Archive for the ‘Media’ Category

Bannon Wrecks Feckless Mitt Romney

Tuesday, June 29th, 2021

Stephen K. Bannon on War Room

If you’re not watching Stephen K. Bannon’s WarRoom on America’s Voice, you’re missing a critical daily update on important information for American patriots. On Monday, as is the habit on the show, they began with a “cold open” showing Al Gore and Mitt Romney, each deriding the efforts to get to the bottom of the 2020 elections, with Mitt Romney going on to criticize the “Big Lie” which is really the big truth: The Democrats, in collusion with dirtbag RINOs like Mitt Romney, conspired to steal the 2020 election in order to get rid of Trump.  Bannon’s crew played the clip of Romney, and then Bannon unloaded on “Mittens.” Indeed, he went after the whole rotten Romney clan.  If you haven’t seen it, it’s worth the watch, as Bannon goes into the sort of clean-up needed in the feckless Republican Party. Here’s the video, courtesy of Bannon’s Rumble channel:


(You can also catch the show on WarRoom.org, and what’s unique about the show is that it’s on from 10-Noon Eastern, and again from 5-6 Eastern, providing three hours of news, interviews, and information each weekday, and usually on Saturday also.)

Everything Bannon says in this video about Mitt Romney is correct.  He’s also correct about the fact that we, who actually tried in earnest to get Romney across the finish line in 2012, ought to remember how this guy is now sticking the shiv in our backs.

 

Advertisements

Newsmax Joins the Suppression Crew

Tuesday, February 2nd, 2021

People need to see this stunning video of Newsmax treating Mike Lindell like garbage. I ditched FoxNews for this sort of thing. What makes Newsmax think they’re immune? I’m very glad I’ve been sticking to One America News. I always worried Newsmax was part of the “professional conservativing” establishment in DC. (Q: “What do you do for a living?”  A: “I conservative.”)

I’m adding this from Rumble, because I’ve had reports that the Youtube version of the video has been unavailable:


 

If this is how they treat Lindell, then you can imagine what they think of the rest of us. Newsmax just lost me. I don’t need cowardly news.

URGENT: The Plot to Bury Donald Trump and America

Saturday, January 9th, 2021

and America With Him…

It was known for weeks that there would be a huge Trump rally in Washington DC on the 6th. A million or more patriots descended on the Ellipse to hear President Trump speak. The swamp was ready.  This was their moment to strike, and they too had prepared.  I cannot now prove every aspect of the allegations I will now make, and the ability to prove it may always evade me, but I know what happened, and millions of the President’s supporters suspect as much too. You’re seeing it unfold in real time. This is a takeover. This is the Great Reset, and this is the real kickoff. The evidence will come along in time, and some of it has been exposed already. My intention here is to lay out what appears to have happened, knowing the evidence is already mounting.  It was a despicable plot, but it was necessary if they were to finally rid themselves of Donald Trump. It wasn’t enough to let him fight his legal fight, and look for political support, in order to attempt to prove his case.  That could not be permitted, never mind permitted to succeed.  They needed an excuse to impeach him again, so that they can forbid him from running again in 2024. They have too much to hide. The skeletons in the globalist closet are too terrible to ever be let loose. Donald Trump is far too dangerous now, never mind four years from now, and in order to protect themselves, they had to be willing to risk it all in their final push to permanently bury Donald Trump and his presidency, punish us for having elected him, and forever bury the truth along with America.

The order of battle was predicated on the President’s speech. They already knew what he was going to say, and they knew quite well that he’d been pressuring Vice President Mike “Pontius” Pence to simply give him the room to prove his case by sending the electoral votes back to the six or seven disputed states’ legislatures for a reconciliation, since a number of them had been asking for as much.  At the time the President was expected to be done his speech, and at which the joint session of Congress commenced its proceeding to count electoral votes, Vice President Pence issued a statement arguing that he hadn’t the authority to simply discount votes from a state or states. The problem is, this isn’t what he was actually asked to do. He was asked to send them back to the states that had requested it for reconciliation by those legislatures and put the session in recess for ten days. This would have put a ten day pause on the vote, but still enough time to dispense with the proceedings well in advance of the January 20th inaugural date.

It appears that the riots were instigated in part by people who were tied to ANTIFA or BLM, and they may have been acting as provocateurs. These agitators actually arrived at the Capitol ahead of the bulk of Trump supporters, because they intended their attack to coincide with the first objection. Trump’s speech ran longer than expected, in part because he had been late in starting. This is why when Trump supporters arrived at the Capitol, people were already inside, and from the available evidence, it looks as though Capitol Police actually let people in some entrances. I have no doubt but that some rowdy but legitimately MAGA supporters found themselves caught-up in the melee, but I also know how these provocateurs operate. They launch attacks from behind peaceful(and often unknowing) protesters, who then unwittingly become the shield for the provocateurs. A police line might then lash out against the protesters nearest them, irrespective of their actual culpability, and sometimes, this will provoke a direct response by the agitated crowd. This is a ploy often used by ANTIFA and BLM, and they well know how to use it, and they’ve spent a lot of time and effort perfecting their art. Unfortunately, many protesters may be unaware of all of this, and may easily fall prey.  Another tactic is for the provocateurs to breach a barrier, a window, a door, or other obstacle, and then lead protesters through, some of whom follow because they’re hyped-up in the moment or because they’re curious about what’s going on, but what frequently happens is the bad guys make their escape, having succeeded in moving a mass of people into the target area. It’s very easy to get sucked into such a thing, and once you realize this, it’s easy to understand. If you’ve ever been in a large, even mildly agitated crowd, you know this to be the case.

The provocateurs led the way into the Capitol. There now appears to be several videos showing the Capitol Hill Police letting them through barricades and into the Capitol itself.  There are numerous witnesses to this speaking out in social media, though the mainstream media and big tech are trying to suppress all of this. (That’s another tell: You wouldn’t try to conceal all of this or suppress it if there wasn’t at least a kernel of truth in the supposition that this was a stage-managed event.) One video is here, while it remains up:

This was not accidental. It was planned.  They needed an excuse to defame the President, and us. They needed an excuse they could broadcast to all the dunderheads who get their news primarily from mainstream media. (If you’re one of those, but you found this site, you’re a “reformed dunderhead” like me.)

The media seized upon these events, as if they were waiting for it. Their stories went up so quickly, many people on the ground at the Capitol were unaware of the events when full-length articles began popping up on websites. It’s clear that they had canned stories, perhaps filled in a few details, slapped on a few pictures from unknown person(s) in the building, and pushed them out.

This began the unrelenting media narrative telling the country Trump was to blame. Twitter banned his video telling people to be peaceful and go home that posted within minutes of reports of violence, and the way they labeled the tweet was intended to promote the notion that he had incited the violence. This is a perfectly, entirely false narrative. In his lengthy speech, he actually told people to protest peacefully. He never told a soul to take any sort of aggressive actions, but that is the spin with which the media ran, and is still running.

When Rush Limbaugh returned to the air on Thursday, he began his show with the following, in a foreboding tone, out of the blue:

One wrong word…

He paused, and repeated himself. Many were confused by this. I understood his meaning. If he said “one wrong word,” the plug would be pulled. He’d been warned. However else he tried to describe his meaning, I knew exactly what he meant. This was Rush, like the famous footage of the POW in Vietnam blinking in Morse code. The corporate bigwigs in distribution had called. They’d let him know: “One wrong word…” and they’d pull the plug. It was significant enough that Mark Levin called attention to it again on Friday evening, and also made mention of how he’d been warned to call for unity and so forth on Wednesday.

I want you to stop and consider the meaning of all of this. At what level must things be happening that people are calling the biggest talk-show guys and telling them, either explicitly, or implicitly: “One wrong word, and we jerk you off the air so fast, the air will catch fire with the sound of silence.”

Folks, that’s what appears to have happened.

Since the events on Capitol Hill, we have watched a chain of events too surreal even for a Tom Clancy novel. News is basically hot garbage. Whereas before, you could at least rely upon them to get some basic facts straight, or at least ballpark, now it’s all presumptively lies. All of it. They are manufacturing news. They’re making things up just to inflame the situation. Everything is about creating a frenzied  drumbeat. I actually believe that they may even try to take out Donald Trump.

Steve Bannon’s War Room has been deplatformed on Youtube, after he said something Thursday(or perhaps Wednesday,) that challenged the legitimacy of the election.

As I write, the following things have come to pass this Friday the 8th of January, 2021, in rapid succession in a storm of thunderclaps:

 

This is all happening very quickly. These developments are occurring faster than I can keep up. More may yet happen. Don’t be surprised if the Internet goes down entirely. Don’t be shocked if cellular telephones stop working. Don’t be astonished if long-distance phone calls become impossible. I’m not kidding. Don’t be stunned if for the first time, we see the activation of the Emergency Broadcast System or something similar. We are quickly descending down a rabbit-hole, Expect to be told to shelter in place, either nationally, or on a regional basis. There is no telling where this ends.

Folks, this is not a game. We are watching an all-out attack on America. This is the globalists, the Democrats, the whole DC UniParty, all the Soros groups, the media, Obama is right in there, and the whole maniacal leftist cabal is out for blood. I have many friends who are so shocked by what’s going on, they say this might be the “end times.” We cannot afford to take that view, or it will be the “end-for-us times.” No sir, as long as we live on this Earth, we must be prepared to fight for our rightful place on it. This is not a game. Not any of it. Ladies and gentlemen, this is far worse than I had imagined, only because I didn’t think they had the guts to go for all the marbles in this way.

I continue to be amazed by those who are hanging on to their platforms urging all of us that violence must never enter the political context. I know that they may well be earnest, but again, I ask them a heartfelt, critical question. President Trump said he’s not going to be at the inaugural. If not for the security risk to him and MAGA folk, and if our situation wasn’t so dire, I’d have urged him to go and invite MAGA to troll Biden, by holding a rally on the Ellipse.

Also, apparently, President Trump managed to get this out on Twitter from the official government account before twitter deleted it:

As I was looking around on Twitter, watching my followers fall, fall, fall, I saw this video:

https://twitter.com/i/status/1347714834071224327

Ladies and gentlemen, whatever happens from here on out, I want you to know I’ve appreciated your readership. I will bring you new articles and information as often as the situation permits, and I have something I think useful to you. Keep your powder dry, but keep it near at hand. This is a volatile situation, the country is rocketing into the abyss, and I don’t know if anybody has the will remaining to stop it.

More evidence of leftist setup at Capitol

Spotted this. It’s Retired Lieutenant General McInerney:

https://twitter.com/i/status/1347928344055205892

This from Twitter:

Editor’s Note: I meant to point out something regarding Parler and the Apple App Store and the Google Play Store. I don’t know so much about Google, but I do know that on Apple devices, you can download FireFox and Brave for free via the App Store. These are web browsers, and you can USE THEM to access Parler(you don’t need the Parler App) and thus access Parler via a browser. It works fine.

Has Andrew McCarthy Lost His Mind?

Friday, January 8th, 2021

This NeverTrumper never seems to tire of putting the most absurdly anti-Trump spin on every issue, always finding fault with President Trump, even when Donald Trump is the obvious victim of clear crimes, as he was in the entire Russia hoax. In this case, he’s gone over the edge in his NeverTrumping that there’s frankly never a time when any person ought to offer me anything this guy has to say as some sort of valid opinion. He may be a former federal prosecutor, but I remind myself that he worked at the Southern District of New York, and that in the last few years, that office has seemed to have been overrun by leftists and NeverTrumpers, such that it’s clear that no justice is to be had there, whatever it may say over the door. Here is one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever seen one of these NeverTrumpers tweet:

After this, there’s nothing Andrew McCarthy can ever say that I will view with anything but contempt.

Levin Condemns Violence; Prompts Critical Question

Wednesday, January 6th, 2021

Is there no answer?

This evening, my favorite talk-show host took to the airwaves and condemned the violence that occurred today on Capitol Hill. As I’ve pointed out earlier, this looks like a set-up job by the DC UniParty, and while Levin(and others including particularly the President,) is right to  condemn the violence, and while I make no excuse for those who launched this assault, such actions being repugnant in a constitutional, representative republic, I nevertheless have serious misgivings about the focus on this incident for several reasons. Levin rightly points out that we have no room to condemn Antifa and BLM if this sort of thing goes on with alleged conservative actors.  I agree.  On its face, this was egregious behavior, and it appears that at least one young woman paid with her life.  The other point Levin made is that those who carried this out must be identified and prosecuted. Again, I agree. There is substantial evidence that the people who instigated violence at the Capitol today were in fact camouflaged members of Antifa and other various anarchists. I am not here suggesting that absolutely no Trump supporters took part, but I have serious doubts about the contention that is widely the case. More than all this, however, the problem comes in when Mark Levin argues that we must never violate the law. Never?  Not even unjust law?  Would violations of the law be impermissible even in a growing tyranny? You see, I believe we’re in a sucker’s trap.  I think this is the problem for which Levin and others, myself included, have offered no solution.  We are in a constitutional crisis, but I think even Levin, for all his wisdom can’t quite see it: Once the power of the state is perverted to the extent that official actors now participate in the fraud against the people, how then do the people ever correct it without resort to violence?

I do not say this lightly. We now find ourselves in the situation in which a large proportion of the country now believes the election was rigged and stolen, and not merely by private actors, which would be abominable enough, but with the assistance and collusion of actors in the offices of local, state, and federal governments.  Once you cross that particular line, it seems to me there is no going back, and no way in which to resolve it peaceably. Again, I do not make this argument lightly, and I also do not contend that my evaluation is perfect, or infallible, but again, I must insist that those who argue we must never resort to violence must now step forward to explain how it is we’re to logically, rationally, and legally overcome all that’s been arrayed against us.

Let us suppose for a moment that those of us who believe this election was wholly fraudulent are correct. What then?  How do we undo it?  As Levin himself pointed out in rightful criticism of Senator Rand Paul’s(R-KY) suggestion that this is a states’ issue, essentially, Paul laid down the notion that this isn’t something to be addressed at the federal level, and that the remedy lies within the individual states. As Levin contends rightly, what good is state law if it’s going to be ignored by states’ office-holders? You see, it’s a farce to suggest that if the legislature of Georgia wants to fix the election issues, all it needs to do is pass some laws, if immediately thereafter, their Secretary of State enters into a consent agreement with agitators for the opposition that effectively nullify the very laws they’ve enacted.  What good then is law?

Levin would rightly argue that we should be able to rely upon the courts as a backstop to enforce and uphold the law. Will they? All evidence from this election cycle suggests that the courts either have no stomach or are ideologically inclined to justify these transgressions of law.  You see, this becomes the inescapable and gaping hole in Levin’s argument. Of course, it’s not only Levin who makes this argument. I would, in ordinary times, make the same basic argument, but look at the scale of what’s been done, and what actually confronts us.  This is not an insignificant one-off in a single small jurisdiction that can be remedied by a single population of an isolated locale.  This issue is much broader, involving all three branches of government, and at all levels of governance. All of it is further buttressed by media institutions only too happy for the current course of things, since they are almost entirely corrupt too.

Like so many of my readers, I’ve raised my hand and recited the words of an oath to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States. To suggest, however, that we’re not in a constitutional crisis merely because we still maintain the façade of law and constitutional order is preposterous. It is quite clear that what we are seeing at present is a complete devolution of the constitutional order, or what Levin terms a “post-constitutional” disorder. While in the classical definition of the term, we’re not in a constitutional crisis, we nevertheless find ourselves in some sort of crisis, whatever adjective you might prefer to define it. This is an untenable circumstance, whatever particular label we may choose to affix to it. The simple fact is that we men and women who comprise the bulk of the population that holds up this country, whose children before themselves fight this nation’s wars, spilling their blood all across the globe, find ourselves in the position that we cannot rely upon law.

My questions for those wiser than I, can be only that which others around me find themselves asking of our thought leaders:

What now? What are we to do? What am I to do? I’ve voted. Over and over. I’ve elected people, and they betray us, or find themselves betrayed. We appoint what we think are good judges, yet they fail and abandon our constitution when the going gets tough. We follow all of the rules. We play fair. We volunteer and participate in public affairs in various ways. We man the polling places, but find ourselves ejected so we cannot even view the process. We do everything we can reasonably do. We short our own lives by contributing grocery money to these politicians. What more are we expected to do before we turn aside from the law? How can I overcome an enemy who will not obey the law? How can I get recourse when all the modes are ineffective or subversive?

I am not suggesting that I want an easy answer, but I must insist on a plausible answer.  Mark Levin famously wrote a tremendous book called “The Liberty Amendments.” I have one copy I read, and another autographed copy put away as a valued keepsake.  What good is it?  I’m being quite serious. What good is such an amazing idea? Yes, there’s a very slow movement of people toiling to get a convention of states together, and they’re making very slow progress, but it’s slowly waning because such a project takes decades, and most people can’t engage and maintain attention for the length of a two-page article. By the time a project of that sort bears fruit, America, as we have known it, will be gone. That is not intended to disparage the effort, but it offers no relief for the crisis in which we now find ourselves. Let me list the broad categories of problems, on the assumption that you’ve lost count:

  • The media is completely corrupt and is indeed an enemy of the people
  • Big Tech is dominated by leftists who are in league with or indeed comprise a portion of the subversives
  • The administrative state or bureaucracy now effectively makes, enforces, and judges law, combining all the powers of government into an unelected branch
  • The Congress is bought and compromised by people who do not share our interests
  • The Congress is run by unelected staff and consultants who feather their own nests
  • The Congress is completely out of control and we have no means by which to directly remove them when they transgress the constitution
  • The executive branch is out of control because it relies too heavily on executive orders, in part due to the intransigence of Congress and the courts
  • The courts are useless, concocting law when convenient, or ignoring law when its not

That’s just the start, of course, but you get the point. Then, in the last twenty minutes of his show, Levin received a call from a gentleman who raised essentially the same question, analogizing the situation to a football game in which the game is rigged, the opponent cheats, the referees collude with the opponent, and the commissioner offers no relief.  To his credit, Levin said in response that there are no easy answers.

But he will not advocate violence. He will not call for a civil war. He will not call for lawlessness.

Fine. How then, captured by at least the laundry list of deficiencies only briefly outlined above, are we ever to overcome it?

No answer.

You see, this is the point at which I have begun to part ways from Mr. Levin. I am not a violent man. I abhor violence, and I truly revile senseless destruction of any sort. I came of age in a world where two global powers constantly contemplated wiping one another from the face of the globe, with me as the forward-stationed cannon-fodder. I saw men injured, maimed, and killed, just in training for that war that never came, at least not in that form, so I know too well the costs of violence.

That said, Levin mentioned that all of this is coming to a head. Indeed. What then? You see, I believe in self-defense, and I also believe in the defense of my nation. At what point do we, as individuals, make the decision that we’ve done all that we can peaceably do, but that action is now required that must risk more than peaceful protest and public political activism? Levin closed the show by stating bluntly that he will never advocate violence.

Never? Under no circumstance? Inconceivable?

You see, this is where I do part company from Levin. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and all those other men of that period also parted company from Levin.  I think part of the problem, and it’s much broader than just Levin, is that if you’ve had your business closed by a lockdown in one of these deep blue hellholes, or had your vote stolen/nullified in one of these compromised states, you may have a different view. If you’ve watched your country systematically demolished, but haven’t the means to make an escape to safer shores, you may view this differently. If your children have been propagandized right under your nose in the college or primary schools for which you’ve paid through the nose, only to see them turned against you, I suspect you may feel differently.

Mark Levin doesn’t know me. I have some reason to think he may be slightly aware of me. Over the years, when I’ve been able, I’ve contributed to many of the causes and candidates he has recommended, but that doesn’t mean he owes me anything. What I do think he owes his audience, me included, if it’s anything at all, is some sort of explanation of what we are to do. Most of my readers are regular listeners to his show. I’d wager that at least half my readers have subscriptions to BlazeTV and have had subscriptions all the way back to the start when it was LevinTV. There isn’t a book he’s written of which I don’t have at least two copies, all in hardback(usually one dog-eared and marked-up as a study tool, and one in pristine condition, often autographed and kept as a collectible) save for “Men in Black” and “Rescuing Sprite” which were available new in paperback only by the time I became aware of them. I receive mailings from Landmark Legal Foundation to which I am a contributor when I find a few spare dollars to send. My point is that like so many of my readers, I’ve availed myself of Mark’s work and supported it frequently. I don’t religiously purchase from his advertisers, but if I am purchasing an item in the same category as one advertised on his show, I always choose it and make sure the seller knows where I heard about their offerings. Like most conservatives, I am loyal to those who serve our nation while entertaining, educating and edifying me and those around me.

I don’t know if Mr. Levin will ever see this piece, but if he does, I suspect it will pain him a bit, as it does me to write it. I love his show, and I love his sense of humor, and I enjoy his taste in bumper-music. He adds value to my life, every day, but I’m afraid that on this day, I need a little more. Given all that confronts us, to say that I’ve been demoralized is to understate the scope and the intensity of the issue. It’s not that the fight has gone out of me, because I love my country, and I’ve done more on behalf of my country and countrymen than most by a fair piece, and maybe that’s why the demoralization now feels so intense: You can’t know how much you love a thing until you’ve risked your neck for it, toiled for it, shed blood, sweat and tears for it, and sworn your allegiance to it, all to see it collapsing around you. I know Mark doesn’t have all the answers, but the answer cannot be just to lie here, supine, and take whatever it is that they dish out.

Now the leftists will, it seems, control all of the federal government. Top to bottom. Side to side. They are already planning all the mischief they intend. They have legislative packages ready to go, to send to the desk of…President Biden, the imposter, who will happily sign what they send him into law. Levin says he will never advocate violence.  It sounds great, until you realize what it means in full. They will come for our second amendment and all the implements of its exercise. They will not amend the constitution. They will simply shove it down our throats with a packed court and a stolen Presidency and Senate. I will not be made defenseless. If the disposition of the Polish Jews in Warsaw taught no other lesson to posterity, it must be that one. I also will not be reduced to a rat, left to shelter in my nest, clutching my implements, while waiting to be “evacuated.” In New York, the legislators now introduce a bill to detain and take into custody any people who might carry or pass any disease.

What answer is there to such things — to prevent the execution of such things? If the law is no further impediment to tyranny and abuse, what remains? I don’t revel in the asking of this question. I detest the fact that I find myself in this position. But wishes are not reality. There is a reason that civilized nations consider violence as the last resort. The question is rapidly advancing to the forefront: Have we arrived at a time of last resort?

What, concretely, am I to do?

 

Editor’s note: I’ve had a question from a reader asking “what is the classical definition of constitutional crisis,” mentioned above. Generally, a constitutional crisis is any of a number of possible situations in which the constitution provides no answer to some sort of underlying contradiction. It’s essentially a sort of structural problem, and it can have many types of causes. In this way, one might consider our current circumstance to be a constitutional crisis, because the constitution certainly offers no clear remedy when it’s apparent that some or all branches may have essentially discarded its provisions, restrictions, or prohibitions. Still, I think the term intends to countenance those sorts of issues that can arise out of parties exercising their powers, privileges, rights and so on and what happens when those come into clear conflict. I understand why legal and political theorists might not consider our current situation to fit within the loose definition of a “constitutional crisis,” as they might define it, but we’re certainly in a crisis, inasmuch as it’s difficult to find anybody in Washington DC willing to live within its bounds. Maybe a better term here would be “constitutional catastrophe,” because whatever you call it, this situation is likely to result in the dissolution of the republic. Most consider the attempted secession of the Southern states in 1861 to have been a constitutional crisis, because, among other reasons, the constitution is silent on how or if states may leave the union, having previously entered it. I have always thought that among the flurry of amendments after the Civil War, Congress ought to have passed one describing a legal procedure for secession. (I don’t think parties should be forced to remain married once their differences have become irreconcilable, or partners compelled to remain in a business partnership once they’ve become irreconcilably averse to said relationship, but that’s another story for another day.)

RINOs on the Radio: WBAP’s Morning S-Show

Monday, December 7th, 2020

WBAP Morning Crew – Brian Estridge and Hal Jay at Center

In this post-election period, as Democrats continue their efforts to cement the steal, the media is showing its knickers. Even in venues many have long held are “conservative,” the truth is becoming obvious. On Monday, during the morning show on the very popular WBAP in the DFW area, the hosts, Brian Estridge and Hal Jay, spent their time explaining how it’s the “right thing” for Donald Trump to attend the inauguration of Joe Biden in January. Naturally, many of their listeners disagreed, and they read a few emails. Estridge implied in a haughty tone that he wanted people to explain how it would be consistent with their Christian principles for Donald Trump to skip the inauguration.  Ladies and gentlemen, I don’t know a single thing in Christianity that suggests one must play along happily with fraud, theft, and pure evil. I don’t know anything in scripture that says Christians are condemned to be suckers.

This is what the media offers us as “conservative” media. These are the people who have a very superficial view of Christianity. In their view, apparently, being amicable to evil is a sign of maturity. That was their other contention: “Somebody needs to be the adult in the room.” I wonder what kind of parents these guys are or have been. Being an adult requires saying “no” to fraud, lying, deceit, theft, and other immorality. Being an adult requires refusing to accept those sorts of things for the sake of amicability. Can we just admit that so many of the so-called “conservatives” in media are anything but? This sort of superficial idea that being polite is “doing what’s right” is so despicable that my contempt for it cannot be overstated.  When people tell you such idiocy, you should recoil from it as withdrawing your hand from the path of a rattlesnake’s strike.

There’s nothing “right” or “adult” about accepting the inauguration of a stolen presidency. Indeed, what’s right is to stand against it. What’s right is to oppose it at every turn. What’s right is to prevent it if possible.

On that front, the two hosts offered: “Show the proof.” Apparently, they’ve not seen the testimony, or watched the video, or read any of the thousands of affidavits. That, or they don’t understand what constitutes “evidence.” Folks, sworn affidavits are evidence. You’ve seen the video of the “suitcases of ballots” being pulled out an counted without the presence of the press or legal poll watchers in Georgia. According to Georgia statute, every one of those ballots is illegal in Georgia.  EVERY ONE. Georgia statute requires no ballots be counted in secret.  Without press and poll-watchers present, this is precisely what occurred at the State Farm Arena between 10:45PM and 1:30AM on election night.  Ignoring this FACT is the typical media-driven nonsense by which you ignore details so you can run with the lie: “There’s no evidence…”

Listen to WBAP’s morning show with caution. These guys are your typical RINOs. They won’t take positions that the LameStream Media tells them are too controversial, and they’re not willing to stand on principles, but more, it’s clear that such “principles” as they observe are nothing of the sort. It’s typical for this class of fools to substitute surrender for the sake of alleged comity.  On Monday morning, they seemed to be indicating their growing contempt of their audience, in much the same way FoxNews has done since immediately before the election, and particularly afterward. There’s nothing Christian or conservative about accepting evil, or treating with it on equal footing. There’s also nothing adult about it. “Doing what’s right” is frequently controversial, difficult, and brings much gnashing of teeth from those who wish to endorse evil by silent assent.  I’m sorry to say that WBAP’s morning show is dominated by people who’ve either abandoned truth or simply never knew it.

Who Censors a Lie?

Friday, November 6th, 2020

Would you censor a lie?

Growing up and becoming an adult during the Cold War, I had the opportunity to see what propaganda and censorship by true authoritarians look like. In my years in the Army, I served in Europe, and I was able once to take a tour through Checkpoint Charlie into East Berlin on an officially sanctioned bus tour. During that tour, we learned many things, we young men of the Field Artillery who sat quietly in our dress greens as the official Soviet chaperone boarded the bus. He would be our “tour guide,” which is to say, he was our official “minder.” Naturally, like any other such tour that ever occurred, we were on official orders to be permitted onto this tour. We learned so much, but only if you paid close attention. Apart from the minder, our chaperone, the first thing we learned is how statists always hide the truth.  Standing in West Berlin, looking East into the imprisoned city, apart from the ghastly wall and watch towers dividing the city, you could only see what appeared to be tidy, ordered city.  The truth, however was much different, as we would soon learn: Only the truth is ever concealed by authoritarians. Why would you censor a lie?

As we passed into East Berlin, and the bus gathered speed, one of my fellow soldiers soon whispered and nodded toward the rear, not wanting to be noticed by the minder. A few at a time, we looked back at the Eastern faces of the buildings and structures we were passing, and what that revealed was something none had expected: War damage. The year was 1986, and for more than forty years, no battles had raged in these streets, but the evidence of the fierce war when the Soviets laid siege to and finally conquered Berlin was all over the buildings behind us. They’d never been repaired. Chunks were missing from concrete and stonework, bridges and ancient walls and monuments, but the Western face, what we could see from the West, was all repaired and painted, as though no war had ever raged there. They’d merely concealed the truth of the destitute state of East Berlin from the world. Nothing had been repaired fully, because there hadn’t been the money to fund repairs under the communist system. They repaired only what could be readily viewed from the West. The uncovered, naked truth could be seen fully from the East.

The next lesson we learned was economic.  They took us to an open market.  Here, we disembarked long enough to walk among the vendors and the shops, where we could purchase such items as they offered.  There was one store, an electronics shop, and I thought it would be neat to just see the state of audio equipment there. (In those years, I very much loved audio equipment, and had accumulated quite the ensemble of high fidelity audio gear.) I looked around, and the first thing I noticed was that the best of the equipment was laughable. When I’d been a little boy, in the early 1970s, I’d had a little record-player that folded open, allowed you to place your LP on it, and when you folded the cover down, it would play the record with the tone-arm and stylus in the lid. The lone turntable on display in this shop was roughly on par with my childhood toy, albeit in black. The speakers they sold were similarly terrible little boxes filled with the most depressing assembly of parts I’ve ever seen. These were the jewels of the productive might of communism. Remember, this market in which were permitted to browse was a showplace intended to display how great things were under communism. The other thing I quickly noticed is that several aisles of the store were essentially empty, but for empty racks and shelves that were dust-covered and clearly hadn’t held goods in a long time, if ever. It was all a show. Even the other shoppers, allegedly East German civilians, were entirely showpieces, meant to give the impression of bustling, busy commerce. Three of us noticed the same women with different shopping bags of goods in the space of 15 minutes. They were all play-acting, or they were spies, or both. Even the shopkeepers were fake. Two of us walked into what passed for a grocery store. The worst convenience store into which you’ve ever stumbled was a palace of plenty compared to that mortuary. Mostly empty, what little was there was all for show.

From there, we went on to a War museum, in which we saw old Soviet weaponry, mannequins dressed in the uniforms of the day, and the museum guide told us about the “Great Patriotic War” from the Soviet perspective. His history was as falsified as everything else we’d seen on the day, but what was interesting was how he omitted the roles of the other Allies in defeating Germany. To hear his telling, you’d never know that anybody but Germany and the Soviet Union had been combatants in the second World War. When a couple of our less bashful soldier very respectfully asked questions, he replied in very censored language about the subject.  It was clear there were topics about which he was not permitted to speak, and they all bordered on the topic of political aspects of history.

What we learned on this trip is that statists, specifically communists, but any authoritarian of any sort, never hide lies. They never censor falsehoods.  They spew propaganda, but you can know that whatever they seek to hide, or whatever they try to suppress, is always, always the truth. There would be no point in censoring a lie.  If I were to tell my followers on Twitter that the sky was pink with purple polka-dots, Jack Dorsey and his army of electronic TwitNazis would have no reason to censor it. It would result in self-censorship, because all who saw such a tweet would soon realize I was either completely mad or simply a liar, and would quickly unfollow me.  Similarly, Mark Zuckerberg and his army of FacsistBook minders would never bother to throttle the circulation of such a post.  Why bother?  Who would share it on their own profile page or timeline?  Nobody, except perhaps somebody equally insane or intent upon a prank. No, ladies and gentlemen, there is no real reason to censor a lie. There is no point to hiding an untruth. Lies quickly reveal themselves.  Only the truth need be concealed. Matters of opinion are that, and nothing more, but to conceal facts and truths because they are accompanied by relevant opinions is simply more of the same.

There is a reason @Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg are using their platforms to conceal what the President’s been saying. There’s a reason these networks now cut away from the President every time he starts talking about the election fraud that’s been going on this week and before. There is a reason that people who support the President in various media are being censored, throttled, banned, and shadow-banned. That reason is the same as it has ever been: There is no reason to conceal a lie, or cover-up a falsehood. There is no reason on Earth that justifies what they’re doing, and the sooner the American people come to understand what me and my fellow artillerymen learned that day in East Berlin, the better off they’ll be. There is no reason to censor a lie, so that if you see censorship, you should immediately demand to know what truths are being concealed, by whom, and for what purpose. Communists and other authoritarian statists always claim that which they seek to conceal is “disinformation,” or “misinformation,” or “propaganda,” meanwhile they peddle their own propaganda shamelessly and unrelentingly. This is never accidental.

They’re censoring you, your President, and indeed, anybody who supports him. They’re doing it in social media, in television, radio, and in print. The only motive is to conceal that which reveals their lies, just as sure as if they claimed to you the sky was pink with purple polka-dots. The election of 2020 is being stolen from you. Don’t doubt it. Proclaim it. Loudly. Broadcast it everywhere. If they’re permitted to conceal this simple truth, we will never see the end of it, and we will never get our country back.

 

 

FLASH: Election Fraud – MASSIVE STEAL IN PROGRESS

Thursday, November 5th, 2020

The Fraud Must Be Stopped

Folks, it’s clear. Donald Trump likely won the election, but now it’s clear that the strategy is to steal it.

This is a coup d’etat disguised as an election. Period.

I urge you to reject all of this and demand that ONLY LEGAL VOTES BE COUNTED.

We have only us, Donald Trump has only us. The whole of the DC swamp is trying to spit him out of its mouth, and us with him.

There has never been an event like this in American history.

On election night, FoxNews refused to call Florida, Ohio, and Texas until much later. They called Arizona prematurely.

It was all done purposefully. It was to maintain an impression of the electoral college count with Trump behind.

Then, when FoxNews fraudulently called Arizona, it permitted the so-called “blue wall” states to stop the count. At 4am, they dumped-in huge numbers of ballots for Biden. This has been documented. This is all about stealing the election that Donald Trump has won.

Candace Owen (@RealCandaceO) has found that the dead have risen up en masse to vote in Michigan, naturally for Biden.

Folks, I know the media is dis-spiriting you and that at some point, they’re going to wheel Biden out to claim victory, but it’s all an illusion so that you will surrender and submit. They’re trying to steal this election. That’s what this is all about. If they can whip you into submission, to get you to accept defeat, that’s what will happen. Do not submit. Do not surrender.

Fight at least until Donald Trump tells you otherwise, from his own lips. I will not accept results of an illegitimate election.

 

Yan Report on Manufactured COVID19

Thursday, September 17th, 2020

Virologist Li-Meng Yan published her entire report on Zenoda.org. The report is available at this link.  Additionally, I’ve inserted the report here for ease of access:

The_Yan_Report

The report is highly technical, but her methodology seems straight forward. She identifies the places at which the genome of COVID19 has been spliced together. Basically, my lay-person’s understanding is that it’s clear from examination of the virus in detail that some cut-and-paste work went on with this virus.  Think of it like photo-shopping Hillary Clinton’s head onto Godzilla. In genetic terms, that’s what her report seems to indicate.  This explains her use of the term “Frankenstein” to describe the virus.

All of this is quite troubling, but what’s more troubling still is that the entirety of social media and the tech giants seems to be doing the bidding of China as they race to scrub her work from the Internet, or remove her from their sites, and also to attack her work with smears having no relation to her actual paper.

It’s not as though Dr. Yan is some sort of kook or conspiracy theorist, although they’re now rushing to paint her as such.

Why would all of these companies be working so hard to conceal this from you?

I thought they believed in “following the science.” Apparently, the only science they wish to follow is that which suits their narratives. Or China’s.

This is amazing, and quite dangerous in a “free society.” It’s garden-variety disinformation in a communist country.

 

The Media Biden Bait-and-Switch

Thursday, March 12th, 2020

Democrat-Media Complex Circling the Wagon Around Joe Biden

It has already begun. Since it has become increasingly apparent that former Vice President Joe Biden will be the Democrats’ choice for 2020, the so-called mainstream media has begun to circle their wagons in a protective screen around him.  Editing videos to exclude his most ridiculous, madcap, and explosive remarks, they’re doing their level best to hide from you how far Joe Biden has run off his rails. It’s not just that they’re a little deceitful, or that they’re using slick editing and packaging, but that they’re on a wholesale propaganda campaign by which they’re going to completely re-write not only Joe Biden’s more ancient history, but also his entire present.  They’re going to hide from the world how truly bad Biden’s condition is, at least until they can get him elected and sworn-in. Then, and only then, will they let the truth out: Joe Biden is about three minutes away from drooling down his chin.  That’s when the replacement will happen.  The Democrats are going to pull a bait-and-switch built on lies.

“Here’s good, solid, moderate Lunch-Bucket Joe. You can trust him.” If they can manage to get him through to the oval office, it will become “Poor, poor Joe. He needs to be removed for his own good and the good of the country.”

This is all they’re up to, but to carry it off, they’re going to need to get a significant number of Americans to believe it. The party faithful will vote for him because he’s their guy. No other qualification is necessary.  The bulk of the Democrat Party is Yellow-Dog these days, but the people they need to convince are the independents. This group of voters are frequently what I call “Windsocks.”  They’ll go whichever way the political and/or cultural winds are blowing.

If you want to defeat Joe Biden’s running mate(because that’s what will be at stake,) you’ll need to make that case to the Windsocks.

It’s going to astonish you.  You will come to see that the Democrat-Media Complex[DMC] is more capable than you had feared.  They’re going to whitewash Creepy Joe Biden until the casual observer(most Americans) will come to believe he’s “not so bad.” That’s the aim.  That’s the purpose for which all of these DMC cretins are now assembling, and it’s against this narrative which we must fight.

The truth is that Joe Biden has been a creepy, corrupt politician for years.  The fact is that he’s gotten away with it by being a loyal part of the DC Uni-Party.  In the end, however, the Democrats are going to pitch him over the side when it comes time.  In the mean time, they have a tall order: They need to draw the American people into electing this pig in a poke, While the #WuFlu is an opportunist’s goldmine for the Democrats, it’s just part of their arsenal. They’re going to keep this going all year long. Finally, for the sake of normalcy, they’re hoping the Windsocks will vote their way, overlooking all of Biden’s shortcomings.

That’s the game.

The Challenge We Face With Ignorance About Guns

Thursday, August 8th, 2019

Friends?

I was watching Fox and Friends on Thursday morning. Pete Hegseth was substituting for Steve Doocey, alongside regulars Ainsley Earhardt and Brian Kilmeade, and in their last hour, about nine minutes in, Pete mentioned how the discussion always turns to guns. Ainsley asked Pete what he uses a “gun like that for,” implying that an AR-15 is something odd or weird.  Pete made an explanation about his right to defend himself and so on, but he seemed unprepared for the question, and I think Ainsley was trying to ambush him a little.  Watch this video, beginning at 9:20:

Here’s the problem: Ainsley Earhardt doesn’t apparently know the first thing about firearms, and Pete Hegseth doesn’t know how to defend his position very well.

Both aspects of this small clip are discouraging to me, because I am terribly frustrated that Ms. Earhardt hasn’t taken the time to inform herself, and Mr. Hegseth, a veteran, hasn’t made himself more able to defend his position and be prepared to answer the kind of question Earhardt asked. It shouldn’t be difficult to shine a little light in this darkness.

I’d love to help them both.  First, Ms. Earhardt should be open to a little weapons education.  I’m sure with his friends and connections, Mr. Hegseth can find somebody to facilitate a little range-time and take the Fox and Friends show on the road, maybe to Ms. Earhardt’s home state of South Carolina. In that state, it should be easy to find people who’d be willing to demonstrate the difference between a select-fire AR or AK type rifle and the more run-of-the-mill auto-loading (or semi-automatic) firearms so that she could be informed.  After all, this is not difficult.  Let Ms. Earhardt fire the actual military versions, on automatic(with coaching) and then fire the semi-automatic cousins. Show that externally, the two weapons can look exactly alike, minus the selector for automatic.

Now, with respect to Mr. Hegseth, it’s a somewhat easier cure. Hegseth seems to be a reasonably intelligent guy, but based on this segment, I don’t think he’s spent much time thinking about how to defend his position in an highly politicized environment.  He should have asked Ms. Earhardt, first: “Do you know the difference between an actual so-called “assault rifle” which is the actual weapon of war, and a civilian modern sporting rifle, which however it looks, is not an “assault weapon?”

Whatever Ms. Earhardt may or may not know, it doesn’t seem she’s well-versed in firearms.  At that point, she would probably be reduced to: “No, I don’t know the difference.”  This is where education can occur.  Let me help. The two popular types, AK and AR, have several things in common.  In the main, they are gas-operated rifles that us the spent gas of one round to automatically load the next round. Where the difference between the military version and the civilian version comes in is the fact that the military versions have the ability to continue firing by simply holding the trigger. In this mode, the cyclic rate of these rifles can be extraordinary, in the case of the AR platform, obtaining a rate of 800 rounds per minute. The AKs, due to their heavier reciprocating assembly(bolt, carrier, piston, etc) are somewhat slower, attaining roughly 600 rounds per minute, but their bullets are roughly twice as heavy, carrying more energy even though they move at roughly 2/3s to 3/4s the muzzle velocity of the .223/5.56mm round used by the AR platform.

Hegseth should be well-versed in the technical differences between automatic and semiautomatic weapons. That’s not his problem.  His problem is his inability to express the need he might have of such a rifle, but more importantly the right he has to own one.  My readers are well aware of the fact that I believe machine guns ARE covered(and protected) by the Second Amendment.  Let assume, however, that we intended only to defend the right to own a semi-automatic version that is a machine-gun look-alike.  Let’s start with our right. Leftists and other anti-gun folk claim that when the 2nd Amendment was adopted, the standard service arm of the day was a musket. This is true, however, both semi-automatic and automatic arms had been invented, but were seen as too expensive for Congress to obtain in numbers sufficient to outfit their army.  However, it is important to understand that the musket was the standard of that day.  So was the feather quill pen and ink well, along with the manually set printing press.  The notion was that armed citizens ought to have and maintain the ability to resist an overbearing government, which would imply directly that the founders thought citizens ought to be at parity with the Army, at least in terms of firearms.  At the very least then, we can see that the founders’ intended object of the the 2nd Amendment was to guarantee the right to an armed resistance in case of blossoming tyranny.

Part of the problem is that Earhardt asked the question: What do you use them(“assault weapons”) for?  The great thing about the modern AR type rifle is that it works great for many things. They’re excellent all-around ranch guns, they’re excellent for self-defense in situations where the defender is outnumbered, and they are useful in hunting. (Some state prohibit some calibers for hunting, but it may be game-dependent and so on.) Of course, you can built an AR-type rifle in many calibers, and also an AK-type. At times, I’ve seen AR-15 platform rifles in at least a dozen calibers, AR-10s in several more, and AKs in at least a half-dozen, including 12 and 20 gauge shotguns.

Hegseth, caught a little flat-footed, managed to say “for personal protection,” but he should have had a laundry list: “To defend my home, to hunt, to do target practice, I compete with others, and I keep up my skills in case I’m ever called upon to return to active duty to defend my country,” or some variant of that. Instead, he came across as somebody who walked into a battle he didn’t know he was going to be called upon to fight.  I do wonder if Earhardt didn’t ambush him with that question.  She may be sincere, but I think the question was part of satisfying an agenda.  Of course, that’s fine, but Hegseth should have been ready.

Now, if Hegseth was clever, he’d make a pitch to do a remote from some place in South Carolina, perhaps he could contact the good folks at Palmetto State Armory, and maybe for the publicity, they’d be willing to host a little shoot and bring Ms. Ainsley down there to her home state and do some shooting.  I think it would be awesome. They sell both AK and AR platform rifles, and they have a great reputation.  They may even be able to get somebody who owns properly-licensed automatics to do a little demonstration.  The point is, it shouldn’t be hard for FoxNews to provide actual education to their audience, if they wanted to do so.

Let people see the differences. If pictures are worth a thousand words, then video is worth a million.  I think this is the value of having people in the gun-owning community reach out to the woefully uneducated to fill in the vacuum. People have a tendency to fill in the unknown with the bogey-man. They don’t fill in the unknown with rainbows and unicorns.  If you can alleviate the vacuum by replacing it with actual knowledge, questions like Earhardt’s will be answered and the bogey-man will be vanquished.  At the same time, somebody like Hegseth must do much more to be prepared for those kinds of questions. He should have crushed it, but he came across looking a little evasive and uncomfortable in his answer.  That’s definitely NOT what the gun community needs.

It could be that I’m picking at nits, but I think people who are going to discuss gun ownership before audiences of a million or more ought to have their acts together.  I like Hegseth, as he seems committed to assisting veterans’ organizations, and he certainly seems to have his heart in the right place. It’s not that his answer was “bad,” so much as it seemed incomplete and unprepared. Earhardt, earning the money she does working at FoxNews, ought to be able to alleviate her ignorance if she was sincere. Given her home state, it should be easy for her to discover the answers.  I think it’s fair to suggest that before one throws around terms like “assault weapons,” one ought to know what that terms is being used to describe.

Preparedness: Defense of Home and Country (Product Review)

Sunday, July 14th, 2019

Accuracy Begins Here

I make no bones about the fact that I believe in the full exercise of the Second Amendment, and while I realize there are those who will consider my views “extreme,” or some such thing, it’s in largest measure because they desire the approval of a cooing media. They’ve been conditioned to seek the approval of the popular culture and media, hoping to be labeled as “reasonable.”  I’ve never looked for validation among statists.  More, while they try to pretend that AR-15s have no use in self/home defense, the evidence strongly suggests otherwise, and more evidence came in on Wednesday. This being the case, I thought I’d take this opportunity to talk about one of the things I’ve always enjoyed, from the pellet rifles of youth, to when I was a young man in the Army, or in all the years since: Marksmanship.  The US Army taught me to be a fairly good shot, and perhaps owing to the eagle-eyed vision of my youth, (which seems to persist at distances, despite the arms-length affects of presbyopia in middle age,) I’ve always enjoyed being able to get the most out of any given rifle type.  A couple of years ago, I decided to build a custom AR-15.  I won’t bother you with the entire parts-list, but what I do wish to talk about is what I consider the heart of any such rifle: The barrel.  Bearing in mind that my experience with this type of firearm is extensive, having first handled an M16 at a tender seventeen years of age, I believe my opinion is informed by sufficient experience to offer some value to readers.  In this instance, I want to talk about barrels in general, but in particular, I wish to discuss a particular brand of barrel that has proven to me to be superior to others. The offerings of Wilson Combat seem to be as good a barrel as can be had for the money, and then some.  As I recently noted, speaking to another self-defense enthusiast on the subject, I’ve spent more for a barrel but I’ve never gotten more out of one.

The particulars of the barrel I selected were these:

  • 18″ Length
  • Chambered in .223 Wylde
  • Rifle Length Gas System
  • Bull barrel profile
  • .920″ diameter at gas seat(this has been superseded subsequently with a .875″ diameter gas seat.)
  • 5/8″-24 threaded muzzle(this has been superseded subsequently with 1/2″-28 threading.)
  • 1:8 RH twist
  • 416R Stainless Steel
  • Straight Flutes
  • Weight 42 ounces(Slightly lower in latest version)
  • M4 Style feed ramps

It’s a heavier profile, but because at my age, I’m not going to be running, jumping and dodging much. If I must, the extra weight won’t be nearly the problem my knees will be. On the other hand, I always consider weight a negative because almost no fight is from a purely fixed position.  I selected the .223 Wylde chambering because it is a good compromise between 5.56 and .223.  It can fire both cartridges safely, approaching the maximum potential of both.  The 18″ length was chosen because it is easier to wield if one must move in somewhat confined spaces, like an interior hallway, or through doorways.  I prefer the full(rifle) length gas system because it’s going to provide the best pressure and therefore muzzle velocity at the selected barrel length.  1:8RH twist seems to stabilize the 62gr rounds I prefer in most instances very well.  The shallow fluting lightens the load a bit from what it might otherwise be, and given the larger surface area, should augment cooling. The heavy profile should make for as rigid a barrel as you’re going to reasonably place in this particular performance envelope.  416R stainless is extremely resistant to corrosion.

Of course, when we talk about barrels, it’s hard to ignore the parts to which barrels attach, or which attach to or surround them.  In this case, a very lightweight, slim, free-float rail of 13″ length was used.  The upper receiver is standard DPMS forged 7075(as is the lower.)  The muzzle brake is a custom unit manufactured to my specifications by Larry Sperlich, of Pasco, WA. His custom brakes are exceedingly effective, and since he generally manufactures them from 303 stainless, like the barrel, they resist corrosion very well. (Larry will work with you to create the brake you desire. He does phenomenal work, so you can consider this an unqualified recommendation of his brakes. You can contact him via Ebay as seller Drhard1972.)  You’ll enjoy his work. These brakes are made from solid stainless round stock, so they can be on the heavy side, but then again, you’re quickly repaid for the extra ounces with recoil reduction and excellent muzzle control augmentation. Again, it’s a little extra weight that I’m happy to bear given the return.

Where the rubber meets the road when considering any barrel comes down to its inherent effects on the rifle’s accuracy.  This is best measured from a bench rest, and after zeroing the sights at a standard 25m(83 feet) with a standard type US Army zero target, it was interesting to note that the three-round group appeared as a single hole on the paper.  After relocating to a 100 yard lane, shooting a variety of ammo just to get a feel for accuracy, I shot the following brands/type/weights:

  • PMC Bronze .223 55gr FMJ
  • Silver Bear .223 62gr HP
  • Silver Bear .223 55gr FMJ
  • Federal Lake City 5.56 55gr FMJ (XM193BK)
  • TulAmmo .223 75gr HP
  • Wolf .223 62gr FMJ

I knew my first shots would leave a lot of copper on the sharp edges of the new lands in my spiffy new barrel, but I wanted to be “gentle” on it.  All of the zeroing was carried out with the PMC Bronze because it’s a good, average round, serving as a decent baseline for comparison.  In short, it’s neither the best nor the worst, but it does have a brass case, and their manufacturing process tends to lend itself to a basic level of consistency.  As expected, this ammunition provided for MOA groupings at 100 yards.  Occasionally, I’d have a “flyer” that either owed to some inconsistency on my part(maybe a jerk here or there when I’d break steady-hold discipline for some reason) or perhaps to ammunition variability.  In all, twenty rounds of the PMC at 100 yards yielded decent results.  I then moved on to the Silver Bear 55gr. This provided poorer results. I found that roughly 1-1/2 MOA was the best I could consistently obtain. The wind was calm/negligible on the day of testing.

The Wolf was slightly better than the 55gr Silver Bear, perhaps 1-1/4 MOA, while the TulAmmo 75gr managed to perform on par with the 62gr Silver Bear, with which I was able to manage a consistent 1 MOA at the 100 yard distance. The Lake City 55gr did roughly as well as the PMC, perhaps a little better, with one group managing 3/4 MOA.  (Conveniently, I was using one box of ammunition per sheet, and due to few other shooters on the range, I was using the target in my lane plus the one adjacent to my left that was unoccupied.  This permitted me to put up two sheets per trip downrange, and test two ammo types at a time. For context, as I was shooting, there was only one other shooter on the twelve available 100 yard rifle lanes, so no problems about range courtesy.)  To date, I’ve tried several other brands of ammunition, but my best results have been with the 55gr bullet varieties, particularly the XM193BK types. I will say that the TulAmmo 75gr ammo shoots reasonably well, and that the 1:8 twist rate of this barrel seems to stabilize the heavy round much better than I expected.  On one particular day of shooting recently, I managed 1/2-3/4 MOA on four consecutive groups shooting the Federal Lake City 5.56 55gr. FMJ ammo.

One of the downfalls of the 5.56/.223 caliber to me is the rapidly increasing instability with distance traveled, particularly in heavier rounds. Consistently, the worst performance I receive is with so-called “Penetrator” 62 grain green-tip varieties, but I think that owes to variability in the symmetry of the placement of the steel core within the bullets.  For standard bullet types, at 200 yards, the first signs of instability are already showing, and at 300 yards, if you hadn’t noticed it beforehand, you will certainly find that it becomes more inconsistent, and this owes to the inherent instability of the round.  All of this has made me very curious about a new caliber that has arrived on the scene, which is .224 Valkyrie.  The idea is to provide a rounds of greater weight than .223/5.56 and to be able to carry supersonic velocity beyond 1000 yards.  So far, reports from the field on this particular round are promising.  It’s been out for around two years, and in that time, it’s gained quite a following.  It’s not uncommon to hear of consistent performance at 1000 yards.  I will be investigating that caliber soon enough, and I was heartened to learn that Wilson Combat now offers several barrels in that caliber.

It’s useful to note that while Wilson Combat no longer offers the exact barrel I purchased, their replacement in their lineup that has several potential advantages over the one I own. It is identical to mine in all but the following ways:

  • 1/2″-28 muzzle threads
  • .875″ gas seat
  • Slightly lighter at just about 40 ounces

Obviously, at the slightly smaller diameter forward of the gas block shoulder, it’s also going to be slightly lighter.  Additionally, because they now manufacture this with the 1/2″-28 threads, there are many more muzzle brake/flash hider options for the .223/5.56 caliber rounds.  One of the things that drove me to find a custom manufacturer of muzzle brakes had been the difficulty in finding a brake with the 5/8″-24 threads and bored for the smaller caliber.  This means you’ll have many more options for muzzle devices, although I maintain that you’d be hard-pressed to beat the performance and price of Larry’s.  I now buy all of my muzzle brakes from him. His work is just that good.

I’ve fired a large number of .223/5.56 rifles over my lifetime.  It’s a good round within its proper performance envelope, which for most people with average to good skills is going to mean it will be effective out to 300-350 meters, although it can be pressed beyond that.  What makes the round particularly effective, apart from good basic marksmanship, is a good barrel and a decent trigger.  There are many drop-in triggers available, and I prefer a single stage trigger in the 3.5-4.0 lbs breaking force.  If your barrel is good, and your fundamentals are sound, a decent trigger with a low-weight pull will enhance your accuracy.  What I can also tell you is that you will hear all sorts of bragging about the accuracy of various rifles, barrels, shooters, and so on.  The truth is that any barrel in the .223/5.56 caliber that will consistently shoot 1 MOA or better at 100 yards, and 200 yards, is an excellent barrel.  If it will do so in hot and cold conditions, in cloud and shine, with a variety of ammunition, it’s a particularly excellent barrel. I have no reservations about recommending the Wilson Combat barrel in .223 Wylde, and based on the clear attention to detail in all their products, I suspect you’ll find similar results.

Here’s the latest variant of the barrel in question, with the three improvements mentioned above”

They also have a 20″ variant of the same basic barrel, that ought to provide comparable performance, with a touch more muzzle energy:

It’s also useful to note that at distances under 400 meters, unless I’m specifically setting up a scope, I prefer Troy folding iron sights.  I generally substitute a KNS precision front sight post (.034) for better precision on my iron sights, or as I commonly do, I turn down a standard front sight post to 0.40. Here’s the parts list:

For what it’s worth, my philosophy of use with this barrel is on a defensive weapon used where mobility is limited, and maneuverability may be hampered.  Alternatively, a young and nimble, physically fit shooter should not suffer any significant mobility penalty, and may not mind the added weight given the enhanced accuracy over more run-of-the-mill AR-style barrels. It’s a handsome barrel, and can be coated with all the usual flavors of Duracoat and Cerakote, although I’d advise slightly roughing the surface with some 400 or higher grit sandpaper. In my case, I used Tactical Black by Duracoat, but I masked off the fluting for a two-tone appearance.

To date, the barrel has not failed to deliver extraordinary accuracy, and I can’t say enough about it. It will certainly lead me to try out this offering by Wilson Combat:

In .224 Valkyrie, I’ll be looking at longer-range accuracy.  I view it as a potential lightweight precision long-range rifle.  It utilizes the same upper and lower receivers, the same bolt carrier group, though with a 6.8 SPC bolt, and followers for 6.8 SPC in the otherwise stock AR-style magazine.  Essentially, for a caliber change, you need only barrel, bolt, and magazine followers.  The ballistic efficiency of the caliber is excellent, and I’m anxious to give it a try. Key to the Valkyrie’s long range performance is the extraordinarily high ballistic efficiency that permits the round to remain supersonic as far as 1300 meters.  That’s a significant advantage over cartridges like 6.5 Grendel, that is good for 750-800 yard in supersonic flight.  Another key is a barrel in 1:6.5 or 1:7 twist to stabilize the round.

Like anything else in the free market, as more shooters adopt the .224 Valkyrie cartridge, the cost of ammunition is likely to come down, right now averaging between $0.50 and $0.70 per round, although that’s based on the 75gr FMJ Federal that it most widely produced and available. I recently found a sale on this ammunition for as low as $0.42 per round, so it is coming slowly down, at least in the entry bullet weight. As you step up to the higher bullet weights, prices go up as well. One of the problems with a new cartridge is that it takes time for the round to gain broad acceptance(if it ever does,) and then it takes time for manufacturers to begin to make it in sufficient amounts to bring the equilibrium price down to a more bearable level.  The thing about this round is that equipped with a 6.8 SPC follower, a standard AR-15 magazine can happily accommodate 25-27 rounds in the same space 30 rounds of .223/5.56 will occupy.  Unlike some other rounds squeezed into the AR platform, you don’t lose much in capacity by adopting Valkyrie, but you will apparently gain much in accuracy at middle to longer range.

What I can say in an unqualified manner is that I have been extraordinarily pleased with the Wilson Combat barrel. One of my favorite drills with the rifle involves timed circuits of my 5-target paper. Essentially, I start at top-left, and go clockwise, ending at the center. Basically, from the first shot, I get three seconds to acquire and engage each of the four targets. What I’m really interested in during this drill is that I will generally start at the top-left, and continue to shoot until 20 rounds are expended. What I’m hoping to obtain is accurate, consistent engagement of targets. At 100 yards, I get three seconds per shot, but at 200 yards, I give myself 4 seconds per shot.  I also vary the pattern, going from top-left to bottom-right to top-right to center to bottom-left.  This sort of drill gets you accustomed to acquiring and engaging targets under time pressure.  It also means if you have a malfunction, you need to clear it and move on in timely fashion. Fortunately, with this rifle, I’ve yet to suffer any malfunctions, but practicing for them is still important.  This can be a lot of fun, and it’s a good way to find out how you’re managing your steady-hold discipline.  One of the things you’ll learn, if unaccustomed to the AR platform in general and the .223/5.56 NATO round in particular is that the zeroing procedure creates a rifle that will shoot high at 100m, 150m, 200m, and 250m, while being bang-on at 50m and 300m.  This is because the zeroing procedure developed by the US Army relies on the ballistics of the round, inasmuch as the round’s flight between the muzzle and 300m is represented by an arc. On the M16A1, the rifle I grew up with, the use of the rear dual aperture sight, flipping up and down between long and short range, is the method for maintaining the appropriate sight picture and corresponding strike of the bullet.

For those unfamiliar with the Army’s zero procedure for an M16, it’s done using a reduced-size silhouette target printed on a grid.  The target is placed at 25m(roughly 83 feet,) and the idea is that by using the iron sights, you shoot three-round groups and adjust the sights to move the strike of the bullets to the center of the target, while using the long range(smaller) aperature.  What this creates is a condition in which the arc of the bullet’s path will cross the line of sight to a 300m target at approximately 25m and again at 300m. I prefer to equip any AR-15 with folding back-up iron sights, usually Troy Industries’ offerings, before I mount any optic.  My notion is that iron sights are really my primary, and that any optic I’m using is something I consider a temporary “upgrade” the use of which may not be possible under some less than optimal circumstance.  I therefore always zero my AR builds with iron sights, and go through several cycles of folding and unfolding the sights to verify a return to zero.  Troy’s sights are pretty solid units, so I don’t sweat the return-to-zero so much, but it’s always good to check/test.  What I frequently customize on the Troy sights is the front sight post.  I nearly always replace the front post with a KNS Precision sight in .034 size, or I simply turn down the stock front sight post using a drill and a small flat file, as I did when I was a soldier.  I have always found that the smaller I make the post, the more accurate my shooting becomes. As was [re-]popularized by Mel Gibson’s character in The Patriot, the reliable marksman’s adage has ever been: “Aim small, miss small.” At any distance beyond 300m, the standard AR front sight post will begin to obscure a standard silhouette target, and while I’d be unlikely to be taking too many shots at more than 300m, it’s worth the extra stretch in effective range.  I find it also gives me a better way to gauge distance to a target.

Of course, with the original M16, M16A1, and M16A2, the length of the barrel was 20 inches, which has a definite effect on range, muzzle velocity/energy, and accuracy.  I always considered it foolish when the Army decided to downsize the M16 series into the M4 series, with the shorter 16 inch barrel, but I understood the rationale: They knew that very few soldiers would be taking shots at enemies 300m distant on the modern battlefield, but would instead face combat at distances between 25-200m much more frequently.  The shorter barrel makes for a lighter burden, and is more compact for confined spaces of corridors, alleys, hallways, and other more urban-oriented environments.  Also, as a practical matter, if one finds oneself needing to defend one’s convoy from the cab of a moving vehicle, the longer M16 would be far more unwieldy.

That’s one of the reasons I like the 18 inch barrels offered by Wilson Combat: They retain most of the ballistic advantages of the longer barrels, but they are much more easily maneuvered in tighter spaces.  That said, I still prefer the longer barrel of the standard rifle length.  Perhaps only because that is what I became accustomed to in youth, or perhaps because of my long reach, I find I am very comfortable with it. It helps that I’m a rather taller person, so that a rifle like the standard M16 already seems somewhat compact to me, particularly measured against the M14s and M1s of the generations I followed into uniform.

One of the best aspects about modern firearms is the ability to customize, particularly with the AR platform.  What makes the AR-15 platform so attractive to so many is that it’s an easy weapon system to master.  It’s relatively light and compact, and there is an almost endless array of parts to tailor your AR to your particular uses and tastes.  Myself, I’m willing to sacrifice a little lightness in favor of a better, somewhat heavier barrel, because I know it will pay accuracy dividends, and besides, one can nowadays save weight in other areas, perhaps using exotic, carbon-fiber hand-guards.  My point to you is that it’s possible to make your AR-15 uniquely your own, but for me, beginning with a really well-made barrel is essential, and the offerings by Wilson Combat are fantastic.

A large number of people buy(or build) expensive, fancy, high-class firearms, but seldom take them out to shoot. I realize it can be difficult, especially depending on where you live and what the legal environment looks like, but I must say that buying or building a nice rifle, followed by simply throwing it in the gun-safe, only to pull it out to admire every now and again isn’t a very good way to attain or maintain proficiency. Shooting skills are perishable.  Learning and mastering the battery of arms for a given firearm is also easily forgotten, and muscle memory doesn’t last indefinitely.  My point to readers is that in this increasingly uncertain world, don’t let your skills go without exercise.  If you’re going to build an AR-15 type, or intend to buy one with an eye toward customization, start with a good barrel. From my decades of experience, where your hardware is concerned, the barrel is the single most influential piece of hardware in your accuracy puzzle.

Editor’s Note: I NEVER receive any benefit for reviews of products. I don’t take any, and never would. The products endorsed in this article were purchased for my use, by me for my use, and those manufacturers had no input in what I’ve said about them here. Period.

Mourning for America

Saturday, July 13th, 2019

Mourning for America

I know it’s been a while since I’ve posted regularly, and I’d like to thank my loyal readers who check in occasionally. I’ve been busy at the paying job, and busy on the farm. That probably explains much of my absence, but the truth is that there is more to it than that. I’m like many other American conservatives who look around and wonder where their country has gone.  It’s dying. I can’t pretend that I feel positive about anything.  Watching the Trump administration struggle against the legions of fifth-column deep-staters secreted within the administration is simply torture.  At this rate, even if President Trump manages to win re-election, it seems as though it would avail us little more than a postponement.  The thing I had always feared is now demonstrably true: The left has so thoroughly embedded their sick ideology in all parts of America that we are watching out own children become the tools of our destruction.  Look at Google, a company I now consider to be a criminally seditious enterprise, and realize that for at least half a generation, they’ve been the source of such “knowledge” your school-aged children have been fed.  Your country is being re-populated with people who are either ambivalent toward American culture and the ideology that built the country, or in too many cases, overtly hostile to this nation and all the principles that had made it the envy of the world.  Ladies and gentlemen, I am convinced no longer of a future for the great republic to which I had swore an oath.  It’s dying, and if it goes but a few steps further, what we will experience is the final mourning for America.  I’m doing my mourning now, while there is time to remember the true value of that for which we must yet fight.

The left doesn’t care if they will burn it all down. Destruction doesn’t bother them, and in fact, it is their singular goal.  You and I have worked our whole lives long to build and create; to invent and innovate; to repair and renew the American dream and the American nation.  They denounce it all.  Their university professors are monstrous villains left over from the turmoil of the 1960s.  In the 1970s, they plotted against America(must watch!).  They plotted its diminution and demolition.  The whole time since, most of us went back to sleep thinking they had been repelled.  That was our version of falling for the notion that the devil didn’t exist.  They’ve never stopped.  They never paused.   While we went back to living our lives, they took over most aspects of the culture and the economy.  They took over education from stem to stern.  They own the media and big tech.  They own the establishment of BOTH PARTIES in Washington DC.  If you don’t think so, maybe you should let Paul Ryan tell you. He’s as indirect as ever, but the truth is revealed by his contempt. More, it was recently revealed what he thought of Trump, and in truth, Trump supporters, but Donald Trump had his own thoughts on the matter.

The throngs of illegal hordes at our borders are the foot soldiers for their overthrow of our nation.  Do you understand?  They’re supplanting us by migration and occupation.  They’re stealing our country and our culture.  We have at the moment the only politician who has tried to stop this overthrow of the American Republic, from his seat behind the Resolute Desk.  It’s fair to say that every President since at least January 1989 has been engaged in or committed to this overthrow.  Reagan was tricked into it with the 1986 amnesty deal.  All of this time, and the wreckage of our culture goes on unabated.

Working couples work their fingers to the bone, limit their procreation for the simple sake of economics, while all the takers live on the takings from their labors, raising an army of opponents to their own existence. It’s everywhere.  The welfare state, the Immigration and Naturalization (Hart-Celler)Act of 1965 has delivered the fruits it had been intended to bear: The American people and their distinct American culture are being systematically replaced by foreign nationals who no longer bother themselves about assimilation, and barely concern themselves with legality.  Of course they don’t follow our laws.  They’re here to destroy them.  They’re here to destroy your world. Think of Saruman’s legion of Orcs in the Two Towers. They were brought to the walls of Helms Deep not to subjugate a people into slavery, but to erase them from existence.  In this plot, however, many of these foot soldiers don’t even know that’s the purpose for which they’ve been assembled. Most of their individual motives are natural enough, but it is the motives of their masters with which we must concern ourselves.

Look around! President Donald Trump tried.  He did.  I don’t know that he or anybody else has the capacity to defeat them.  The so-called “deep state” is still trying to unseat him! They’re still trying to undermine him at every turn.  I know that like me, many of you undergo a daily emotional bender, like a drunk careening emotionally from curb to curb, between a glimmer of hope here or there as he fights back to the betrayals that come one right after the next, threatening to topple his administration.  We have federal judges engaged in this treason.  We have officers of our law enforcement and intelligence agencies in on the plot.  We’ve even had alleged “allies” who attempted to assist the coup d’etat while they carry out similar atrocities against their own citizens.  All of Western civilization is under attack, and like you, I go from despair to fury, while my wife calls our member of Congress and our two Senators daily.  I write emails.  I contribute to every cause I think will help.  Even there, we are too often betrayed.  The NRA is dead, for instance, and they will never get another dime from me, not even accidentally.  Instead, I am a member of and send extra money to GOA, and while I’m not Jewish, I am now a member of JPFO.  Wherever I can, I support groups that are real advocates of the right to keep and bear arms.  The NRA is to gun rights as Paul Ryan is to conservatism.  Still, many Americans contribute to the NRA out of habit rather than due to their institutional efficacy.

As I’ve explained elsewhere, when it comes to social media, I’m moving away from the biased, tired, burdensome platforms like Facebook and Twitter to better platforms like Parler and Gab and Minds. Even now, the tyrants at Apple are trying to squelch some of these new platforms by denying them access to their app store.

Only occasionally, we see glimmers of hope, even if it’s a simple display of truth in the face of pure idiocy:

The sad part is that Tom Homan is required to explain this to the blithering idiot. These people are attacking our country, the media is almost entirely in collusion with them, and unless President Trump pulls a rabbit out of his hat, I think we’ve already lost the republic.  I think it’s every bit as bad as that, as our friends and neighbors fire off their 4th of July fireworks in what seems increasingly like a memorial to a dead republic.

2020 is apt to be 1860 all over again.  We will either defeat them and put them on the ropes, or we will be faced with an all-out catastrophe that leads inexorably to the second American Civil War.  It’s astonishing and painful to think of it, but every election is one more opportunity to delay it, to forestall it, to prevent it.  In the mean time, I urge my fellow patriots to two courses that are in truth a single course: Prepare and fight. Fight and prepare.  Get your home and hearth in order for the worst possible events.  As you do, wherever you can, carry out the political fight knowing that to fail in politics is to resort to war.  Carry out your political pursuits with the fervor of those who know the truth of the only ugly alternative, opposed to the simple minds who blindly follow not knowing they are the intended cannon fodder for other peoples’ revolution. While you carry out the political battle, continue to prepare for the real one that our republic’s enemies are hoping to incite.  I will be talking about the kind of preparations you can make. I’ll be shifting the focus here a little. This may end in the ugliest of ways, and while we should fight like Hell to avoid such a thing, we must nevertheless be prepared for it, and be able to conduct it as necessary.  I really don’t wish to mourn for my country, but it may come to that, and if so, let it not be said that I hadn’t done all I could to prevent it. Prepare my friends, because it’s as bad as that. Fight with all you can on the political front while politics may still prevail, because time really is as short as that.

How Donald Trump Can Save the World (Or at least the Internet)

Tuesday, March 19th, 2019

Trump Can Save the World… Or at least the Internet

In the wake of the horrific shooting in New Zealand, what we’ve learned is that the country is fully invested in Internet censorship.  They now threaten to jail and fine people who possess, publish, and/or share video of the shooting.  There’s no such thing as Freedom of Speech in New Zealand, and this is a spreading phenomenon as more and more countries use their regulatory power over telecommunications companies as well as plain old tyrannical law to censor their people.  We must never permit this here in the United States, but increasingly, large corporations that claim exemptions under the Communications Decency Act have begun to behave like content publishers rather than mere publishing platforms for content creators.  This is despicable.  On the one hand, Facebook claims indemnification from lawsuits because they are not a content creator, but on the other hand, Facebook wants to control and maintain veto authority over content.   President Trump must act to take this on, and one lever he has against some foreign governments deals directly with Anglophone countries, including the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.  What he must do is threaten to walk from FVEY(pronounced Five Eyes) and begin denying them access to our signals intelligence.  They already deserve sanctions for assisting the Obama administration in spying on Trump’s campaign, but this is an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone: Reform and free the Internet along with free speech or the USA will withdraw from the UKUSA agreement.

President Trump should begin on a small scale, by conquering the Anglophone world, first. The first place he must act, sadly, is in the United States.  He must put the various “platforms” on notice that if they insist on censoring content, he will be forced to treat them just like any other content publisher.  Let’s see how that goes, first.  After that, he needs to push this first to the allegedly enlightened Anglophone world, and then to Europe, and from there, Central and South America.  After that, it gets harder, but he’s going to need to tackle this.  Not only can he save the Internet, but in the process, he can save the world. You see, the Internet really only works well when free speech prevails.

This morning, GatewayPundit published an article demonstrating pretty convincingly that Twitter has intentionally depressed the popularity of @realDonaldTrump and @POTUS in order to hamper President Trump directly.  There are two things about this that must be addressed:

  1. This may constitute an illegal campaign contribution to Democrats
  2. This would mean that Twitter is acting as a publisher, and not as a platform, which would end their exemption under the Communications Decency Act

Of course, there are all sorts of other things implied in this case, but it’s clear that Jack Dorsey, Twitter’s CEO, (@Jack on Twitter) is going to have some serious explaining to do. It’s clear that his social media platform is acting more like a content provider.  I and other conservatives have noted some “Shadow-banning” in association with our own accounts, and it began in earnest once Twitter began tinkering with its algorithms.  Early on, what you got in your timeline was always in pure date-time order, meaning you got the tweets of the people you followed, and that was it.  Then Twitter inserted ads.  After that, they began manipulating who you saw, and how often, and started trying to determine whose tweets you ought to see, and whose tweets you ought not see.  Then came the great timeline kerfuffle in which they openly and brazenly manipulated the way your timeline received tweets.  The blow-back was pretty severe, so they tucked away an option in your settings, hidden in plain sight, that permits as user to revert to plane date-time ordered timelines.  The problem is that even there, Twitter is still manipulating the results.

For the last several years, it has been strongly suspected, and now proven, that Twitter has shadow-banned users and content for what appear to be wholly political motivations. “Shadow-banning” basically lets a user send out his or her tweets like normal, but those tweets are hidden from the user’s followers, and neither the user nor his followers are aware.  In some cases, they’ve used this to simply delay the posting of tweets, meaning that your tweets will ultimately be seen, but often long after their relevance has been lost.  Sometimes, this seems to be user-based, and sometimes, it’s based purely on the content of a particular tweet.

What all of this means is that Twitter is engaged in systematic discrimination against conservatives and other users they don’t like for various reasons.  This means that they’re actually designing the content of peoples’ timelines, rather than letting come what may, as should be the case if they’re simply a platform for free speech, as they claim. It’s time to address this, and President Trump has that authority.  Yesterday, Devin Nunes(R-CA) filed a lawsuit against Twitter for defamation based on these and related types of discriminatory and misleading activities.  Here’s a clip from Hannity, on which Nunes appeared on Monday:

The President is in a position to do something about all of this, and he should leverage any assistance he can get from Congress, the Federal Communications Commission, the Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, and any other assets at his disposal.  If Twitter(and other social media companies) is going to maintain its exemption under the Communications Decency Act, then they must immediately cease censorship of content.  Otherwise, they must lose their exemptions and be subject to the myriad of lawsuits that would ordinarily arise if that exemption was not in place.  The whole purpose of that exemption was to create a place where free speech could reign, and not be confounded by endless lawsuits, but when the platform itself is corrupted, it becomes a publisher and not a referee preventing abuses.  That’s where the Federal role to intercede arises.

In our modern age, Twitter is just one of a number of social media companies, but as Nunes contends in his lawsuit, to remain competitive in politics, business, or almost any sort of pursuit, one must be tied into social media or be overrun by competitors.  It’s therefore essential that Twitter and other “platforms” be brought to heel, before they are making all of the decisions about who can speak in any context on any subject.  What they’re doing now is a fraud and a hoax against their users.  If President Trump wants to make a real difference, he can save free speech, and thereby save the prime value of the Internet, which is to give you and I a voice and a way to plug into the global discussion.  Otherwise, it really is just an Orwellian world of double-speak in which freedom doesn’t exist despite flowery words to the contrary.

Go get ’em, President Trump!

 

Judge Jeanine Silenced By FoxNews(Updated 2x)

Monday, March 18th, 2019

Justice Finished at Fox News

Those of you who’ve been reading this blog for years will know that I’ve never been a big fan of Jeanine Pirro.  At times, I think her positions are not really so conservative, but that’s okay, because we’re all entitled to our own opinions.  If she annoyed me, I’d just change the channel, as I do with anybody else in media.  It’s called “choice,” but for some reason, leftists only enjoy non-choices disguised as choice(infanticide, for instance.)  In this case, what’s been revealed is the degree to which Fox News is becoming more and more like the other Ameriphobic news outlets.  The writing has been on the wall for several years, but viewers had reason to hope. Last Saturday, the 9th of March, on her Fox News weekly show Justice, Pirro asked about Ilhan Omar:

“Is her adherence to this Islamic doctrine indicative of her adherence to Sharia law, which in itself is antithetical to the United States Constitution?”

Here’s a clip from a Youtuber that contains the controversial clip from “Justice with Jeanine:”

Notice that the quote cited above is the quote widely cited in media, but having watched the video, in context, this question doesn’t seem extraordinary or out of place.  Given Omar’s spate of ridiculous anti-Semitic remarks in recent weeks, Pirro’s question doesn’t seem out of line.

Fox News, now apparently an Ameriphobic network like most of the rest, decided to pull the plug on Pirro’s popular Saturday evening show, bowing to pressure from Islamophiles everywhere, including in corporate management.

Apparently the opinions and sensibilities of at Fox News are those of James Murdoch, Rupert Murdoch’s Ameriphobic son, who is running the network. After her question about Omar, Pirro refused to apologize, and as of this Saturday evening, she wasn’t on the air.  Justice is out at Fox News.

Annoyed, President Trump even retweeted somebody else’s complaint about it:


Of course, this was after he had tweeted extensively on the issue, seeming to demand that FoxNews buck up and defend its hosts, including Judge Jeanine. Earlier, he had tweeted this three-part tweet-storm(part 1:)

 

(part 2:)

 

(part 3:)

 


Like President Trump, I have tired of Fox News’ endless besmirching of patriotism and Americanism, particularly when it comes to their weekend lineup. I’m also tired of their incessant sucking-up to Islam. Pamela Geller was apparently banned from the network some time ago, and Geller was an unabashed critic of Islam. Her contention has been that there’s no real difference between radical Islam and Islam.  After Fox News stopped putting Pamela Geller on the network, I knew the network was headed down the path of surrender fast.

As of Sunday, it seems that Jeanine Pirro may be out entirely at FoxNews.

What’s most sickening is that after Fox News criticized Pirro, Ilhan Omar thanked the network.

As I’ve previously reported on this blog, Fox News is going to Hell.  The few conservatives on the network won’t be able to save it from its idiotic management by #Ameriphobes like James Murdoch and his gaggle of clucking Islamophiles.  I think I’m going to switch to One America News Network. I’ve been a Dish Network customer for years, but it looks like DirectTV offers OANN, so I may be headed that direction, unless ROKU offers it.  Besides, from what I’ve seen, OANN’s reporting is decidedly not Ameriphobic.  It’s time to turn the channel on Fox News. As a whole, the network has become hostile to my sensitivities, and this silencing of pro-America(n), anti-Jihadi voices must be stopped.  Now Fox News coddles an anti-Semite like Omar, while they toss overboard a host who, despite my disagreements on many issues, is an undeniable patriot.

I hate the media Nazis who seem to have need to silence voices they don’t like.

Screw Fox News.

Update: Now we learn that Fox News has rehired the disgraced Donna Brazile, who helped rig debates by providing Hillary the debate questions.

Update 2: H/T Mr. L for pointing me to this accurate and excellent article at AmericanThinker.

See also: How Donald Trump Can Save the World(or at least the Internet)

Ameriphobia

Friday, March 15th, 2019

Ameriphobia: The irrational fear and hatred of America and Americans

If you say the least little thing about Islam and its adherents, you are immediately labeled. It is said of this despicable attack on a New Zealand mosque that the killer had been motivated by Islamophobia, the irrational fear and resultant hatred of people of the Islamic tradition.  This we are told is the nature of the motive behind the maniac who undertook this attack, and as a result, they point to Donald Trump(and his supporters, and other conservatives) because he once called for a ban on some Muslim migrants. On September the 12th, 2001, elements in the media began to arise to warn us to avoid falling prey to Islamophobic sentiments. The smoke-clouds had not yet cleared, and the fires within the rubble-pile at ground zero was still burning as CNN’s website published an article telling us that hate-crimes against Muslims were on the rise in the wake of the attack. The actual death toll was still unknown, but we knew the attack had killed at least 2,500 people, mostly Americans, and CNN was worried about an alleged rise in hate-crimes.  Ladies and gentlemen, this is despicable, and what I want to know is when we are going to create a label of our own, for once and for all, to be applied equally to the 9/11 attackers and to CNN: These people who are consumed with an irrational fear and loathing of America must hereafter be known as Ameriphobes, and their affliction must be called what it is: Ameriphobia.

Ameriphobia is the irrational fear and the hatred it generates against America and Americans.  It’s been widespread through much of the world for most of the last one-hundred years, but until the last few decades, it prevailed mainly among our enemies. Now, like a cancer, it has spread into the homeland, into our culture, into academia, government, and especially the media.  Those who spew their hatred against America and Americans are responsible for the irrational fear that drives the anti-American killers. Think of it: The 9/11 attacks were carried out by people militantly radicalized against America and Americans.  The killers in San Bernandino, CA, were motivated by the same irrational fear and loathing. In 2016, this disease of Ameriphobia even led government agents to try to undermine the candidacy, and then the presidency, of the pro-American nominee in the race, attempting a bloodless coup d’etat against the legitimately elected President of the United States.

Worst of all, the Ameriphobes have now succeeded in recruiting Republican betrayers to the cause.  Driven by this same irrational fear, they now agitate in the United States Senate against the President of the United States.  Secretly, they call themselves #NeverTrumpers, because they oppose President Trump, the openly America-first President, but in truth, what they really are is #AmericaLasters. The idea of a sovereign America, with sovereign American citizens, is so frightening to them that they can conceive of no goal more important than to block open America’s borders so that Americans can be overrun and replaced. The Democrats are so consumed with Ameriphobia that they cannot conceal their hatred any longer.  They now openly agitate against resolutions condemning the idea that illegal aliens would be permitted to vote against Americans and America.

In the wake of the shooting in New Zealand, these media maniacs have become consumed with Ameriphobia. Now twenty-eight months into an unremitting hatred of President Trump,  and a fear that America will be made great again, they feel compelled to connect monstrous events that occurred half a world away in a foreign country to the President of the United States.  Think of the preposterously irrational emotions behinds such a ridiculous contrivance! What, other than pure and unadulterated Ameriphobia, could possibly drive such hatred?  Ladies, and gentlemen, we must call them out wherever and whenever we see it, and it must be plain for all to see: The irrational fear and hatred of America and Americans has gone so far that we now have self-hating Americans. Born to this country, raised in the swaddling of the liberty she provides, they have been brain-washed to perceive this gentle embrace as an attack. They are terrified. Freedom is awful, they have been convinced to believe. This is the deadly nature of Ameriphobia, and it must be defeated.  Only Americans who love lives and cherish their country will understand that fear and hatred of America and Americans is self-destructive disease of the mind.

It’s not too late. We can defeat Ameriphobia and Ameriphobes, but to do so, we will first need to acknowledge that this disease is real, dangerous. It poses an existential threat against all we love, whether its adherents are Muslims or Leftists or any other form of statist.  It doesn’t matter whether it arises abroad or upon our shores, we must combat it and reject it at every turn. It’s time to cast out Ameriphobes because we cannot bear their irrational hatred any longer, and we must not shrink from identifying it.  At every turn, we must condemn Ameriphobia.  Our survival depends on it.

See also: How Donald Trump Can Save the World(or at least the Internet)

Tommy Robinson’s Revenge

Saturday, March 2nd, 2019

Exposing the FakeNews in the UK

Some of you may have followed the trials and tribulations of Tommy Robinson.  He’s a highly controversial figure in the UK, and the media spends a great deal of energy pursuing him.  He’s been repeatedly jailed for his activities in opposition to the Islamification of the UK, and due to his release of a video documentary,  he’s been banned from Facebook and Instagram.  Amazon, which still sells Mein Kampf, no longer sells Robinson’s book, Mohammed’s Koran: Why Muslims Kill For Islam. He’s constantly accused of “hate,” in a fashion that will be very familiar to American conservatives who find themselves endlessly painted as racists, bigots, homophobes, Islamophobes, and pretty much every other conceivable evil on the planet.  I’m not suggesting that he’s perfectly innocent, or that he’s never done a wrong thing in his life.  Even he doesn’t claim that.  This week, he published his own documentary that exposes the BBC.  In the final scene of the exposure, to see the looks on the faces of those he’s finally exposed is an absolute classic in the making.  Finally, he’s burned the biased media, in this case, BBC’s Panorama documentary program. It’s delicious in a way that only a working-class anti-hero battling the titans of the establishment can be. Whether you like him or not, this video that got him banned on social media platforms may not last long on Youtube.  It contains frequent profane language, so viewer discretion is advised.  It seems there are at least a few in the UK who haven’t yet entirely folded for the globalist agenda, after all. Here’s the video:

Who Or What Is Qanon?

Friday, February 22nd, 2019

The left says it’s a bad conspiracy theory by and for dolts who support Donald Trump.  The media, despite defaming Qanon as a conspiracy theory for brain-addled nitwits, gives this alleged “conspiracy theory” a great deal of print coverage on the Internet, but very little coverage on-air or in actual newsprint.  Why not?  Meanwhile, the very cynical NeverTrumpers either allege(like the left) that it’s a conspiracy theory, or that it’s a psychological operation by the Trump 2020 campaign, as a means and method by which to both recruit voters and also campaign volunteers(all of whom are presumably idiots because they support Donald Trump.)  There is a growing segment of our society, however, among whom Qanon carries great credibility. For them, it’s very nearly an article of faith.  Whatever Qanon is or isn’t, it’s becoming more and more difficult for the media to ignore, with giant “Q” signs showing up at Trump rallies across the country.  I wonder why the media doesn’t ask about “Q” at Whitehouse press briefings.  I wonder why it gets so little coverage on broadcast and cable television.  What do you call a “conspiracy theory” that the mainstream media largely refuses to cover in mass distribution despite its apparent growing reach across the country and around the world? Who or what is Qanon, anyway? Is he/it going to help President Trump vanquish the Deep State?  Is he really a “they?” What may be the most shocking part of this “conspiracy theory”could well be the discovery that it’s not a theory at all.

I began researching this subject a short time ago when somebody who follows me on Twitter contacted me via private messages about it.  In retrospect, I thought at the time that I had run across this someplace or another, but hadn’t given it any attention.  I think I saw some Q signs in a crowd either during a Trump Rally or perhaps in replay coverage last Fall.  I may have raised an eyebrow, but didn’t pay it much attention at the time.  In any event, it was also mentioned in comments on this site by a long-time poster, and while the Twitter follower had piqued my interest a bit, the long-time poster got my attention.  That poster provided some links, and some back-story information, some of which I’d already uncovered in my preliminary research, but some of which was new to me.  What I discovered is that there’s a growing community of people who definitely subscribe to this developing story, whether it’s conspiracy or real, and that fact is by itself all the justification I needed to investigate in earnest.  After all, for every person who exposes his or herself on the Internet, even in approximate anonymity, you must know that there are generally a dozen or more “lurkers” who read but never engage, for various reasons.  I know this to be a fact because at the peak of this blog, back in 2011-12, as many as two thousand people would read each of my posts for every one who commented.  Most people don’t want to create an account, or log into a website, or remember another damned password.  When I see evidence that hundreds of thousands of people are in some way participating in the Qanon phenomenon, I know that the actual number of people may well measure in the millions, or perhaps even tens of millions.

When you have any phenomena in any continental civilization that reaches even one-percent of the population, that is bigtime.  Less than two percent of our population watched the last game of the NHL’s Stanley Cup, last year. Less than two-percent of our population viewed the most recent episode of Empire, in which the now-controversial Jussie Smollett is an actor.  I had never heard of Smollett, but then, I’m a poor gauge of the popular culture.  Certainly, however, a movement that seems to have generated a whole cottage industry of Youtube Channels and websites that provide constant coverage of “Q” is not to be ignored.  Tallying the top dozen or so channels’ subscribers, the total comes out to well over a million, but that’s just subscribers. Some of the individual videos have many more than one million views, and some of them accumulate these large number of views in very short periods. If a video is garnering four or five times as many views in a week as the channel has subscribers, that’s an indicator of a large lurking audience, but when you see this consistently in viewership of a Youtube channel, what it means is that there’s a large, lurking audience that prefers to remain anonymous on principle.

In considering this Q phenomenon, what I hope to do is to determine whether there’s any veracity to it.  It’s a very detailed sort of story, but like all things even remotely political, the first question I have with this “Q” phenomenon is the underlying motive driving “Q.” There may be more than one person behind this, but still, there is some highly organized motive for pushing this.  It could be genuine.  It could also be a giant disinformation campaign and distraction.  It could be a campaign operation for Donald Trump or for one of his opponents, declared or undeclared for 2020.  It could be a foreign government, including the Russians, or it could be a past nemesis playing games at the expense of Trump’s supporters.  It could even be a collection of teenagers spoofing adults all over the globe and having one Hell of a good laugh at their expense.  One of the best clues we actually get comes in the examination of motives combined with the information provided to date by “Q.”

The stated motive is along the lines of communicating with patriots about what President Trump is doing to fight the deep state, along with assisting the President in that pursuit.  That sounds comforting, and it surely appeals to all the people who in their fondest wishes would like a superhero to come save us from the Deep State and its parade of villains.  Another possible motive would be money.  Imagine the advertising revenues one could rack up on Youtube and other platforms if you could generate tens of millions of views.  Of course, this must be tempered by the fact that Youtube and other platforms seem to be actively suppressing Qanon-related content, in part by de-monetizing some Q-related videos. (Some of the channel owners have bitterly complained in some videos I’ve seen.)  On Facebook and Twitter, Q-content seems to get suppressed.  Even so, the current strategy for circumventing this is to use graphical memes to carry the message, because those are so much more difficult for automated systems to screen and censor.  One “Q-tuber” seems to use code to speak to his audience, referring to Qanon as “our favorite anon.”  In fairness, however, I must state that it seems as though most of these purveyors of all things “Q” have absolutely no apparent commercial motive to speak of, while just a few seem to be more “about the Benjamins,” but even for those, that still seems like a secondary or tertiary concern.

Setting aside the stated “good intentions,” let’s examine what, apart from the purely commercial, could be among the motives of Qanon.  If I were a President under siege by a deep state, I would like a Qanon-style operation working on my behalf, but aren’t there easier ways?  It is true that the mainstream media is highly controlled so as to prohibit Trump from having much direct interaction with the people.  The State of the Union, earlier this month, is a great example of why the media wants Trump’s direct communications with the American people strictly limited, and why they wish to create a certain image of Trump that does not comport with reality, but creates a false reality they want their viewers to absorb.  This is why the media hates Trump’s use of Twitter, but they eventually remedied this: At first, they covered almost every Tweet; then they became better at framing those Tweets in a manner that was more derogatory to the President.  Still, they can’t put words in his mouth, much as they might like to, but they can misrepresent context.  For this reason alone, it is understandable why a Qanon-like character would certainly be a desirable thing, carrying the President’s water to the public, but bypassing the media.

I also think that if this was bad actor, the President would quickly send forth emissaries to disclaim and disown Qanon.  Imagine what the Democrats and other Deep-State dimwits would do with such a thing if it could be traced back to Russia, or some other locale indicating nefarious origins and intentions.  They would crucify him, and the subsequent impeachment and Senate trial would have been over some time ago.  Hell, Mueller would have been on the case!  He would have ordered a 6am raid on Q-Central, wherever that may be.  More curiously, the press has been mostly hands-off on broadcast and cable television, and in printed versions of their publications.  Online articles are one thing, but they seem to intend to periodically  flood of the zone, whereby somebody new, only now becoming aware of the Qanon phenomenon(much like me,) would do a quick Google Search, finding that the overwhelming majority of the first one-hundred links are highly critical and all refer to it as a conspiracy theory.  Go search for “Qanon” on Google.  (Myself, for the moment, I prefer duckduckgo.com as my search engine.)  I can almost guarantee to you that the linked results account for many fewer page views than the number of total Youtube views, and this means it’s been put in place as a deterrent or smoke screen.  To what end, I cannot yet say, but this is the obvious truth.  It’s also interesting that if you look at them by date, they seem to come in waves.  All of the outlets publish something within a couple of days of one another, followed by silence, perhaps for months, and then another wave comes in.  This is classic disinformation, and the media is carrying it out with apparent zeal.

The reason this is done is fairly simple: Most search algorithms include a weighting of some sort for recency.  Search engine users generally want newer and therefore  more relevant content, in general.  If all of the big media outlets post anti-Qanon content in the same week, they will all age at approximately the same rate too, with respect to the search engines, which means people like me, who may post about Qanon just once will eventually come in as being more current/recent in the search results.  Since I’m not part of their narrative, that’s bad from the suppressors’ point of view.  Periodically, roughly every three to six months, it seems, a new litany of anti-Qanon articles is published.  The same seems to be true on Youtube.  A spate of videos appear from different media sources, all at once, and all with the same theme: Qanon is a conspiracy theory and its adherents are kook-ball, tinfoil-hat-wearing, right-wing, Trump-supporting morons.  It’s so consistent that it’s clearly orchestrated, or at a minimum, herd-directed reporting.  Again, you can search it yourselves. Go to Youtube, and you will see that if you search for “Qanon,” almost all of the top results will be from around six months ago, and it will include videos from large left-wing outfits like MSNBC, as one example.  This is the trend you will see again and again.  If Qanon is really just a silly conspiracy theory, why are all the big outlets expending so much time on it, and why with such regular synchronicity?  Perhaps more importantly, why is it now penetrating into the popular media culture space.  Just days ago, Qanon was mentioned in the popular television series NCIS New Orleans.  I don’t watch any network television, so I didn’t see this, but it’s become big news in the Q-world.  Even though here too, it was defamed as a conspiracy, the fact that it garnered any attention in a major television show acts as a gauge of the phenomenon’s growth.  Here’s the clip:

The major media uses their television shows to push narratives they want to see active in the culture.  There’s not a reader of this blog who doesn’t know that, hasn’t noticed it, and hasn’t become sick over how media has been used for at least two generations to besmirch all things conservative, and all things patriotic.  The anti-American bias is a theme that has dominated mass media in the US for a long, long time.  The thing to note is that it’s a powerful tool, and the purveyors don’t generally waste it on things of little or no importance.  Prime-time television space is literally gold, so that you don’t waste part of a scene attacking something you don’t think warrants suppression.  Remember, it’s all about marketing and positioning: Just as they want to associate conservatism with all things bad, evil, hateful, and vile in the world, so too do they seem intent on similarly besmirching Qanon and its followers as crazy conspiracists.  If there’s nothing to see here, why bother?  The answer may be as simple as this: Despite other ongoing attempts to suppress Qanon‘s growth and reach, they’ve failed, and the growth has occurred and the reach has spread. Why would they wish to suppress it?  Well, obviously, it’s because they’re Deep-State shills… or it could be a simpler commercial motive: If you’re spending your time researching Qanon, you’re not consuming as much of their bilge.

Another reason could be that they’re actually behind it.  If one wanted to watch Trump supporters jump through hoops in pursuit of their tails, this would be a fine strategy.  Hell, they already know that the intended audience is not reading, watching or listening to their garbage most of the time, so why not torment them a bit?  After all, since the audience in question considers this collection of outlets to be “FakeNews” anyway, why not give them a real taste of “FakeNews?”  Again, the problem here is that if this were the case, you would expect the Trump team to put out the word that the Qanon phenomenon was a hoax, and part of “FakeNews.” No such disclaimer seems to have been forthcoming.

Or has it? One of the things I found in my research was the claim that the United States Secret Service was prohibiting people from entering Trump rallies while wearing Q-themed outerwear.(T-shirts, etc.)  This seemed to have occurred in the wind-up to last Fall’s elections. This story was posted on the DailyBeast, a publication that is as fake as FakeNews gets, but this claim appears to have been true. It was explained away in Q-posts as the result of some deep-state operative calling in threats against the President referencing Qanon.  That’s a nifty story, and it surely would explain why the Secret Service is keeping Q-merch out of rallies, but not so fast.  The Secret Service isn’t generally staffed by fools, and I doubt whether such a thing would go on for long unless there was a serious threat or the President and his people ordered it. It’s a good deal to explain away, and just a bit too convenient. What if the real reason the Secret Service doesn’t wish to let Q-shirts into rallies is because the President doesn’t want to associate even an implicit endorsement with this Qanon phenomenon?  Or, what if the President doesn’t want the media to give coverage to Qanon because it is a political operation that is part of the President’s campaign, and another fake persona thrust into the limelight by Donald Trump might be embarrassing.  Remember John Miller?  Is he Q?

I jest, but only slightly. One of the things that has appeared in all the Q posts is this: “Q+.”  I can hear the collective groans of my readers.  Yes, when Q+ appears as the signature at the bottom of a post, (rather than the simple “Q,”) it is alleged to either be the President himself, or alternatively, posted in the presence of the President or with his knowledge/consent, depending upon whose particular interpretation you accept.  If Donald Trump can play John Miller, surely he could play Q or Q+(or both.)  In any event, I find some of the Q-posts humorous even when the subject is deadly serious, because here, Barack Obama is invariably referred-to as “Hussein.” If nothing else, it should make all but the Deep-Staters smile.

Let’s summarize some things, so far: Qanon is alleged to be some sort of intelligence officer(or collection of them) who are working with Donald Trump to vanquish the Deep State.  Qanon posts information in “drops” that convey information that at times is very specific, but also sometimes vague, and encoded.  Very often, information is provided in the form of questions that seem to lead inexorably toward a single logical result.  The poster(s) known as “Q” has freely admitted that disinformation is included in some “drops.”

You can visit the following sites for more info:

  • Qanon “drops” can be found here: https://qanon.pub/
  • They can also be found here with added features(for example, the President’s tweets, toggled by clicking a button at the top): https://qmap.pub
  • So-called “proofs” of the legitimacy of Qanon can be found here: https://www.qproofs.com

Here is a list of some popular Qanon-content Youtube channels(a.k.a. “Q-Tubers“):

There are numerous others, many, but these appeared most often in my searches for content, and I must admit humor is a winner with me, so IPOT was my favorite, based purely on delivery and production value. PrayingMedic seems much more serious and sedate. Some of them have voices I just can’t take, and while that’s surely superficial, it makes it harder for me to listen to them. Others, like Craig Mason’s Reasonable Conversation Channel, I just want to tell him to a.) shave, and b.) stop grinning. I know, I know, that’s probably tough advice to swallow coming from a guy who has a face for radio and a voice for print, but again, you just have to call the balls and strikes sometimes. Some of them certainly work harder to deliver interesting content, and some work harder at delivery, and some frankly should stop cluttering the Internet with their babble. I’m sure they’d say the same of me.  One of the quickest ways for a so-called Q-Tuber to cause me to punch out is to talk about 9/11 conspiracies, or other such well-debunked nonsense.  None of the videos I’ve viewed by the list of Q-Tubers above(so far) have mentioned outrageous 9/11 conspiracies of the sort for which Alex Jones has been the purveyor.  Apparently, there’s also a sidebar about Alex Jones and Jerome Corsi that needs to be covered at some point.

Of all the Qanon-related content I’ve encountered so far, that which drives me right to the edge is the decoding videos on Youtube where various forms of Gematria decodes are done with the most tortured logic and fantastic assumptions.  Frankly, I can take just a minute or two of those videos before I’m ready for a rubber-padded cell.  The poster(s) Q frequently exhorts readers to “Learn our comms.”  If their communications involve Gematria decoding, I’m likely out.

For those of you who, like me, are just now becoming acquainted with all of this Qanon business, I beg your indulgence as I continue my research. The material above should provide a good starting point for those of you interested in researching this subject, but if nothing else, ought to provide you a little entertainment.  I’m far from a conclusion on what I think of the veracity of this story, and my default position is to side with David Hannum, who purportedly said of PT Barnum’s Cardiff Giant hoax: “There’s a sucker born every minute.”  Still, there are some tantalizing details here that seem more than mere coincidence, and  deserve to be ruled-out by facts before dismissal.  I’ve always been a sucker for a good mystery or spy novel, so while some of this research can be tedious, at least it’s not completely dreary. I’d also note that if some of the information posted by Q is accurate, we’re even more vastly under-served by the grotesquely corrupt mainstream media than even a cynic like me had dared to imagine.

In the next installment, I will discuss so-called “Q-proofs,” which is a class of circumstances, events, images and items of news that would seem to lend more credibility to the Qanon claims. I’m still not sure what to think of this, or how seriously to take it, but for the fact that it appears a fairly significant number of Americans seem to believe some or all of this story.  It may all be a hoax, or it may be deadly serious, but I’m not yet convinced either way. I am covering this because some proportion of my readers have now requested it, and because anything that has hundreds of thousands or even millions of Americans this engaged is something that demands examination.  Other than to cast aspersions, the lamesteam media certainly isn’t investigating it very seriously.

To be continued.  In the meantime, I leave you with the latest Q-video from IPOT:

 

Napolitano Wrong, As Usual

Tuesday, January 8th, 2019

As usual, the open-borders, chamber-of-commerce media, including FoxNews rushed out to tell you what you need to know.  As usual, they intentionally mislead you about the nature of the law. While I’ve already covered this issue, demonstrating plainly that President Trump has the authority, the media is great at lying and propagandizing, and sadly, that includes FoxNews on immigration-related issues.  Everything is squeezed through the filters they want you to see.  Let’s take a look at what FoxNews “Judicial Analyst” Andrew Napolitano has to say, and let’s see about the facts.  First, the video:

Now let’s analyze Napolitano’s claims and assertions about the law, which I’ve here paraphrased and condensed for further examination:

  • Presidents can’t seize property under emergency declarations.
  • Presidents can’t spend money without congressional authorization in an emergency.
  • The President must “make a case” for a declared emergency.
  • If the President had authority to spend money under emergencies, we’d have seen it before, but we haven’t.
  • Sometimes Congress has “looked the other way” when Presidents reallocate defense money from one use to another, but it doesn’t make it lawful.

First, as a general observation, let it be acknowledged that in certain respect, Andrew Napolitano is a radical libertarian on immigration generally, which is a strong reason for FoxNews to have picked somebody else to provide “Judicial Analysis.”  Naturally, FoxNews is itself a corporation that favor open borders, so it’s easy enough to understand their motives in picking open border hacks like Napolitano to make this particular case.

The first assertion of Napolitano was that the President cannot seize property under emergency declarations.

Let us go right to a pretty open-and-shut case: Roosevelt ordered the surrender of privately owned gold and gold certificates to the Federal Reserve on 5 April, 1933.  This was done under executive order 6102, with authority arising from the Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917, as amended. Gold is private property. Roosevelt was acting pursuant to an emergency he declared. Not convinced? Let’s go on to a second example, shall we?  In 1944, Roosevelt ordered the plants, offices, and warehouses of Montgomery Ward to be seized in order to force compliance with an emergency-based order of collective bargaining with a labor union, due to the ongoing war, which was the basis of the emergency. (World War II.)

Let’s just stop right there on Napolitano’s first point.  He’s busted.  Thoroughly.  There are hundreds more examples where Presidents made seizures of private property in time of war or emergency.  It’s called the “rule of necessity,” and it is the legal basis for all emergency doctrine.  Like most libertarians, I find such authority despicable, but they exist, have been exercised, and precedents must be recognized, as all the “wise judicial analysts” like to insist.

The Law: 1  Andrew Napolitano: 0

His next assertion was that Presidents can’t spend money without authorization by Congress in an emergency.  Let’s ask a Democrat Congressman:


Imagine that!  In addition to this, however, there are at least three known instances of Presidents’ spending without any prior Congressional appropriations:

  • Washington’s Unilateral spending to suppress the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion
  • Jefferson’s purchases of saltpepper and sulphur after the Chesapeake incident
  • Lincoln’s advance of $2 million to purchase supplies in advance of the Civil War in 1861

(See pages 22-23 of the following PDF from Harvard Law:  Constitutionality of Executive Spending)

These are older examples, but if it was good enough for Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln, it’s probably good enough for President Trump.

The Law: 2  Andrew Napolitano: 0

His next assertion was that Presidents must “make a case” to declare emergencies.  This implies that a President must go find approval.  That’s not the case. In point of fact, all a president must do is issue an emergency declaration, and point to his legal authority, and then act.  This has been done repeatedly.

The Law: 3  Andrew Napolitano: 0

His next assertion has already been covered: He claimed that if the President had such authority, we’d have seen it used before, but we haven’t.  See Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln above.

The Law: 4  Andrew Napolitano: 0

His last general assertion is that Congress may have “looked the other way” when it suited them, but that it isn’t lawful.

The problem with this notion is that legal precedents are born of such practices.  If Congress historically “looks the other way,” time after time, permitting the President to do such things without challenging them, it can also be interpreted as an endorsement of that action, or at least an affirmation of its legitimacy. In short, the court could very well view it as a precedent that bears upon their decisions thereafter.  “Looking the other way” once or twice might be tantamount to surrendering the issue in perpetuity.

The Law: 5 Andrew Napolitano: 0

Of course, there was at least one more assertion that had been made by Brian Kilmeade in the video clip above.  He mentioned that one couldn’t rightly term this an “emergency” because it would take too long.

This is a bizarre point.  The United States has been operating under all sorts of emergency statutes for DECADES, some of them continuously since the days of Jimmy Carter, and even earlier.  Read this fascinating article.

Imagine that, and yes, score Mr. Kilmeade a big fat zero.

It’s time for the left and the pro-amnesty, open-borders media and political culture to shut the Hell up and get out of President Trump’s way.  If he declares an emergency, he’ll have every bit of law and precedence on his side.

The New Communists at FoxNews

Sunday, December 6th, 2015

cargile_fnc_smSaturday afternoon, I took a little bit of time to watch some news. I flipped over to FoxNews, and there I witnessed Mickey Cargile explaining to openly supportive host Eric Shawn and his audience that drug prices are a moral issue, and a quality of life issue, more than economic issue. I couldn’t agree more.  His conclusion, however, was based on the moral system of collectivism. I realize that the anchors and stories on FoxNews on weekends tend to be the “B-Team” or even the “C-Team,” but this is despicable. Watch for yourself:

Apparently, Cargile believes this is a moral issue, but unfortunately, his moral standard is collectivism. He ignores entirely the morality of a civilized country inasmuch as he openly attacks private property rights, private wealth, and the freedom to choose. Reading between the lines, he’s advocating some sort of government-enforced price control at the very least, and perhaps even complete expropriation at the worst. This implies violence. In order to enforce such a thing, what one is saying is that one is ready to kill people in order to take their things if they do not otherwise consent.

The host, for his part, is no better. He smears the owners of the rights to the Hepatitis C treatment under discussion as people who are merely out to profit, first, as if profit is somehow an evil, and second in that they might use that profit to “buy a new Ferrari.” This shameful broadcast merely confirms my contention that FoxNews is all about co-opting conservatism. There’s nothing remotely conservative in this, Cargile’s protests about his continuing devotion to the free market notwithstanding.

For those who don’t understand the principles involved, let us be clear: If you invent a thing, and I purchase the rights to that thing from you, my moral claim to the thing in question is every bit as legitimate as yours when you had invented the thing. More, since it’s now my thing, I have the absolute right to buy it and sell it as I see fit, and the only moral method by which to obtain it is to pay the price at which we arrive by mutual consent. Any government interference in that exchange, either to my benefit or to a purchaser’s, is tyranny.

What Cargile advocates in this clip is tyranny. What the hapless Mr. Shawn approvingly supports is no different from what Hugo Chavez had imposed in that poor, enslaved, collapsing communist state that is Venezuela: Communism. The closer we get to complete collapse, and the more people begin to shrug their shoulders over the concepts and moral standing of individual rights, the more rapidly our collapse will accelerate.

One might argue, as the communists at FoxNews seem to insist, that there is some maximum amount that ought to be charged for some life-saving, or quality-of-life-preserving drug or treatment. My question for you is: Had I Hepatitis C, how much of my earnings would I forego for how long a period to finance a cure? Is there any amount of money I would not pay? One might argue, as the dolts on FoxNews have done here, that such a burden is unaffordable, and use this as a justification to steal. Theft via government action is still theft, even though done under color of law. The fact that the government was placed in office by vote does not reduce the significance of the crime, but merely multiplies the number of criminals and broadens the expanse of the guilt(though its concentration is not diluted.)

With this sort of thing becoming the norm on FoxNews, as further evidence of the spread of collectivist ethics throughout the culture, we cannot and will not last.

Governor Palin: “Stop Electing Republicans who Act Like Democrats”

Wednesday, June 25th, 2014

We must break up the GOP establishment

Governor Palin is right, and I’m inclined to act on the principle that there is nothing to be gained by compromise with the GOP establishment.  I am to the point where I’d rather have an open leftist elected to office than to see one more of these despicable, snake-in-the-grass RINOs who act like Democrats when they get to Washington DC anyway.  Here’s Governor Palin from Hannity on FNC last night:

While Boycotting A&E, You Might Consider this Intolerant Yahoo Too

Monday, December 23rd, 2013

It takes a real moron to top the idiocy of Drew Magary’s original GQ piece on the subject of Phil Robertson, but leave it to Yahoo News (a contradiction in terms if ever there’s been one) to dig up a writer who’s even more maniacally stupid than his peer at GQ.  Yahoo News posted a piece by Josh Barro, an editor at Business Insider,  proclaiming: “When you’re defending Phil Robertson, Here’s What You’re Really Defending.”  It takes approximately two minutes to read, but let me cut to the quick: It’s nonsense, like all that’s gone before, and only people detached enough from reality to get their information from Yahoo News are apt to be dumb enough to fall for his foolish premises.

He asserts the following, based on quotes from Mr. Robertson:

  1. Robertson thinks black Americans were treated just fine in the Jim Crow-era South, and that they were happy there. ” I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field…. They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!… Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”
  2. Robertson thinks the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor because they didn’t believe in Jesus. “A ll you have to do is look at any society where there is no Jesus. I’ll give you four: Nazis, no Jesus. Look at their record. Uh, Shintos? They started this thing in Pearl Harbor. Any Jesus among them? None. Communists? None. Islamists? Zero. That’s eighty years of ideologies that have popped up where no Jesus was allowed among those four groups. Just look at the records as far as murder goes among those four groups.”
  3. Robertson hates gay people. Robertson in 2010: ” Women with women, men with men, they committed indecent acts with one another, and they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversions.  They’re full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant, God-haters. They are heartless, they are faithless, they are senseless, they are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil.”

“This last one is key. My inbox is full of “love the sinner, hate the sin” defenses of Robertson’s 2013 remarks. But Robertson doesn’t love gay people. He thinks they’re, well, “full of murder.” His views on gays are hateful , inasmuch as they are full of hate.”

Let us tackle these assertions one by one.  In the first instance, Mr. Robertson’s view of the pre-civil rights era of the South is his own.  He’s clearly speaking from the experiences of his own life.  Perhaps Barro could consider, even momentarily, that in Robertson’s personal experience, maybe it wasn’t quite so bad as is widely believed particularly by people like Barro (or me) who hadn’t been born as yet. For a man born in 1984 (when I was a young private in the Army) to pontificate about the implications of Mr. Robertson’s statements about the South is approximately on par with my commentary on the social benefits of prohibition.  I know only what history records, but my knowledge is hardly exhaustive.  Neither is Barro’s. Nothing about Robertson’s remark on this topic suggest he’s a racist, but that is precisely what this Harvard-grad goof-ball wants you to believe.

His second assertion is that Robertson believes Japan bombed Pearl Harbor because they didn’t believe in Jesus.  That’s not what Robertson said, and while it stretches credulity to think he was saying that, what Barro tries to do here is to state the obvious: Japan wasn’t going to believe in Jesus in 1941, and one couldn’t imagine they would.  I think Robertson’s point was a bit more sophisticated than Barro’s tautology implies.  Robertson was merely showing that the mindset of Christians(believers in Jesus) has been rather non-violent in the last century.  The ethos of communists, Nazis, and so on have been rather less tolerant, and seemingly more inclined to violence.  Hitler’s gangs did all they could to discourage Christianity, as Barro is undoubtedly aware, and communism basically outlawed all religions.  In Islamic countries today, Christians and other non-Muslims are routinely persecuted and murdered.  This is not generally the case in modern-day countries where Christianity dominates.

He claims Robertson “hates gay people.”  He then goes on to list a litany of things Robertson said about unrepentant sinners, but present them in a way that implies he had said these things about homosexuals specifically.  Being as adulterers are in Robertson’s list of sinners, taking Barro’s view, one would suppose Robertson hates himself, having confessed to adultery in his own life.  No, this is a pathetic attempt to do what others have tried over the last several days: When Robertson is asked what are sins by Magary, he went on to list a bunch of sins, a list that looks remarkably familiar to anybody who has read 1 Corintheans.  He did not qualify them.  He listed them.

I realize I am not the most sophisticated fellow, but I am able to grasp the concept of lists.  If you ask me to list fruits, I might say “bananas, raspberries, strawberries, oranges, apples, and grapefruit.”  This doesn’t say the first thing about which I like most or least, or which I consider the worst or the best.  It’s merely a list.  If you ask me to list vegetables, it will be much the same: “Corn, carrots, peas, broccoli, green beans, cauliflower, and radishes.” From this list, you will not be able to discern much about my preference for vegetables. You won’t even know if the one I like most or least actually made the list. All you have is a list that may or may not be exhaustive or exclusive.

As if to underscore his lunacy and lack of context, Barro goes on…and on:

“As a side note, it’s remarkable how often these things come as a package. Robertson’s sincere doctrinal view about the sinfulness of homosexuality comes packaged with animus toward gays and retrograde views about blacks and non-Christians. It’s almost as though social conservatism is primarily fueled by a desire to protect the privileges of what was once a straight, white Christian in-group, rather than by sincere religious convictions.”

In any other political context, it might seem odd how this writer seems to ignore the “sincere doctrinal view” Robertson apparently holds about Communists and Nazis. Perhaps what Barro is really confessing is his personal alignment with those ideologies.  After all, Nazis all but invented the sort of propoganda Barro is spouting here, and no place more than Stalinist Russia exhibited his flair for the desire to silence dissent and create guilt by association.

“You might recall that conservatives are currently trying to figure out what to do about the fact that the Republican Party performs quite poorly with the growing share of voters who are not white, straight Christians. They think some of it has to do with economic issues. But then  they’re scratching their heads, trying to figure out how Mitt Romney lost the Asian American vote 3-to-1 even though, by Republican “maker-vs.-taker” metrics, Asian Americans are disproportionately likely to be “makers.”

I don’t believe actual conservatives have any problem figuring out what to do, although Republicans may. What Barro leaves unstated is that the Democrats have carried the Asian-American vote for generations.  Conservatism doesn’t have a problem with non-white, non-straight voters, so much as they have a problem with statist buffoons of the sort defined by Mr. Barro. He concludes with this bit of nonsense, in case you lost interest:

“Non-whites and non-Christians and gays keep getting the sense that, even setting aside policy, conservatives and Republicans just don’t care for them. The “Duck Dynasty” episode, with Ted Cruz and others rushing out to defend Robertson’s honor, is just another example of why.”

Mr. Barro, isn’t Ted Cruz non-white?  Isn’t Bobby Jindal non-white?  Isn’t Sarah Palin non-male?  Isn’t Tammy Bruce non-straight?  Haven’t all of these defended in some fashion the free speech and free religious thought of one Phil Robertson?  This asinine attack on conservatives because they defend a man for stating his sincere religious beliefs has been extended now into the preposterous scenario of a Harvard-grad, establishment-bound numb-skull professing to us what non-whites, non-males, and non-straights may think, even as they step forward to tell us that Robertson has every right to believe sins are what may be found listed in the Bible.

Any writer who so thoroughly debunks his own argument in the span of two sentences ought to be ignored, and truth be told, so should any “news outlet” that publishes his drivel.  Barro’s article drips with venom and hate, and yet he is able to imagine hatred into the heart of Phil Robertson, who actually expressed the contrary premise that he loves all people, even sinners like himself. Who’s the real hater, Mr. Barro? Apparently, I’m not the only blogger to take a dim view of Barro. That Yahoo News posts such bilge is evidence enough to click away from that site too.

Sarah Palin on Phil Robertson Suspension (Video)

Friday, December 20th, 2013

Governor Palin appeared on Hannity on Thursday night to discuss the Duck Dynasty situation on A&E. Clip courtesy of Sarahnettoo on Youtube:

Lesson Christians, Conservatives Can Learn from A&E Network’s Intolerance

Thursday, December 19th, 2013

Dynastic Decline?

I’m not among the millions who regularly watch Duck Dynasty on A&E network, but I am among the many millions who will avoid the network in my future viewing choices.  The network’s #1 smash hit is headed by patriarch Phil Robertson.  Robertson was asked during an interview for GQ magazine about morality.  He cited the Bible, and when asked to explain or expound upon his stance on homosexuality, he explained in graphic, somewhat crude language why he couldn’t understand the desires of homosexuals.  The network then suspended him.  What’s now clear is that A&E has managed to incite a backlash against the network, and it’s obvious that the network is responding to political rather than market-based concerns.  In the free market, a network wouldn’t suspend the star of its top-rated show for simply stating his religious beliefs.  No, this case isn’t about the intolerance of Phil Robertson, but the intractable, unflinching orthodoxy of the rabid left.  The intolerance is all theirs, but there exists a dirty little secret: They’re only willing to shut down conservatives, Christians, and capitalists, while they cringe in fear of Muslims, feminists, leftist groups, and the homosexual lobby.  There’s an important lesson in all of this for conservatives generally, but Christians particularly: They don’t fear you, and you’ve given them no reason to think otherwise.

Consider the lead-in to Drew Magary’s GQ article:

“How in the world did a family of squirrel-eating, Bible-thumping, catchphrase-spouting duck hunters become the biggest TV stars in America? And what will they do now that they have 14 million fervent disciples?”

Could a news outlet or magazine make such a remark about any group if they happened to be other than Christian?  This lead-in typifies the mindset not merely of those in leadership at A&E, but of the entire media establishment.  “Bible-thumping?”  Who does Magary think he is? Bill O’Reilly?  This should set the tone for you quite aptly. With a lead-in like that, you can guess that it won’t be long before the GQ writer seeks to create a controversy.  The term “Bible-Thumper” has become so widely used in the media that Christians are now adopting it to describe themselves as a way of scorning the elites who look down their noses at Christians generally.

Before pointing this out, Magary mocks Robertson this way:

“Even though he’s in the far corner of the room, Phil dominates the house. There are times when he doesn’t look you in the eye while he’s speaking—he looks just off to the side of you, as if Jesus were standing nearby, holding a stack of cue cards. Everyone else in the room just stares at his phone, or at the TV, or holds side conversations as Phil preaches.”

As disgusted as Christians, conservatives, and Duck Dynasty fans may be with A&E’s treatment of Robertson, let’s consider this jewel of mockery by Magary on behalf of GQ magazine. This isn’t merely an attack on Robertson, but on every Christian who is guided by faith.  Magary’s scornful, scowling article shows Robertson in the very light that his magazine’s readers have come to expect.  Later in the article, however, Magary provides the Robertson quote that will rile the left endlessly:

“For the sake of the Gospel, it was worth it,” Phil tells me. “All you have to do is look at any society where there is no Jesus. I’ll give you four: Nazis, no Jesus. Look at their record. Uh, Shintos? They started this thing in Pearl Harbor. Any Jesus among them? None. Communists? None. Islamists? Zero. That’s eighty years of ideologies that have popped up where no Jesus was allowed among those four groups. Just look at the records as far as murder goes among those four groups.”

All of this was far too much for the leftists at A&E.  They’re a politically correct outlet, and Robertson’s off-show remarks are far too insensitive in their view, and attacked their general philosophical slant. If only he were a Muslim…

Fans aren’t happy with this suspension either, and the backlash is growing, as a new Facebook page that has already garnered nearly seven-hundred-thousand likes, and there are other pages on the social networking site having similar results.  While there can be no expectation of “free speech” on a network one doesn’t own, this sort of cultural brow-beating is standard fare in leftist circles.  In his contract, there may be language prohibiting him from making such statements publicly, in which case he is bound by the terms of the contract, but here’s the real problem for A&E: While they are free to suspend him if his contract allows it, they are also bound to bear the consequences in the marketplace.  If the market recoils against them, and if they find even more people joining the fray of public discourse against them, it’s all their problem.  If the move gains the network market-share, then it’s all their benefit.

With that said, let’s consider what had been Robertson’s “infraction,” according to A&E.  Robertson dared to state publicly in an interview that he held as sins those things set forth in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11. Indeed, he then explained his own orientation. From the Chicago Tribune:

“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he told reporter Drew Magary. “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

“It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”

Now that the homosexual lobby is descending upon Robertson, one might wonder why leftist groups and others sympathetic to the homosexual lobby have all the courage in the world to take on Christians at every turn, but never seem to muster the same courage when dealing with Muslims.  If, rather than a show titled “Duck Dynasty,” and being a Christian man named Phil Robertson, this had instead been a show named “Kamel Kingdom,” centered around a Wahhabist family headed by a man named Muhammed Atta on the Arabian peninsula, the whining cowards at the A&E network wouldn’t have dared to suspend the patriarch.  Not a chance.  Christians are easy targets, after all.  They’ve become accustomed to being culturally attacked, and desensitized to being harangued publicly for their views. They do not fight back, generally speaking.  Muslims are another story.  In fact, A&E may have actually blocked the mention of Jesus on Duck Dynasty in order to avoid offending Muslims. Watch this video with Phil Robertson:

There’s a lesson in all of this for those who happen to pay attention: Christians may temporarily blow up your phone lines, but they won’t blow up your building, and executives at the A&E network know that too well.  They can stand to tolerate a few days of melted phone lines, but once the issue fades in prominence, they’ll go on as before.  The leftist media culture is rife with bullies who are willing to pick on faithful Christians, but won’t say the first word in opposition to radical Islam, or even acknowledge its existence, lest they find themselves the target of a fatwa. I’m not suggesting that Christians should strap suicide vests on their bodies and run into the A&E Network’s headquarters, but I think this helps to demonstrate that Christians, who mistakenly turn the other cheek until they’re beaten into submission.  Christians don’t fight back.  They have been taught that only the “meek” shall inherit the Earth, not understanding the real meaning of Matthew 5:5.  It was an admonition to submit to God.  It was not a demand to lay supinely in acceptance of any torment in the offing from all comers.

Christians and conservatives must begin to understand the affliction that they too readily bear. Consisting in part of the radical left’s tireless war against American culture, this is a real campaign being fought daily.  The left,  radical Islam, the associated and cohort groups all bear ill will against traditional Christian values, and American ideals and traditions in general, either to subvert them or erase them from our nation.  A&E’s fault in all of this lies in the fact that they are more afraid of people who do not regularly watch their network than of those who routinely tune to see Phil Robertson and his family.  A&E is more interested in portraying the Robertson clan as backwoods bayou bumpkins than in showing a God-fearing family that accepts the teachings of their Bible.  They don’t want to offend  Muslims, homosexuals, or anyone else in the process, unless they happen to be capitalists, Christians, and/or conservatives, in which case it is not merely acceptable but entirely intentional. Christians and conservatives must begin to make their voices heard in unison, because it’s their culture that is under fire. The time for cheek-turning should have passed, and it’s high time conservative leaders step forward to say as much.

Thankfully, some already have. (Sarah Palin here, Ted Cruz here, and Bobby Jindal here.) Now it’s your turn. As the rabid left seeks to turn the GQ Robertson interview into the 2013 version of Rush Limbaugh’s Sandra Fluke remarks, conveniently taking the focus away from Obama-care, it’s time for conservatives, particularly Christians, to understand all of these things as a coordinated attack against them.  While A&E is a shameless trollop acting on behalf of the general leftist ideology, they are performing a service to Barack Obama that money could scarcely buy. Obama-care’s massive failures are sliding from the headlines, and this changing of the subject over a TV show will permit them to carry on.  The truth for conservatives in general and Christians in particular is that the left doesn’t fear you.  They see you as having been de-fanged by your own ethos, and they use your most generous virtues against you.  It’s time to see them for the monsters they are, speak out at will, and make all of your purchasing decisions accordingly.  It’s time for them to fear your market power if they will fear nothing else.  It’s time for them to fear you at the polls if they will see no other threat from your number.  It’s long past the time for all real Americans to roar and I don’t care if the statist left sneers at that description.  The time for silence on all fronts is over. They need to fear the continuance of their Jihad against us.

Editors Note: The truth about A&E and its show is that it was never intended to capture the audience it now enjoys, but was instead meant as a vehicle by which to mock Christians and conservatives.  Once it backfired and became a wildly successful show, they had to find a way to bury it culturally. For what other possible reason would they place beeps and bleeps in the audio track to cover profanity that never occurred, as per Robertson’s testimony in the video above?  They wanted to reinforce a stereotype.

Update: As of this hour, the boycott A&E page on Facebook now has over 1.1 Million likes.