidents” are asked to report them immediately by filing a “student of concern” report.

The online submission form prompts students for the name, birthday, gender, phone number, and e-mail of any involved person. The form gives the reporter space to provide the ID number of students implicated in the incident. However, should those involved not be students, drivers’ license numbers or social security numbers are suggested substitutes.

Please do take the time to click here and read Darleen’s post in which she makes a dead-on accurate comparison of this action to one from History.

How long before this Informant System moves from campus to campus?

How long before it then moves into other institutions?  Let us not forget the hard lesson we have learned since 20 January 2009: anything is possible when and where the Left is in Power And Control.

How long before those reported on are deemed illegitimate — beyond the pale, not fit to be members of the Brave New World being manufactured by the Left In America?

How long before Free Speech is declared an activity of outlaws?

So many will claim: “Oh…that can’t happen here!’  History disagrees, and she is never wrong.

We have the freedom now to act to preserve The Founding; we are at Liberty to to operate in what has become the Enemy’s territory. We can gather together and Restore the Precious Gift of The Founding Fathers in territory we achieve control of. We are the Outlaws and we should act accordingly.

We will see some very cruel times, but we have a Duty to our Posterity to preserve the Gift wherever and however we can. We have a duty to those that came before us and sacrificed for us to pay any price and bear any burden to see that Freedom and Ordered Liberty survive in some form. If we do not at least try, we shall be damned before all of Mankind as those cowards who did not attempt to preserve the last, best hope for man on God’s Earth.

We must Join Or Die.


@MJosephSheppard → WashPost’s Richard Cohen, Still Debilitated By Palin Hysteria After 7 Years, Drives Logic To Her Knees

13 May 2015 @ 20:24


In an example of “logic” knocked, beaten up and reduced to a quivering heap, aged leftist Richard Cohen attacks Sarah Palin who 7 years ago was a VP candidate and has not held any office subsequently. There must be some explanation for the existence of what Kirsten Powers yesterday called a continuation of “2008 Palin hysteria.”

This madness has its ostensible basis in the Lefts numbed, then furious beyond comprehension, rage at Palin’s 2008 address to the GOP convention which was seen as threat (which it was) to their hero Obama’s previously easy march to the presidency. That mania which included the bizarre site Daily Kos and even more bizarre Andrew Sullivan’s campaign that Trig was somehow not her real son.

But for Palin to be continually attacked after seven year shows there is some deep psychological reason hidden in the leftist psyche which rationality cannot penetrate. It has been described as having Jewish and sexual driving factors which seems entirely rational, as the links will set out persuasively I believe.

What Cohen’s particular problem is I can’t say, it could of course be either of the foregoing, both, or neither i.e. some as yet unidentified cause for “Palin Obsession Syndrome.” However the root cause has manifested itself in a bizarre displacement attack on logic as well as Palin.

He voiced that Rush Limbaugh dared to criticize Michelle Obama for complaining that a major museum somehow by its very nature made Black children feel “unwelcome” and “alienated” and “there are kids living less than a mile from here who would never in a million years dream that they would be welcome in this museum.”

Of course in what alternate universe does the Whitney Museum set out to make Black, red, yellow brown or any other shade of pigment children “alienated” certainly not in this planet. There is nothing on earth, apart from a lack of education, parental guidance or innate inquisitiveness, to stop any child of whatever race religion or whatever from wandering around a museum. The idea that there is, or was, outside of perhaps the Jim Crow South, any impediment is ludicrous. I grew up in a very poor Jewish family (and there were real anti-Jewish restrictions from WASP social clubs then) but still spent untold days in the Museum of Natural History in Manhattan’s West Side which instilled in me a curiosity for the natural world.

Not content with leaving logic gasping for breath Cohen manages to blend his attack on Limbaugh with an attack on a totally innocent bystander- Sarah Palin! How he manages this is quite a display of pretzel bending and long bow shooting.

This is hardly the first time Michelle Obama has come under attack from white critics who infer — think about it — that she has no right being black. Sarah Palin did not like it when Obama celebrated her husband’s early success in the 2008 primaries by saying, “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country.” Sarah Palin, as far as I know, did not have a great-great-grandfather who was a slave. It makes a difference.


Let me try and show the absurdity of that sentence by making one of my own based on the same “logic”:

Michelle Obama has no right to attack Richard Cohen (remember this is anti-logic world) because, as far as I know she does not have a great-great-grandfather who was a victim of the Tsar.

Incidentally, I can, with this logic, attack Cohen at will as I had a great-great -grandparent who was such a victim (as “as far as I know” so did Cohen.)

So by Cohen’s lib anti-Palin residual hysteria logic, the only people who can take issue with someone else’s words are people who had some ancient lineage of oppression. That would allow a person of Scot’s descent to attack a person of English descent if the former can find a distant ancestor who was booted out in the Highland clearances. Or an Anglo Saxon Englishman, whose long gone ancestor was killed at Hastings by the Norman French, to attack someone of that descent and etc. redutio ad absurdum.

The sad, tail end of Obama worship has in its dregs the pitiful sting of Palin hysteria with only the adamantine Black community, a few leftist Jews and the original “JournOlist” leftist media pack still clinging on to their forlorn memories of “Hope and Change.”

Mr. Sheppard is the proprietor of the blogs Point Of View and Palin4President 2016. He also writes occasionally for American Thinker and is a man of refined taste. Follow him on Twitter: @MJosephSheppard.

Strange Days, Indeed

12 May 2015 @ 14:52

…or: A World Turned [Really] Upside Down

Commenting over at the Belmont Club about those Arab nations that have turned down Julius Obamacus Nero Caesar’s invitation to a summit, Subotai Bahadur remarks:

The Emirs of Qatar and Kuwait are special cases and their attendance can be expected. The rest of the Arab world has seen that the only thing that can be depended upon is that any promises from Obama are lies. So, knowing that the purpose of the trip is to allow Obama to blow smoke up their collective burnooses ["burneese?"] about how a) Iran will not get nuclear weapons, and b) if they do, Obama has their back; there is no point in going. They already know what is going to happen.

The same attitude is becoming universal. In fact, it is interesting that in this world, other than his minions and allies; the only people who have faith in Obama’s word are the DIABLO Republicans.

Dead solid perfect.

The Times are so Abnormal, so Perverse, so Deranged, what with the Executive Branch in the hands of maladjusted, lunatic, and juvenile imbeciles, that the only political allies The Jarrett Junto has, outside of it’s own fellow Apparatchiks, Fellow Travellers, and Dupes, are the Establishment GOP. A Republican Party where one of the two top leaders of the two branches of the Congress boast of how much and how well he figuratively fellates our Despotic President [and they send mash notes to each other].

Strange Days…

…Sad Days…

Coming Soon To America?: Critic Of Islam Blogger Hacked To Death

12 May 2015 @ 10:32

…or: I Like Big Buts And I This Can Deny

From Yahoo News and Reuters, Ruma Paul reporting, we learn:

A blogger was hacked to death by machete-wielding attackers in Bangladesh on Tuesday, the third killing of a critic of religious extremism in the Muslim-majority nation in less than three months. Ananta Bijoy Das, a blogger who advocated secularism, was attacked by four masked assailants in the northeastern district of Sylhet on Tuesday morning, senior police official Mohammad Rahamatullah told Reuters.

Rahamatullah said Das was a 33-year-old banker.

He was also editor of science magazine “Jukti”, which means “logic”, and on the advisory board of “Mukto Mona” (Free Mind), a website propagating rationalism and opposing fundamentalism that was founded by U.S.-based blogger Avijit Roy.

Roy himself was hacked to death in February while returning home with his wife from a Dhaka book fair.

His widow, Rafida Bonya Ahmed, suffered head injuries and lost a finger. In an interview with Reuters in the United States published this week, Ahmed called her husband’s killing “a global act of terrorism”.

According to monitoring service SITE Intelligence Group, Islamist militant group Ansar al-Islam Bangladesh said al Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent (AQIS) had claimed responsibility for the attack.

This will come to America if people like Pam Geller are not supported with vigor and determination and resolve.

Mark Steyn wrote the other day: ‘If the American press were not so lazy and parochial, they would understand that this was the third Islamic attack on free speech this year — first, Charlie Hebdo in Paris; second, the Lars Vilks event in Copenhagen; and now Texas’.

And now we have a fourth.

More from Mark:

In Copenhagen, in Paris, in Garland, what’s more important than the cartoons and the attacks is the reaction of all the polite, respectable people in society, which for a decade now has told those who do not accept the messy, fractious liberties of free peoples that we don’t really believe in them, either, and we’re happy to give them up — quietly, furtively, incrementally, remorselessly — in hopes of a quiet life. Because a small Danish newspaper found itself abandoned and alone, Charlie Hebdo jumped in to support them. Because the Charlie Hebdo artists and writers died abandoned and alone, Pamela Geller jumped in to support them. By refusing to share the risk, we are increasing the risk. It’s not Pamela Geller who emboldens Islamic fanatics, it’s all the nice types — the ones Salman Rushdie calls the But Brigade. You’ve heard them a zillion times this last week: “Of course, I’m personally, passionately, absolutely committed to free speech. But…”

And the minute you hear the “but”, none of the build-up to it matters….

And, as he later remarks: ‘Alas, we have raised a generation of But boys’ [and girls — see: Ingraham, Laura].

On Fox the other day, Bill O’Reilly was hopelessly confused about this issue. He seems to think that Pam Geller’s cartoon competitions will lessen the likelihood of moderate Muslims joining us in the fight against ISIS. Putting aside the fact that there is no fight against ISIS, and insofar as the many Muslim countries in the vast swollen non-existent “60-nation coalition” are going to rouse themselves to join the fight it will be because the Saudi and Jordanian monarchies and the Egyptian military understand it as an existential threat to them, put aside all that and understand that Islamic imperialism has a good-cop-bad-cop game — or hard jihad, soft jihad. The hard jihad is fought via bombings and beheadings and burnings over barren bits of desert and jungle and cave country in the Middle East, Africa and the Hindu Kush. The soft jihad is a suppler enemy fighting for rather more valuable real estate in Europe, Australia and North America, so it uses western shibboleths of “diversity” and “multiculturalism” to enfeeble those societies. And it does so very effectively — so that when a British soldier is hacked to death on a London street in broad daylight, you can’t really quite articulate what’s wrong with it; or that, upon the death of the ugly king of a state where Christianity is prohibited, the Christian ministers of Westminster Abbey mourn his passing; or that, when Australians are held siege in a Sydney coffee shop, the reflexive response of progressive persons is to launch a social-media campaign offering to battle Islamophobia by helping Muslims get to work; or that, when violent Muslims stage their first explicit anti-free-speech attack on American soil, everyone thinks the mouthy free-speech broad is the problem. This soft jihad goes on every day of the week, and Bill O’Reilly doesn’t even seem to be aware that it exists.

This blindness towards Islam is just as bad as the one that plagues many on the Right when it comes to Leftists and their intentions.

It is another form of Moral Equivalence and, unlike the other kind, it is one that has a very good chance of getting you murdered in the near future [whereas, the Left In America won’t dare try to for some time, because they still believe it’s better to have you ‘Love Big Brother’ — enslave yourself voluntarily].

We live in a country where the Men have no chests, but they sure do have big Buts.

Could This Be One Explanation?

Bob Highly Recommends: Worth Reading Carefully by @RSMcCain

11 May 2015 @ 20:25

Worth Reading Carefully : The Other McCain.

@MJosephSheppard → Right And Left See GOP Doomed In 2016 Presidential Race – But, So What If True?

11 May 2015 @ 20:04


On the same day both rightist Allahpundit Hot Air (“Depressing reminder: The 2016 election will be decided by seven states — and Florida is an absolute must-win”) and more than somewhat leftist Dylan Beyers at Politico (“Hillary Clinton’s Election To Lose”) come to the (somewhat) same conclusion. This is, basically, that the GOP has a very difficult chance, if indeed it has any chance at all, of winning the 2016 presidential campaign.

They are very late to the party-I set this out in American Thinker back in December 2014 when I suggested that perhaps the only chance for the GOP in 2016 would be to run New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez as the VP candidate. Larry Sabato is not only even later to the party, but uses the same electoral map source as I do plus graphs, but overwhelms with ten of them. But the conclusion is the same -seven states for the ring and the difficulty for the GOP of grasping it.
After canvassing the absolute necessity for the 2016 standard bearer to win Florida-it is game over right from the start if it is lost, I set out the further task for the GOP even if the state is won:
“The problem for the GOP is that winning Florida is only the start of a path to the required 270 Electoral College votes, and the path is long, tortuous and extremely narrow. Presuming North Carolina has returned to the GOP’s fold, and the narrow 2012 loss in Ohio is overcome the major stumbling block is the vital 13 votes of Virginia. 
Once considered safe in the bosom of  the “solid south” Virginia has seen an influx of Democratic voters into the northern region of the state. So substantial has this influx been that Virginia has been solid blue for the last two elections.”
But, and as Hot Air and Byers came to realize, even with those states the GOP would have to win one from Iowa Colorado New Mexico or Nevada. New Mexico has gone once for the GOP in the last five elections, Iowa once in the last seven elections and Nevada twice in the last six including going for Obama twice as did Colorado.
All that is moot of course if any one of Florida/Virginia and Ohio go to Clinton and the odds on Virginia, at least, being in the Dem’s bag are pretty high given the influx into the Northern part of the state and having gone for Obama twice.
In case Republicans are getting their hopes up about polls now showing Jeb Bush and others, beating Hillary in New Hampshire, even if they won that state and Colorado it still would not be enough to win the Electoral College
There are a number of reason for this state of affairs and of course the primary one is that ethnicity trumps all for the foreseeable future. Democratic party voters are jammed into new York, California and Pennsylvania which gives the party a lock on 104 of the 270 electoral College votes required to win. Add in all of New England, the greater Great Lakes states and the Pacific Northwest and that’s that. With Virginia they don’t even need Ohio or Colorado or Nevada!
Is there any hope for the GOP apart from the scenario that Clinton stumbles or there is a massive market crash just before the election like in 2008? Yes and demographics can help.The drift from the north to the south has seen the GOP gain about 6 Electoral College votes after the last census with Texas and Florida benefiting especially. If this continues then in effect,  post the next census, Electoral College votes equivalent to Virginia’s thirteen will have gone into the GOP’s column . In a tight election that may be all the difference.
However that may be a short term advantage as, if the drift south starts turning usually reliable red states to blue then, most certainly, the GOP is effectively doomed (if Texas goes then it’s lights out) at the national level barring cataclysmic events.
In that case the GOP would suffer the fate of the Democratic Party from 1860 to 1932 where it won four elections out of eighteen, and perhaps only became presidentially electorally viable again because of the cataclysmic and nation changing 1929 crash. Did the party disappear? Of course not, it enjoyed massive regional control and, from time to time, Congressional control of one or both Houses of Congress.
Sine 2008, The Democratic Party’s presidential success has not been matched at the congressional, state or local levels. The Republicans have seen a massive, near unprecedented swing to them since President Obama took office.
The number of GOP governors has risen from 21 to 31 since Obama took office  — just short of the all-time high of 34 Republican governors in the 1920s.

Voters have also given those governors Republican legislatures to enact their agendas. When Obama first took office, Republicans held just 3,220 state legislative seats. After Tuesday’s vote, the number stands at 4,111 — a net gain of nearly 900 seats on Obama’s watch. Thanks to the 291 state legislative seats Republicans added in 61 chambers across the country last week, there are now more Republican state legislators than at any time since 1920.

Put another way: In 2008, the GOP controlled just 36 state legislative chambers. It soon will control 69 — and voters have given the GOP total control of state government in nearly half the country. In 2008, Republicans held both the legislature and governors’ mansion in just eight states. Today, the number is 24. By contrast, Democrats now control both the legislature and governor’s office in just seven states, down from 15 before the 2014 electionAccording to the National Conference of State Legislatures, that is the lowest number of states Democrats have controlled since 1860.

“the Obama administration began with 257 House Democrats and now is down to 188, the smallest Democratic contingent in the House since 1949. In 11 states, the Democrats have no members at all.And from a high of 59 senators the Democrats now have 46.”

This effectively means the next Democratic president will be a symbolic figurehead from day one, as is President Obama since the mid-terms in 2014. Attempted rule by executive fiat will only add to the GOP’s ire and ensure more senators and congressmen, and increasingly conservative ones at that, each mid-term. Apart from foreign affairs, to a degree, and in appointing the Supreme Court judges as vacancies arise, is there a significant advantage to the Dem’s in winning the presidency.

As far as the Supreme Court goes, even that advantage can be overcome if enough state legislatures are captured by the Republicans so they can call a Constitutional Convention and take matters, economic and social, out of the hands of the Court. This is near to being effected now, and should a further swing to the conservatives in more states eventuate it would be a certainty and leave the presidency as a shining bauble.

Mr. Sheppard is the proprietor of the blogs Point Of View and Palin4President 2016. He also writes occasionally for American Thinker and is a man of refined taste. Follow him on Twitter: @MJosephSheppard.

@MJosephSheppard → Can American Society Survive Another Republican Presidency?

11 May 2015 @ 19:51


If American society of today is compared to that seems like the halcyon days of the field of dreams which were the “morning in America” Reagan years it would be like comparing not two ages but two planets.

Yes, of course not everything was perfect under President Reagan, things never are, but a glance at the electoral map after the 1984 election is as good an indicator as any of the mood of the American people.


The society that America was under Reagan continued, more less through the Bush Snr./Clinton years and G.W. Bush’s first term and ended, abruptly, with the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq. What was unleashed, as the death and destruction and the mistrust ensuing from the lack of any probity on “weapons of mass destruction’ and the collapse of Iraq into a sectarian war was the death of a golden age.

That the economy collapsed in 2008 did not collapse the social structure, America has had panics and depressions with 1929 being far worse. In fact it seems the case that with economic dislocation the mores and morals of society tend to be frozen in place. During times of prosperity, when people don’t worry about employment so much, all sorts of societal havoc can be unleashed as for example the student riots of the 1960’s.

What has changed American society is the absolute ravishing of civil discourse and the rise of a mass of rabble rousers, extreme leftists, conspiratorial journalists, politicians like Rod Blagojevich and John Edwards without moral scruples, and bombastic television “analysts.” There have always been such to a degree but they operated within an overall milieu of civil discourse, the difference now is that the second Bush term spawned a host of such perverters of society who found a massive audience through the new world of blogging and networks like MSNBC.

Yes Bush and his team made mistakes, some of them massive, and only time and unfolding history will be the final arbiter of his administration. Perhaps the judgement of history will focus not so much on the errors but on the forces unleashed by them.

When in American history have the public been assaulted, daily by the gross bombasticisms of the like of Keith Olberman and Ed Schultz? The smug elitism of Jon Stewart? When could a two bit nobody like Kos Moulitsas start a blog of beyond idiocy in its hate and nonsense “Trig is not Sarah Palin’s child” and get millions of page views. Could a late night talk show host be an arm of the Democratic party, could a cabal of a mass of media writers form a “JournOlist” grouping to ensure everyone was on message for the Obama election?

When in American history could a television network allow a program host to recommend that someone “shit in Palin’s mouth”? The hysteria on the left when Palin was announced as McCain’s VP pick and that choice started to erode Obama’s poll lead led to hysteria bordering on insanity. To get a bit of the flavor of this madness I recommend perusing the “Ace of Spades” archives for September 2008, especially from the start of the month where the ludicrous attacks on Palin by the likes of Andrew Sullivan are skewered mercilessly.

The mad, bad, insane Palin hate blogs have been too many to list here, but that they still exist all these years later is proof of the demons that have been unleashed. The likes of Daily Kos and Wonkette still spew their venom against anything Christian or conservative and the same “JournOlists like Ezra Klein and Yglesias prosper in their propaganda, and that is the major concern going forwards.

If American society is so off its moral compass whilst these forces have had their “hope and change” hero what will the country become if a Republican defeats their next in line Hillary Clinton? The forces of moral destruction will not need breeding time to get up to full mass insanity and hate as they are well in place, having served their apprenticeship from 2005 and know all the tricks of their trade.

If a Republican defeats Hillary, especially if it is Jeb Bush there will be a brief pause and then all the forces of hell will be unleashed. Can American culture survive such an onslaught? I doubt if it can. Who knows what is next presuming that same-sex marriage will be legal? Bestiality (“live and let live”) multiple marriage (“to be fair to Mormons and Muslims”) multiple same-sex marriage or even mixed multiple sex marriage?” What will be next will be up to the opinion shapers in Hollywood whose personal peccadilloes are forced on the rest of the country as a norm.

Is there any way this scenario can be prevented, can a return to civil discourse come about? For the latter I am afraid that the answer is no given everyone has access to social media and radicals seem to be the most active in using it. The societal decline would be slowed if Hillary wins as the left will have less to rail about, but that won’t put the genie back in the bottle of course.

The only way this decline and fall can be slowed, if not reversed, would be through the election of a genuine social conservative with a majority approaching that of the map above.At that point the socially destructive left would be disavowed and discredited. Or, the conservatives continue to win the administrations of enough states to call for a constitutional convention and reverse the societal elements that have come in over the last decade.

That the left would rail at this would not matter as the will of the people would be irreversible and put beyond the activist judiciary who have been a major partner in the lefts onslaught against traditional norms.

In an odd sort of way the best chance for a constitutional convention may come from the election of Clinton and, as is usually the case, a subsequent rejection of the new administration in the ensuing mid-terms. Or it could come in the first year of a genuine conservative president.

But if an Establishment Republican manages to eke out a win over Clinton the future for America in race relations, and social discourse looks bleak. Can American society prosper with such an election result recent history makes the answer sadly dubious.

Mr. Sheppard is the proprietor of the blogs Point Of View and Palin4President 2016. He also writes occasionally for American Thinker and is a man of refined taste. Follow him on Twitter: @MJosephSheppard.

On Moral Equivalence As Practiced By Some On The Right

11 May 2015 @ 09:55

In a recent post over at Protein Wisdom, Darleen Click rightly took people like Jonah Goldberg to task for their thinking about the motivations of some Leftists. Please do take the time to click here and read her full post.

Darleen concludes that, ‘Goldberg and others need to have an “Aha” moment’ and she is dead solid perfect.

It’s time for such conservatives to come to their conservative senses.

They need a figurative slap-upside-the-head, or, as Darleen puts it:

The first step to opposing these people is to stop giving them the benefit of the doubt that [the Leftists] don’t know what they are talking about.

They do.

People who do give the benefit of the doubt to Leftists are, in fact, Useful Idiots of the Left. They buy into The Big Lie that there are any Leftists who have good intentions.

When you want to re-engineer people, to fundamentally alter what God has created, your aim is not True.

When you seek to brainwash people, to strip them of their Free Will, your efforts are not in service to furthering the Good of Man.

When you legitimize such Evil ideas, you grant a Legitimacy to those ideas and say that they are Morally Equivalent to Legitimate inquiries into and about the Nature of Man and God.

Anyone who seeks to alter or abolish the Truth is Evil.

And those who provide aid and comfort to the advocates of Evil are Moral Traitors.

Wake-up, people like Jonah Goldberg: just as declaring a Moral Equivalence between the Soviet Union and The United States was wrong, so is advocating the same Moral Equivalence between the Right and the Left.

Stand athwart your Equivalency and yell ‘Stop!’

What Now Britain?

11 May 2015 @ 08:42

David Cameron and his Conservative Party scored quite an impressive victory.

For the first time, the Cameron-led Tories can govern without having to form a coalition.

And it sure is lovely to see the Left freaking-out and throwing tantrums [pass the popcorn and pour me another three fingers of Plymouth Gin, Darling].

However, this should not be seen as a likely triumph of conservative philosophy — the Prime Minister is no Lady Thatcher, as it quite obvious.

What the English and Welsh have opted for is a Softer Fascism that only a Wet Toff like David Cameron can provide.

This is his moment to step-up to wicket and bat away, but, I fear, he will be caught and bowled.

He’s more cockroach than cricket [however, Davy does chirp a-lot — and it's annoying].

The Flames Of Albion still burn.

But, perhaps, the call of the Times will make the Man. We can hope…and pray.

Resistance Is NEVER Futile — For An American

11 May 2015 @ 08:21

Charles Murray has an interesting idea.

It’s not original, as regular readers of TCOTS, Protein Wisdom, and other Hobbity sites know very well.

But it’s nice to see someone who is respected in conservative and libertarian circles come over to The Dark Side Of The Wacko Birds, er, come over to our side.

Mr. Murray, writing in The Wall Street Journal [tip of the fedora to Newrouter][worth quoting at length to get the full-flavor of his proposal]:

It was our boast that in America, unlike in any other country, you could live your life as you saw fit as long as you accorded the same liberty to everyone else. The “sum of good government,” as Thomas Jefferson put it in his first inaugural address, was one “which shall restrain men from injuring one another” and “shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement.” Americans were to live under a presumption of freedom.

The federal government remained remarkably true to that ideal—for white male Americans, at any rate—for the first 150 years of our history. Then, with FDR’s New Deal and the rise of the modern regulatory state, our founding principle was subordinated to other priorities and agendas. What made America unique first blurred, then faded, and today is almost gone.

We now live under a presumption of constraint. Put aside all the ways in which city and state governments require us to march to their drummers and consider just the federal government. The number of federal crimes you could commit as of 2007 (the last year they were tallied) was about 4,450, a 50% increase since just 1980. A comparative handful of those crimes are “malum in se”—bad in themselves. The rest are “malum prohibitum”—crimes because the government disapproves.

The laws setting out these crimes are often so complicated that only lawyers, working in teams, know everything that the law requires. Everyone knows how to obey the laws against robbery. No individual can know how to “obey” laws such as Sarbanes-Oxley (810 pages), the Affordable Care Act (1,024 pages) or Dodd-Frank (2,300 pages). We submit to them.

The laws passed by Congress are just the beginning. In 2013, the Code of Federal Regulations numbered over 175,000 pages. Only a fraction of those pages involved regulations based on something spelled out in legislation. Since the early 1940s, Congress has been permitted by the Supreme Court to tell regulatory agencies to create rules that are “generally fair and equitable” or “just and reasonable” or that prohibit “unfair methods of competition” or “excessive profits,” and leave it to the regulators to make up whatever rules they think serve those lofty goals.

It gets worse. If a regulatory agency comes after you, forget about juries, proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, disinterested judges and other rights that are part of due process in ordinary courts. The “administrative courts” through which the regulatory agencies impose their will are run by the regulatory agencies themselves, much as if the police department could make up its own laws and then employ its own prosecutors, judges and courts of appeals.

Regulations that waste our time and money are bad enough. Worse are the regulations that prevent us from doing our jobs as well as we could—regulations that impede architects from designing the most functional and beautiful buildings that would fit their clients’ needs, impede physicians from exercising their best judgment about their patients’ treatment, or impede businesses from identifying the best candidates for job openings.

I’ve been focusing on regulation in the workplace, but it isn’t just freedom to practice our vocations that is being gutted. Whether we are trying to raise our children, be good stewards of our property, cooperate with our neighbors to solve local problems or practice our religious faith, the bureaucrats think they know better. And when the targets of the regulatory state say they’ve had enough, that they will fight it in court, the bureaucrats can—and do—say to them, “Try that, and we’ll ruin you.”

That’s the regulatory state as seen from ground level by the individual citizens who run afoul of it. It looks completely different when we back off and look at it from a distance. For example, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration has authority over more than eight million workplaces. But it can call upon only one inspector for about every 3,700 of those workplaces. The Environmental Protection Agency has authority not just over workplaces but over every piece of property in the nation. It conducted about 18,000 inspections in 2013—a tiny number in proportion to its mandate.

Seen in this perspective, the regulatory state is the Wizard of Oz: fearsome when its booming voice is directed against any single target but, when the curtain is pulled aside, revealed as impotent to enforce its thousands of rules against widespread refusal to comply.

And so my modest proposal: Let’s withhold that compliance through systematic civil disobedience. Not for all regulations, but for the pointless, stupid and tyrannical ones.

Identifying precisely which regulations are pointless, stupid or tyrannical will be a lengthy process, but categories that should come under strict scrutiny include regulations that prescribe best practice for a craft or profession; restrict access to an occupation; prohibit owners of property from using it as they wish; prescribe hiring, firing and working conditions; and prevent people from taking voluntary risks.

Within each category, the task is to discriminate between regulations that should command our voluntary compliance from those that are foolish or worse.

When it comes to professional best practices, most people still want a government agency to prescribe precise checklists for, say, maintaining nuclear weapons. But prescribing, for example, how much time a worker in a nursing home must spend with each resident each week is stupid. Licensing has a strong rationale when it comes to physicians and airline pilots. But can’t we rely on the market to deal with incompetent barbers, interior decorators and manicurists?

Restricting the use of property makes sense if the proposed use would affect others by polluting air or water or by creating loud noises. But it should be OK to ignore the EPA when it uses a nonsensical definition of “wetlands” to forbid you from building a home on a two-thirds-acre lot sandwiched between other houses and a paved road—a description of the lot owned by the Sackett family in the famous Supreme Court case of Sackett v. EPA a few years ago.

Employers should not be free to ignore regulations that really do involve the exploitation of workers or unsafe working conditions. But there’s no reason for the government to second-guess employer and employee choices on issues involving working hours and conditions that don’t rise to meaningful definitions of “exploitation” or “unsafe.”

The full set of criteria for designating regulations that are appropriate for systematic civil disobedience is necessarily complex, but the operational test is this: If the government prosecutes someone for ignoring a designated regulation even though no harm has occurred, ordinary citizens who hear about the prosecution will be overwhelmingly on the side of the defendant.

At the end of the process, we will have a large number of regulations that meet the criteria for being pointless, stupid or tyrannical. Let’s just ignore them and go on about our lives as if they didn’t exist.

The risk in doing so, of course, is that one of the 70-odd regulatory agencies will find out what you’re doing and come after you. But there’s a way around that as well: Let’s treat government as an insurable hazard, like tornadoes.

People don’t build tornado-proof houses; they buy house insurance. In the case of the regulatory state, let’s buy insurance that reimburses us for any fine that the government levies and that automatically triggers a proactive, tenacious legal defense against the government’s allegation even if—and this is crucial—we are technically guilty.

Why litigate an allegation even if we are technically guilty? To create a disincentive for overzealous regulators. The goal is to empower citizens to say, “If you come after me, it’s going to cost your office a lot of time and trouble, and probably some bad publicity.” If even one citizen says that, in a case where the violation didn’t harm anything or anyone, the bureaucrat has to ask, “Do I really want to take this on?” If it’s the 10th citizen in the past month who says it and the office is struggling with a backlog of cases, it’s unlikely that the bureaucrat’s supervisor will even permit him take it on.

I propose two frameworks for implementing this strategy. The first would be a legal foundation functioning much as the Legal Services Corporation does for the poor, except that its money will come from private donors, not the government. It would be an altruistic endeavor, operating exclusively on behalf of the homeowner or small business being harassed by the regulators. The foundation would pick up all the legal costs of the defense and pay the fines when possible.

The other framework would be occupational defense funds. Let’s take advantage of professional expertise and pride of vocation to drive standards of best practice. For example, the American Dental Association could form Dental Shield, with dentists across America paying a small annual fee. The bargain: Dentists whose practices meet the ADA’s professional standards will be defended when accused of violating a regulation that the ADA has deemed to be pointless, stupid or tyrannical. The same kind of defense fund could be started by truckers, crafts unions, accountants, physicians, farmers or almost any other occupation.

The regulatory empire will doubtless try to strike back, asking Congress for more money to hire more inspectors and lawyers. But it’s going to be a hard sell. The regulatory agencies are becoming as unpopular as the IRS, and members of Congress know it.

The regulatory empire will doubtless try to strike back, asking Congress for more money to hire more inspectors and lawyers. But it’s going to be a hard sell. The regulatory agencies are becoming as unpopular as the IRS, and members of Congress know it.

The unpopularity of the regulatory state also opens up a potential landmark change in jurisprudence. Federal courts are already empowered to overturn agency actions that are “arbitrary,” “capricious” or “an abuse of discretion,” but the Supreme Court has set the bar so high that the regulatory agency almost always wins if it followed bureaucratic procedure in creating the regulation.

The good news is that the Supreme Court has a history of responding to an emerging social consensus. A drumbeat of well-publicized cases in which the agencies have obviously acted arbitrarily and capriciously as those words are ordinarily used could lead the courts to adopt a more straightforward interpretation of them. That’s all it would take—not new legislation, not a sympathetic president, just the willingness of the Supreme Court to say that “arbitrary” and “capricious” can apply to the enforcement of regulations, not just their creation.

Neither the defense funds nor the Supreme Court can deter regulators from writing bad regulations. That would require Congress to stop writing vague laws with good intentions—an impossible dream. But we can hope to introduce common sense into the enforcement of regulations.

The changes I envision can compel regulators to confront the same reality that state troopers on America’s interstate highways face every day. If you are driving 8 miles over the speed limit on a deserted stretch of interstate, you might get pulled over by a state trooper who is bored or needs to fill his quota of tickets. That’s the situation we as individuals face when we commit a harmless violation of a government regulation. We are an isolated target.

Figuratively, the purpose of the defense funds is to get us off the isolated stretch of highway and onto an interstate where the flow of traffic is several miles above the stated speed limit. Faced with many people who are technically breaking the law but who are actually driving safely, state troopers stop only those people who are driving significantly faster than the flow of traffic or driving erratically. The troopers are forced by circumstances into limiting enforcement of the law to drivers who are endangering their fellow citizens.

In sports, this enforcement philosophy is called “no harm, no foul.” If a violation of a rule has occurred but it has no effect on the action of the game, the officials ignore it and the game goes on, to the greater enjoyment of both players and spectators. As the sports announcers say, “The officials are letting them play tonight.”

The measures I propose won’t get the regulations off the books, nor will they improve the content of those regulations, but they will push the regulatory agencies, kicking and screaming, toward a “no harm, no foul” regime. They will be forced to let the American people play.

It’s an interesting idea that Mr. Murray has and worth vetting.

Of course, it’s not a fresh idea, as Jeff Goldstein could very easily tell you.

The key, however, is to Resist, Resist, Resist — in what ever way is effective — to say ‘No!…No more!…No further!…We will not accept your Despotism!’

Raise Holy Hell.

Resist and Agitate — in small ways and big — and Just Say ‘So?’


Nor can we ever forget the indignity and abuse with which America in general, and this province and town in particular, have been treated, by the servants & officers of the crown, for making a manly resistance to the arbitrary measures of administration, in the representations that have been made to the men in power at home, who have always been disposed to believe every word as infallible truth. For opposing a threatened Tyranny, we have been not only called, but in effect adjudged Rebels & Traitors…. —We have been represented as inimical to our fellow subjects in Britain, because we have boldly asserted those Rights and Liberties, wherewith they, as Subjects, are made free. —When we complained of this injurious treatment; when we petitioned, and remonstrated our grievances: What was the Consequence? Still further indignity….

—Samuel Adams, writing as ‘CANDIDUS’, 19 August 1771

SIDENOTE: When I looked-up ‘Charles Murray resist’ on Google, it asked me:

Did you mean: Charles Murray racist


‘Tar. Feathers. Some Assembly Required’

10 May 2015 @ 20:18

The following is a story of Contempt…

From The Washington Times, Stephen Dinan reporting, we learn [tip of the fedora to Darleen Click]:

President Obama’s lawyers admitted to a federal judge late Thursday that they had broken the court’s injunction halting the administration’s new deportation amnesty, issuing thousands of work permits even after Judge Andrew S. Hanen had ordered the program stopped.

The stunning admission, filed just before midnight in Texas, where the case is being heard, is the latest misstep for the administration’s lawyers, who are facing possible sanctions by Judge Hanen for their continued problems in arguing the case.

The Justice Department lawyers said Homeland Security, which is the defendant in the case, told them Wednesday that an immigration agency had approved about 2,000 applications for three-year work permits, which was part of Mr. Obama’s new amnesty, even after Judge Hanen issued his Feb. 16 injunction halting the entire program.

Top Obama officials, including Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, had repeatedly assured Congress they had fully halted the program and were complying with the order.

“The government sincerely regrets these circumstances and is taking immediate steps to remedy these erroneous three-year terms,” the administration lawyers said.

Tarring-and-feathering-001-596x796Sure, sure.  You only regret that you were caught.  And, even being caught, your only concern is how to ultimately get away with your crimes.

Nothing significant will happen to these Despotic Apparatchiks.

If they have to publicly be ‘lashed’ it will be with a wet noodle, as it were, and they will be given a sinecure in some Leftist ‘non-profit’.

There is no Law anymore and Order is starting to break down — the only unknown being how quickly will the descent into Chaos be.

More from the same report:

Sen. Charles E. Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said it was “remarkable” that the administration kept approving some applications.

“The last time I checked, injunctions are not mere suggestions. They are not optional,” the Iowa Republican said. “This disregard for the court’s action is unacceptable and disturbing, especially after Secretary Johnson’s assurances that his agency would honor the injunction.”

Leftism-Unmasked-001fxYeah, Senator, and — pardon my French [which is getting quite a workout these days around here] — what the fuck are you going to do about it that really means something?  [Need I answer this, Dear Readers?]

I mentioned at the start of this post that this is a story of Contempt.

Contempt for the Law.  Contempt for The Constitution.  Contempt for Western Civilization.

The Left has Contempt for every aspect of Western Civilization, but too many on the Right refuse to acknowledge this Fact.  This is how Civilizations fall and dark ages arise.

NOTE: The title of this post is taken from a comment by Parker on Darleen’s post.

Bob Highly Recommends: “Stay Quiet and You’ll Be Okay” by @MarkSteynOnline

10 May 2015 @ 01:41

“Stay Quiet and You’ll Be Okay” :: SteynOnline.

Sinatra 100th: The Best Performances – 52-50

09 May 2015 @ 02:16

Sinatra100th-Logo-009-250gxRing-A-Ding-Ding, everybody!

Here at TCOTS, we’re celebrating Frank Sinatra’s 100th Birthday by counting down what I think are his 100 best performances on Vinyl and CD. All of the songs on the List have been released on either one or both mediums. Interspersed with the countdown will be Honorable Mentions that didn’t make the List and a countdown of what I think are his best albums.

Francis Albert will be your pilot and Bobby Bell your navigator.

So sit back easy in your easy chair, fasten your seatbelts, and let’s take-off in the blue…

52 — TIE

The Good Life

Music & Lyrics: Sacha Distel, Jack Reardon
Recorded: 10 June 1964
From the album It Might As Well Be Swing

Hey, baby, The Chairman’s trying to teach you something here and you’d better listen real close.

I Could Have Danced All Night

Music & Lyrics: Alan Lerner, Frederick Loewe
Recorded: 23 December 1958
From the album Come Dance With Me

Conventional, with a dash of ho-hum at the beginning, what makes this performance great is the way he starts swingin’ it half-way through. I wonder of Frank planned it this: lull us into thinking he’s just giving this conventional song from My Fair Lady the conventional treatment so we think it’s going to be a very-good-but-nothing-special recording and then he pulls a Law & Order Twist on us, showing that he can swing anything.

51 — Learnin’ The Blues

Music & Lyrics: Delores Silvers
Recorded: 23 March 1955
Released as a Single; included in the compilation albums This Is Sinatra, The Capitol Collectors Series, The Capital Years [3-CD], and The Complete Capitol Singles

Hey…if you’re going to be blue because of the gal that got away, at least be jaunty about it. Life goes on, man — lesson learned, pally.

50 — Luck Be A Lady

Music & Lyrics: Frank Loesser
Recorded: 25 July 1963
From the compilation albums A Man And His Music, My Kind Of Broadway, Sinatra ’65, The Reprise Collection, and The Very Best Of The Rat Pack

Another case of Ol’ Blue Eyes taking an ‘okay’ song and turning it into a Standard.

See you next Friday as we head-off again to Bobsville.

Don’t forget to also keep checking out
Pundette’s Sinatra 100 countdown,
Ms Evi’s Sinatra Celebration,
& Mark Steyn’s Sinatra Songs Of The Century.
It’s a swingin’ world.

If you’re having trouble tracking down any of the performances on this List, contact me at Robert[dot]Belvedere[at]gmail[dot]com and I might be able to help you.


Questions For @SenTedCruz

08 May 2015 @ 09:12

First, some background, via Mark Levin’s Daily Recap:

…If a party sways off in the wrong direction, we have a responsibility to defeat those doing it and take our party back. Mitch McConnell and John Boehner are running Congress like mobsters; cutting campaign funding of fellow Republicans and removing them from committees if they don’t bend to their will. Now the Senate has passed, 98-1, to surrender treaty powers to President Obama; instead of no sanction relief until Senate approval of a deal, sanction relief will begin after 30 days unless 2/3 Senate vote against it. Whatever deal Obama has will be the deal put in place while nobody in Congress will be able to change it, and McConnell knows it. Every day this Congress meets and Obama exercises power not belonging to him, we lose more and more liberty.

Senator Cruz: Why did you vote to take away Senate’s Constitutional Powers? [a vote that violated your Oath Of Office]

Follow-Up Question: Why did you vote in favor of furthering The Rise Of Caesarism?

The only Senator who voted against it was Senator Ton Cotton – Bravo, Sir.

Over at the much-needed and useful Conservative Review website, Daniel Horowitz reports on the vote and it’s implications [tip of the fedora to Mark Levin][worth quoting at length]:

With passage of the Corker-Cardin Democrat protection bill, it has become abundantly clear that Senate Republicans are utterly useless.

Due to the outrageously false perception of this bill, only 6 Republicans opposed shutting off debate (Sens. Cruz, Cotton, Grassley, Lee, Moran, and Sullivan) and only Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) voted against it in the final passage.

Now it’s time for House conservatives to stand up and be counted.

I’ve watched countless legislative fights over the years and have seldom seen such an outrageous level of dishonesty in selling a bill as something completely antithetical than its plain text political intent.

From beginning to end, the dishonest bipartisan oligarchy sold this bill as a way of securing congressional approval of any Iran deal. Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD), Obama’s point man in the Senate on the Iran appeasement, made the following deceitful statement prior to voting on the bill:

It was in the 1990’s that Congress started to impose sanctions against Iran for its Nuclear weapons program. Only congress can remove those Sanctions or permanently change it. (Congressional Record)

This is a uniquely scandalous lie even for a member of Congress. He has officially gone on record as vouching for our position – that Congress must approve any deal made by the president – but refuses to admit that his bill does just the opposite. Instead of the default position being no sanctions relief unless a majority of Congress affirmatively approve of the deal, this bill allows the president to remove sanctions after 30 days unless two-thirds of both houses override the president. Ben Cardin has no intention of ever doing that. This is a new low, even for a career politician.

And it gets even worse. Congressional Quarterly reports that House Democrats are signaling they will never give Republicans the requisite two-thirds majority to override a veto under any circumstance. Rep. Jan Schakowski (D-IL) circulated a letter signed by 150 House Democrats cheering on Obama’s appeasement of Iran and urging him to stay the course.

Consequently, passage of the Corker-Cardin bill in the House would consummate Obama’s deal with no way of revoking it. And this is much worse than passing nothing because Obama can rightfully point to this illusory bill as a bipartisan and legitimate stamp of approval from Congress.

This gradual ceding by the Congress of it’s powers to the Executive is merely a re-staging of the Fall Of The Roman Republic in modern dress [with worse hair].

Caesarism doth not become America.

–Billy Shakes-Belvedere

The Senate vote can be found here [and, no, clicking that link will not bring you to under a slimy, smelly rock].

From The Message Board Of The Lunatics – Part V – The Dhimmi @AP

07 May 2015 @ 20:45

~Whereas there be Lunatics running the American Asylum;
~Whereas no one seems to have enough Courage to remove said Lunatics;
~TCOTS HEREBY DECLARES that it will record the rantings of said Lunatics and said lack of Courage, so that our miseried Posterity shall know why they lost their Freedoms and, in some cases, their Lives.


From the Moronic Cowards at the Associated Press:

I’ll let these two gentlemen speak for me: Ladd Ehlinger…


The TCOTS ‘Live Free Or Die’ Page Has Been Updated

07 May 2015 @ 20:25

Six new quotes have been added.

Here’s one of them:

There exists a subterranean world, where pathological fantasies disguised as ideas are churned out by crooks and half-educated fanatics for the benefit of the ignorant and superstitious. There are times when that underworld emerges from the depths and suddenly fascinates, captures, and dominates multitudes of usually sane and responsible people.

@MJosephSheppard → If Jeb Runs And Loses What Then?

07 May 2015 @ 18:43


What happens if Jeb Bush loses to Hillary Clinton is a perfectly rational question to consider at this point, if the GOP primary season plays out like it did in 2012 with a mass of no-hopers splitting the conservative vote.

The only difference this time might be that there are also a number of Establishment candidates to split the centrist vote but, as with Romney and his finances in 2012, Bush’s huge financial resources plus media backing, would take care of that. Further, I have little doubt that a number of the challengers to Bush are just in it for book sales, profile lifting for a television career, and a fond hope they might be picked for VP (see Fiorina, Carly).

Thus if Bush is the nominee he either beats Hillary or he loses. If he wins then the GOP Establishment is firmly in the saddle for at least another eight years. But what happens if he loses? The answer to that question includes a scenario where the GOP implodes, explodes, fractures or vanishes depending on how things work out.

If beggars belief that the rank and file conservatives base, who may have held their collective noses and voted for what they perceive as a RINO for the third time in a row, would trot to the pols similarly encumbered for a fourth time in 2020. I have no doubt at all that on election right, if the win goes to Hillary, the recriminations on the right will be vocal, loud and will be a flood tide in volume-and that would be just the start.

If after a third loss the GOP’s executive doesn’t resign en-mass, if there is not a clear indication that the party expects the 2020 nominee to be a genuine representative of the conservative base, then the options are clear.

The base can mount a similar grass roots campaign to Goldwater’s (and McGovern’s on the the left) and utterly root out the Establishment from executive offices across the country to such a level that the party machinery will be in the base’s hands and they can determine the rules for the 2020 primaries.

If such a reaction comes to pass and the current Establishment team structure ( or their designated successors) stays in charge then the party itself would be in grave danger of fracturing completely and permanently. If the base does not see a genuine conservative available to lead a presidential run who has a chance getting the nomination, and they face the prospect of either holding their noses yet again, then there is every possibility they will decamp and create a new conservative party.

This party fracturing is hardly novel and of course has happened throughout American history. The Whigs in 1856, the Democratic party splitting into a northern Douglasite wing and a southern Breckinridge wing and of course Teddy Roosevelt and his Progressive party.

For conservatives the Bush candidacy poses a number of challenges then. Do they stay at home as in 2012 which might ensure Hillary wins but the end result of which would be the eventual takeover of the GOP by the base? Do they hold their noses and vote for Bush and risk having at least another eight years of Establishment policies and be seen as ‘useful idiots’ to be brought to the polls once every four years and then ignored.

It may well be that a substantial enough portion of the base sees no difference between Hillary and Jeb and either votes for Hillary, or stays at home, using either mechanism depending on the state they live in, with the aim of cleaning house or knocking it down and building a more comfortable one.

A Bush primary win has every chance of being a severely Pyrrhic victory in that case

Mr. Sheppard is the proprietor of the blogs Point Of View and Palin4President 2016. He also writes occasionally for American Thinker and is a man of refined taste. Follow him on Twitter: @MJosephSheppard.

Free Speech For The Lamb — But Not For @PamelaGeller

07 May 2015 @ 14:40

American Patriot and Hero, Pam Geller, continues to fight the Good and Righteous fight, not backing-down one inch.

Despite the vile and disgusting calumnies and scorns being heaped upon her, Pam rolls on. She is, truly, doing the Lord’s Work.

Some thoughts on this situation from myself and others…

-From The Weekly Standard, Daniel Halper reporting, we learn:

“This is a serious threat,” said Hannity. “Basically a Fatwa, a death threat, has now been issued. Your reaction to that? Have you had any contact with the FBI?”

“They have not contacted me, but of course we’ve now increased my team. I have a team now, private security, and NYPD counterterror has been in touch with me,” said Geller.

“Did you reach out to the FBI?”

“I did,” Geller confirmed.

Hannity followed up, “Homeland Security hasn’t gotten ahold of you, the FBI hasn’t gotten ahold of you?”

“No, and this is interesting because this is a terrorist threat. And the FBI, President Obama should provide security. There’s no question about it. Because he created an environment that raised the stakes on this,” Geller said.

You’re on your own, Pam, just as we every American is on his or her own when it comes to the War being waged against us by Islam.

Hell, there are people on the Right who have decided that Dhimmitude is better than Fortitude. Shame on them and may God have Mercy on their Souls.

-Over in the Comments section of Protein Wisdom, we get some insightful wisdom from 11B40:

Strange as it may seem to some, what this situation brought to my mind was my favorite Platoon Sergeant’s repeated teaching that “in the infantry game, there are two basic plays, “Find ‘em, fix ‘em, and finish ‘em” and “Let ‘em find you, fix ‘em, and finish ‘em.”

Islam is nothing more than the globalization of 7th Century A.D. (if I may) predatory Arab tribal culture under a thin veneer of religion. If your plan doesn’t include constraining, undermining, or eradicating Islam, you don’t have a plan. What you have is a hope.

That Geller broad, she has a plan.

Indeed. And it’s a damn good one that is as old as Civilization and always effective: flush out the cockroaches so you can kill ’em.

-In a recent editorial, the Apparatchiks over at The New York Times, at one point, state [no link — screw ’em]:

It was an exercise in bigotry and hatred posing as a blow for freedom.

Darleen Click, one of our modern Boudicas, was having none of that ordure:

Well, fuck you.

…If nothing else, this exercise by Pamela Geller has made the line between those who actually take the Constitution seriously and those who only pay it lip service, bright and unavoidable.

Exactly. Two good things have been accomplished in the past few days: (1) Pam and her allies flushed-out two of The Enemy and they are now deservedly dead, and (2) as Darleen rightly states, we now have a much clearer picture of who among us are the Dhimmi Sheeples.

As the great Chesty Puller once said: ‘We’re surround; that simplifies the problem’. It sure as Hell does.

Remember these days and who stood for Freedom and Ordered Liberty and who provided Aid And Comfort to The Enemy along with those timid Souls who cowered in Fear, soaked in the urine of their Cowardice.

-This is for you, Pam:

1 (A Psalm of David, when he was in the wilderness of Judah.) O God, thou art my God; early will I seek thee: My soul thirsteth for thee, my flesh longeth for thee in a dry and thirsty land, where no water is;

2 To see thy power and thy glory, so as I have seen thee in the sanctuary.

3 Because thy loving kindness is better than life, my lips shall praise thee.

4 Thus will I bless thee while I live: I will lift up my hands in thy name.

5 My soul shall be satisfied as with marrow and fatness; and my mouth shall praise thee with joyful lips:

6 When I remember thee upon my bed, and meditate on thee in the night watches.

7 Because thou hast been my help, therefore in the shadow of thy wings will I rejoice.

8 My soul followeth hard after thee: thy right hand upholdeth me.

9 But those that seek my soul, to destroy it, shall go into the lower parts of the earth.

10 They shall fall by the sword: they shall be a portion for foxes.

11 But the king shall rejoice in God; every one that sweareth by him shall glory: but the mouth of them that speak lies shall be stopped.

Psalm 63

You are not alone.

Profile In Real Courage: @BoschFawstin

06 May 2015 @ 21:44

Who is Bosch Fawstin?

He’s the man who won the Draw Mohammed Cartoon Contest in Garland and, unlike all of the Left and a disturbingly fair number on the Right, he is walking tall [see Twitchy’s report here].

Here’s his winning cartoon:


I urge every blogger to post it on his or her site and those with Twitter accounts to Tweet a copy to all of their Followers.

Follow Mr. Fawstin on Twitter: @BoschFawstin

And become a regular reader of his blog.

As an old wise man once said: ‘Fuck ’em if they can’t take a joke’ — yup…sideways.

From The Message Board Of The Lunatics – Part IV – Lady Michbeth Of Malcontent

06 May 2015 @ 11:06

~Whereas there be Lunatics running the American Asylum;
~Whereas no one seems to have enough Courage to remove said Lunatics;
~TCOTS HEREBY DECLARES that it will record the rantings of said Lunatics and said lack of Courage, so that our miseried Posterity shall know why they lost their Freedoms and, in some cases, their Lives.


From BizPac Review, Nicole Haas reporting, we learn [tip of the fedora to Darleen Click]:

Speaking at the new Whitney museum in New York City’s meat packing district last week, [Michelle] Obama said she grew up thinking that museums were not places “for someone who looks like me.”

“You see, there are so many kids in this country who look at places like museums and concert halls and other cultural centers and they think to themselves, well, that’s not a place for me, for someone who looks like me, for someone who comes from my neighborhood. In fact, I guarantee you that right now, there are kids living less than a mile from here who would never in a million years dream that they would be welcome in this museum.

“And growing up on the South Side of Chicago, I was one of those kids myself. So I know that feeling of not belonging in a place like this. And today, as first lady, I know how that feeling limits the horizons of far too many of our young people.

Well, Michelle, it would seem that your parents were Morons then, if they instilled this idiotic feeling in you.

So, being that you’re the wife of The Smartest Man Who Has Ever Been – Ever, one would think you know better now, that you have come to see your parents for the racist fools they obviously were. My question then is: why did you pollute the air at the Whitney Museum with your Racist garbage then?

Perhaps, you’re just a very slow learner, consigned forever to The Short Bus Of Life?

Or, just maybe, you’re just a Revolutionary, another Anti-American malcontent, who is following the Leftist Playbook – you know, the chapter that commands all comrades to sow Chaos and Discord in the Society you wish to utterly destroy?

Actually, of course, to become and remain a Leftist means you have to be self-retarding, so you’re both.

Hey kids!…It’s Helter Skelter Time!

We live in a Madhouse of our own making.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 5,746 other followers