The Rearguard


Mind the dying beast.  It’s when it bites the fiercest.

Sometime in 2004, as the left made a great noise all around, and I was afraid Jean Kerry would win, not because I liked George W. Bush much, but because I was afraid what our retreating from Iraq just then would mean, in terms of my sons’ having to go and fight that war again in worse conditions (yes, I know it’s still a possibility not to say probability) a friend told me the left is noisiest and most visible when they feel they’re losing.

If that’s true we’re in for some interesting times, particularly if their blue wave fails to materialize.

There are some things we must establish up front, which might seem counter intuitive to the crowd that hangs out here, but which, nonetheless, are the way the world works.  Ignoring this leads us — often — to having the wrong expectations.

The first thing to establish is that most people don’t give a good goddamn about politics.  No, seriously.  Politics and the agenda of politicians are a level of abstraction most people might not be capable of, at least not without effort.  People mope about the participation levels in the US, forgetting that even in revolutionary times, when really big things were at stake, the level of engagement was maybe tops 10% and active engagement more like 3%.  Most people go along to get along and side with whatever the agenda that is loudest or seems to be winning, without a second thought.

This is why control of the mass media was such a huge asset to the left in this country, because they could give the impression that everyone was left, and that the default position (let alone the virtuous one) was left.  Yes, in some groups and to some extent, the default is still left, but that’s more and more among the very old and the very young.

Contributing to the “very young” part is the indoctrination factories we call schools.  But the left has a problem there too.  First of all, there is the problem that they’re not sure how much of the “default left” is real and how much is a put on show for their benefit.  (Seriously, guys, if it were heartfelt, we’d have had way more than a few thousand students, with all the encouragement not to say push they got from their teachers, echoing the Parkland astroturf.  Instead Camera Hogg and co. became famous because they are a vocal minority and the left has to clutch them for dear life.)  Second, there is the problem that most people move right as they hit the real world.  Or at least they start disliking have taxes taken out, stop muttering about socialist revolution and even sometimes acquire a modicum of knowledge of history and sense.

Note not always.  I had a friend in her forties who, when she saw how much they took from her paycheck in taxes said she should turn communist.  Then I had to explain to her that was the wrong direction.  Yes, she was intelligent and fairly educated, but keep in mind most people REALLY glaze over when they hear of politics.  It’s a level of abstraction too far for them.

However, in general, the direction of change is away from school-indoctrination. The left knows that too.  The cases that don’t shed indoctrination are the ones who got it at home, too, ie. red diaper babies for whom politics is religion.  There are fewer of those every year as most of the left has failed to reproduce.

Further, the left has been in crisis since the fall of the Soviet Union.  Yes, I know, many of you are too young to understand the state of the left before that.  And anyway, in the US they at least felt forced to disguise that the Soviet Union was their beau ideal.  They hadn’t fully forgotten that people knew about Stalin, and tried to keep the mask on.

But academic works — beardo the weirdo went to ground in universities — and literary works, and other things aimed at intellectuals, even those written by ostensible right wingers, all assumed the Soviet Union, while sacrificing personal freedom and creativity, was more productive, more equitable and just gosh-darn more efficient.

The fall of the soviet union for a while left communists roaming around like defrocked priests.  The analogy is apt, since communism — and leftism in general — is what stands in place of religion for many people.

Then the left regrouped.  They had to.  They had to for two reasons: first, their entire identity was tied into being leftist and into denouncing the iniquitous evil of capitalism.  Two, for over a century this has been a damn lucrative racket, providing otherwise mediocre newsmen, social scientists, artists and writers with acclaim and money.  The left regrouped into tribalism and internationalism.  (BTW the two are synonymous.  You can’t get humans not to have a tribe.  If you insist there be no nations in their mental map, they’re going to identify with smaller identity groups.)

The problem they now face is that the dogs just don’t like the food.

You can maintain the fiction that all cultures are alike, until you import a lot of third worlders into the first world and rub the differences all over people’s faces.  And you can keep dividing the population into smaller and smaller tribes, but sooner or later all but the professional hysterics get tired of tallying up pico aggressions.  Even the indoctrinated start making fun of the never ending show of triggering and screaming.

And then you get backlash.  And all over the world they’re getting backlash.

Which won’t make them change their minds.  They can’t.  It would be the same as admitting their lives have been in vain or perhaps in the service of evil.

They retain also a — admittedly, diminishing — power to destroy.  They can’t really push their darlings anymore, but there is a certain amount of mud slinging, after which the mud sticks.  Say things like ‘so and so wants people like me dead’ with no specifics and some people seeing the name of the author or politician will associate it with genocide.

It’s just that even that will stop working after a while.  For an illustration, see Trump, Donald J.

So…. particularly if their massive blue wave fails to materialize in November, we’re in for a lot of screaming, shouting, acting out, and perhaps even acts of violence.

Will it be civil war?

I won’t discount it, but I doubt it.  Look, most people really don’t give a damn about politics, certainly not enough to fight over it.  Also, this is a very large country.  In some places, and at times, things will get very ugly. Being prepared doesn’t hurt, but I wouldn’t go all out unless you live in one of the three or four largest cities.

Will the US break up?

Oh, brother.  People nattering on about this always seem to me to think the US is about the size of Portugal, and not mixed as to politics at all.  Trust me, even in red America, there’s enough blues, and vice versa.  Most families, friends’ groups and companies are a mix.  Without geographical separation, break up is unlikely. Voting is not a good record of red and blue, because the overwhelming majority of people don’t vote.

And then refer to “most people don’t give a damn about politics and will go along to get along.”  As the left loses the loudest megaphones, things will just slowly quiet down and people will adjust their “go along” the other way.

Is there a possibility for things to go very very wrong?  Sure.  there always is.  In every human situation.  But it’s not the PROBABILITY.

The operative image of our civil war is not the American Civil War but the cold war.  We’ve been in a cold civil war for a long time.  We see sudden hot flares, but geographically (and usually time) contained.  Most of it is a seeming peace with a cultural and propaganda war going on ALL THE TIME.

As in the cold war, the left has the propaganda advantage.  This lends them the impression of strength.  But remember propaganda magnifies everything.

We’re in the scariest days of the cold civil war.  The left is losing its hold, and this makes it most dangerous.  They do still have some power, mostly the power to destroy: reputations, economies, companies, fields of endeavor.

They might be Japanese soldiers, still fighting WWII in some little atoll in the Pacific, but that doesn’t mean they won’t bayonet you if you get in their way.

And yet, in the end, we win, they lose.

Be not afraid, and keep at it.  Oh, and mind the wounded beast.  It rarely goes down without biting.

375 thoughts on “The Rearguard

    1. Honestly I doubt it. I mean, sure, there might be disturbances if you’re downtown at the wrong time. BUT major disruptions? NYC, San Fran, Chicago and LA.

        1. Look at the latest movements they have. BLM primarily. In that, all their beef is with themselves. Where are all these “racist” police departments? St Louis, Baltimore, Philly, etc.

          1. MiGod! They REALLY thought that taking to themstreets in (poorly) armed gangs against ‘Nazis’ wasn’t going to remind people of the armed gangs that the actual Nazis fielded?

            Who the f#@$&* thought THAT up and have his meds been adjusted?

              1. The arm band and the black shirt are perhaps evidence that his backers are trying to provoke resistance.

        2. Just like the 60’s, people get to laugh at the riots and the people burning their own neighborhoods.
          Today they MIGHT try to burn other neighborhoods the rich neighborhoods BUT in the cities talked about these are very Progressive and will deserve burning.
          DFW and Denver the Rioters Neighborhoods might go up but OTHER neighborhoods? In DFW and Denver even Progressives have guns.

          1. Even during the Rodney King LA Riots, there were spontaneous armed local defenses established that turned away carloads of yout that were trying the expand the mayhem and looting perimeter into richer neighborhoods. And that was LA.

            Were such festivities to break out in states less like the Glorious Bear Republic, I’d personally expect to see crew served weapons behind sandbags at the positions set up by local “neighborhood watch” folks.

            1. And if those riots happened today, the store owners would be either fighting off the cops or getting arrested. Spent time two years ago on a project in LA. You don’t want to know.

        3. That’s where the folks most likely to be mobilized by the promise of looting– especially without being shot for their efforts– are likely to know of loot, isn’t it?

          1. That would be before a “looter express” aka light rail and other forms of mass transit were built. It’s one reason no one with brains goes to a mall located near one on the weekends.

            Too many links to ever post; I’d suggest looking up any book by Colin Flaherty on Amazon to get started on seeing what isn’t being reported by the MSM…. and oftentimes not being recorded in crime stats either.

            1. Holy CRUD a $15 paperback, what the—

              *Checks publisher*

              Oh. CreateSpace. Doesn’t have the bulk discount during publishing. Makes sense.

              Ordered the ebook.

            2. Incidentally, main reason I didn’t include the Looter Express as you put it, is that they’re sensitive to terroristic threats and I don’t think rioters would be able to control themselves, even when it’s tactically valid.

              I do remember what happened when they moved the bus stop near our Washington house for a few weeks. And earlier, trying to report a break-in attempt on our van. (Foiled by…the jimmy machine snapping off inside of the lock. Behold, my most AWESOME of bad luck! Bad news, like $30 bill to replace the lock; good news, they didn’t get our van, or information, or anything IN the van. I’ll take it.)

              1. They’re sensitive to terroristic threats; they’re also sensitive to raaaaacism charges. BART used to have a mobile app to report incidents, and video cameras, etc…… until they noticed that the reports skewed heavily towards certain ethnicities, and having video clips available undermined the “color-blind” enforcement. At which point, those things were no longer available. Still plenty of “evidence” in the form of cell-phone videos, etc., just nothing official that would be admitted under “two party consent”.

                And of course, those private “raaaaacist” videos couldn’t be shown on Facebook, YouTube, etc., even if it did serve the government’s interest in keeping the rubes in the dark.

                If the local governments have an interest in allowing rioters on the trains to get to those Trump-loving suburbanites….. they’ll be allowed on.

      1. makes me feel better. Don’t get into Dallas much. Only hiccup with this is a rabid lefty on my block. On the other hand, she’s the only one.

      2. I wouldn’t discount the Pacif North Left coastal cities, especially Seattle and Portland. I think the smaller cities in SW Oregon won’t be affected (though I’m glad I no longer expect to have to go to Ashland, home of lithium in the water and whackos everywhere).

        For Please-don’t-call-it-Frisco, I’d add all the bigger cities in the Bay Area, like Oakland and San Jose. SJ was leftish when I moved away in 2003, but they’ve rolled harder left since, judging by events in the campaign and World Con.

        1. In the event of the cold civil war turning hot in localities, the big blue mutli-cultural wart on Arizona’s bottom (i.e. Tucson) is either going to be very hot or very, very quiet; and I’m not sure which.

        2. An old friend of mine had a button of Emperor Norton asking us to “Call Frisco Frisco”, and I’m abiding by the Emperor’s command.

          1. I put the Frisco fight in the same category as the “it’s not Cali” one– my family was there for three generations– in the same two valleys, even. We called it Cali. F-off, SoCal newcomer busy-bodies.

      3. L.A., outside of the loud minority that runs the place (name recognition wins elections in CA; nothing else does) and the remaining majority-black neighborhoods, is rather more conservative than you’d think from all the noise. So there might be riots in the older lower-end business districts, but there’d also be a lot of shop owners with rifles on rooftops. And the sheer vastness of the place, and its geography, tends to keep factions separate. Los Angeles major-metro is half the size of England (extended metro is as big as England).

        The main problem is that it’d be all too easy to cut off a large fraction of the water supply. There are municipal wells, and some local reservoirs, but the aqueducts are still critical. (Me, I’d have buried the durn things, which would also conserve the up-to-90% that’s lost to evaporation.)

        1. san gabriel valley uses groundwater… that is piped in from the colorado, but still… and yeah, it tastes like it was pumped into the ground and back out, believe me.

          1. Groundwater? I prefer mine whole and ony grind it just before using. It stays much fresher that way.

        1. That one has me worried, because of the cross between activists, easily disrupted traffic (pre-disrupted for your ease of use!), a lot of public transit and a lot of whipping up of “attacking people is totally OK, they’re not really people Like Us” fever.

          Plus, Soros. Unrest in the capital city would appeal to the bastard.

              1. I still anxiously await the day something he supports actually gets declared a terrorist organization….

          1. The thing is, there’s lots of military assets in reasonable deployment range of DC, so if things got anywhere close to that they’d ring up and have troops in town in nothing flat.

            On the other hand, re the Frisco discussion above, the only ground based military assets in all of Northern CA are Reserve units and the CA National Guard. Basically, who can they call?

            1. Frisco is central CA, not northern. Anyone in northern CA will tell you that. Anyone in central CA will say that Frisco is central *coastal* CA.

              And there are no naval units to really speak of in Frisco anymore either.

              1. I’m a Hoyt in the SIlicon Valley cell, so I now – they closed every darn base all the way to Travis, and southward I think the closest is the DLI and Naval Postgraduate School, both in Monterey, so I suppose the mayor of SF could call up and try to get USAF C-17 ground crew and Arabic language instructors to come help if Berkeley spilled out over the rest of the Bay Area.

                1. I think the air force would offer to take out the golden gate bridge with a cruise missile and then leave him to his own ends….

    2. I know that one of the places mentioned was Seattle, with an accompanying illustration of Seattle in flames. One Seattle native I know posted that they have had precisely TWO sunny days this year so far (the rest rainy) and added “good luck with that.”

      1. Be about as successful as trying to burn down Portland, OR. When you have to start by bringing in giant heat-guns to dry the city out enough to be able to ignite it, eh… Plan B probably ought to have been Plan A.

          1. Well, Bly was pretty dry; we got lucky. Anywhere east of the Cascades is dry in summer.

            1. My understanding was that most of them crashed in the Cascades, and for those that made it over, that was what the Forest Service and the 555th were there to deal with.

              1. Here’s an oral history from one of the rangers who responded at Bly.
                A church group was doing a picnic, the pastor’s pregnant wife and 5 children were killed, including the pastor’s wife. The paster was getting stuff from the car at the time of the explosion. Nothing was publicized at the time, to keep the Japanese in the dark.

                A general history of the balloon bombs (from and Oregon perspective); 26 states, Canada and Mexico all got balloons.

                He mentioned seeing bits of rice paper scattered around Klamath and Lake counties, (the balloon bombs were supposed to be an air burst, the one in Bly malfunctioned). These made it over the Cascades in winter, when it’s pretty wet (in a good year). The Bly balloon was found in early May, with the balloon in a snow drift, so not much fire danger.

              2. Oops, moderated for two links:
                Here’s an oral history from one of the rangers who responded at Bly.
                A church group was doing a picnic, the pastor’s pregnant wife and 5 children were killed, including the pastor’s wife. The paster was getting stuff from the car at the time of the explosion. Nothing was publicized at the time, to keep the Japanese in the dark.
                He mentioned seeing bits of rice paper scattered around Klamath and Lake counties, (the balloon bombs were supposed to be an air burst, the one in Bly malfunctioned). These made it over the Cascades in winter, when it’s pretty wet (in a good year). The Bly balloon was found in early May, with the balloon in a snow drift, so not much fire danger.

                A search on “Bly balloon bombing” shows an Oregon encyclopedia article. 26 states, Canada and Mexico got balloon bombs. They carried 3 devices; two incendiary, one anti-personnel. No idea why, but it looks like many (most?) were launched in January, and took about 70 hours to make to to North America. Not sure what weather they were expecting in January, but fire weather? Nope.

          1. Burning is the easiest for a band of protesters to manage. There are a number of rather drastic impacts I can think of causing that wouldn’t require too much effort, but I think it best to refrain from mentioning any of them online.

            1. Most of the ones you’d consider too obvious to mention, they don’t even think about unless it’s whining about the corrections.

              Say, keeping people from driving on to the sidewalk– we already have those. When the federal buildings started putting them up after 9/11, they were actually behind places like Walmart, which had them just because oops happens. If there’s an area that is vulnerable to being HIT WITH A TRUCK, it’s almost always blocked off.

              1. Sure, great for building entrances and such, although I know a few Walmarts that don’t have them at all. Then there’s sidewalks. Gets expensive and in order for them to be any use requires a lot of retrofitting in order to anchor the bollards properly. Seem far too many examples where they were add ons and they were useful only for the so-called “oops” and barely that.

                1. There are the ones that, on close inspection, aren’t very sturdy– but there are some that look cruddy until you get to looking at them closely, too.

                  Every time some place in Europe gets hit with one of those car attacks, I can’t imagine why there wasn’t a blockade in that spot.

                    1. Haven’t seen a good shot of the area, so I couldn’t comment.

                      Ability to kill folks, yes, that will always exist– but the original question was on destroying a city. If you can break the exterior of a building and then set the vehicle on fire, you can sometimes manage to at least total it. (Yeah, a lot of ifs, which is why I don’t mind mentioning it)

                    2. Some reassurance: there are folks on emergency response who have thought of it too– and they’ve taken unofficial steps.

                      This is a lot more common than folks like to admit; it’s a running joke on ships that the sections of pipe used for tightening down doors tend to vanish a lot…that’s because they’re a section of pipe about a foot long, and PERFECT for an improvised weapon.

                      Any idiot who manages to invade a Navy ship? I almost feel sorry for them.

                    3. Do you think that anyone would be stupid enough to attack Pendleton? Fun in a grisly way to watch. I mean they are human if really stupid. I’m not callous and I know that battle is truly gory. But on TV from a 1000 miles away.

                    4. I think a bunch of ATH readers could think of ways to destroy a city, or at least make it a more unpleasant place to live. And on that note, I’ll remain silent.

                    5. I’ll give you the reassurance I always do:
                      I know at least several readers here, as well as folks in flesh-space who would be a good fit, are involved in the fan-impact-preparation exercises.

                      For an example that I’ll give because it’s both old, and anybody who tried it would just get caught, but possibly after harming folks I care about: the road crews on Washington passes have thought about every way a human can disrupt traffic on there, and taken steps. (These guys deal with both Seattle drivers and explosives, all winter long. About the most someone attempting an attack would manage is to kill the *first* road crew guy…and I wouldn’t vouch for their condition when turned over to police if it’s one of the popular guys.)
                      And that doesn’t even count the guys who are doing totally illegal things like having their personal firearms hidden in their gov’t vehicles. Just in case.

                      Insert quote here about that German officer complaining it does no good to read our SOP, because we don’t.

                2. If you look at the Toronto images, there are trees planted along the sidewalk – all in a nice row, well-spaced, between the street and the walking area. Nothing to impede a driver once he got on the sidewalk.
                  It shouldn’t be too difficult to simply plant those trees “randomly” across the width of the sidewalk. People have to maneuver a bit when walking, but it’s not an awful inconvenience (the sidewalks were wide enough for a delivery truck, after all). (However, it might weed out the smartphone zombie walkers – so added bennie!)

            2. gotcha. Do you think that Suburban NY i.e. Westchester County will be mobbed with looters? Sis lives there. Do not want to have sis living with me. However, life and death circumstances, so I’ll do it for as long as I need to. Bro in Law is a very good Dr. I’m sure that he will be able to find a job. Bro is moving to Detroit. I’m sure that he will manage to protect wife and self.

          2. Destroy the utilities infrastructure, and/or the logistical routes into the city. When Mt. St. Helens erupted in the 80s, it blew out a big stack of ash, and it was impossible to get goods into the cities. If something more long-term were to happen, it would be catastrophic.

            Most of Los Angeles might be able to survive something like that just because it’s so sprawling that it’s difficult to cut all of the transport loops (though LA has water issues). The others would, I think, be in more serious trouble.

                1. Better link:

                  1. Us Californians aren’t going anywhere. Even my liberal friends don’t understand why anyone would support CalExit.

                    1. because some billionaire thinks he wouldn’t get taxed to death in an actual People’s Democratic Republic of California.

                    2. Given today’s political environment, it’s also worth noting that the guy running the previous CalExit (the one that happened right after the presidential election) had his organization headquartered in Russia.

                      No joke.

                      I haven’t checked whether it’s the same guy running this one.

                  2. Oh, some of the Calexit folks insist that they get exactly the portion of our military equipment that their taxes paid for… to which my response is “Go ahead, you don’t have enough people to crew the naval vessels, or operate the tanks, or maintain them… you’ll be instituting a draft within weeks.”

                    Those of you like Foxfier and Nikki and myself (stating two people I know who are ex-mil and read here) who remember how rare people from CA were in the military know what I mean.

                    1. And the ones that did come from California tended to join up to get OUT of Cali. (I had a Sergeant from South Central LA who figured the Army was a better bet on getting out than a sports gig. On the other hand, we had a girl who only really saw the light once she joined. “Wait, you buy guns at WAL-MART in the rest of the country?” Her expression was the oddest mix of horrified and delighted I have ever seen.)

                      Getting them back into California, much less having them stay and support the crazy? Yeah…. I’m going to stand over here with the popcorn.

                    2. sorry wyrdbard if i had remembered I would have included you, too. But yeah, based on population, I should have heard “California” about 5x more as an answer to “Where arrr you frummm, priiii-VATE?” in basic/AIT than i did…

                    3. Little more common in the Air Force, from what I saw, but most of those were escapees, too.

                      Nowhere near what the population should’ve had, even if you assume 90% of the Spanish-speakers weren’t legal.

                    4. Back during the draft, there were plenty of CA draftees. Most went through Fort Ord if they were Army. Even knew a number of Cali people in the late 70s.
                      Not sure about today, but there sure are a heck of a lot of veterans out here.

                    5. yes, that was a draft, when they were made to go, and it was, largely, a different California.

                    6. Yep, it’s not the CA I grew up in. But there are still a lot of vets from the Sandbox here, and they’re not all imports.

        1. Like I said somewhere else, you just need enough of the right kind of accelerant.

          Thermite, Sodium, etc.

          Really though the problem isn’t the rain, it’s that most of the business are stone, brick, steel and glass. This means that you don’t get fires moving from one structure to another like you did back in the days when we built mostly out of wood.

          Heck, even the police in Philadelphia only managed to burn down one block.

          1. Seattle’s bad areas have also already had issues of people trying to set them on fire since….gads, when was that first big WTO protest? The 90s?

            That’s besides the street people doing stuff like dragging junk couches out into public areas, and eventually setting them on fire. Because?

            1. Same reason we have^w had bonfires at homecoming and beach parties, and the same reason we build campfires when camping–despite alcohol/white gas stoves being better.

              Because we’re humans, and fire is our thing.

              1. Fire. And killing stuff. We’re really good at that.

                Lions? BANG.
                Tigers? BANG.
                Bears? BANG.

        2. “Last year in Oregon, 863 people fell off their bicycles… and drowned”
          — bumper sticker seen after the 1982 El Niño

        3. I recall an opinion piece in the Portland paper MANY years ago by some guy complaining about how much it rains there and how many days it rains there, and the rainfall was 37″. Per year. And I thought, that’s what I remember my home town having, back in the midwest. Looked it up, and found MOHT averaged 39″. Of course, that does include some snow and ice.

      2. Plus, modern cities tend to be a bit more fireproof- the RAF got old German cities to firestorm, then unsuccessfully tried the same to Berlin.

      3. Did I miss something such as actual plans to have riots and burn stuff if the 2018 elections aren’t blue?

        Because I really hate to tell the anti-fa loons that, you know, arson is actually serious and results in serious sentences and, well, 90% of them don’t have the “get out of jail free” oppression card that can be invoked in very narrow circumstances (such as Ferguson or Baltimore) because once unmasked they’re a bunch of privileged kids from good neighborhoods.

            1. Because they need to be the heroes of their own stories, and “spontaneous protests” always seems to trigger the idea that they’ll be singing “Do You Hear the People Sing” and they’ll get snogged by Hugh Jackman, after they hang the evil Republicans after a chase montage.

              1. They’re counting on the other side being kinder than them; see what happens whenever Antifa breaks out the violence, and the people they attack fight back.

                Yanno, the only reason the EDSA Revolution didn’t turn bloody was because the dictator was less bloodthirsty than his general, Ver. Ver was virtually jumping at the bit for Marcos to give the order for the military to fire on the civilians. The civilians, I’m told, from people my parents knew who were there, were terrified, standing their ground, expecting to die like animals.

                Marcos refused to give that order, because even he had standards I suppose, and did not want to fire on unarmed civilians protesting. Someone my father knew who was in the Palace at the time claims that Marcos said “I refuse to go down in history as having done that!”

                The difference between that, and what the socjus zealots’re hoping for, is that Antifa and their ilk imagine that they’ll have, somehow, magically, police, military, etc, on their side, shooting down the evilbad Republicans on their behalf. (I recently linked someone tweeting that if they’d been in charge of Waco like situations, they’d ‘have sent drones and been done with it.’)

                They’re not rebelling. They want state-sanctioned persecutions, pogroms and executions.

                1. There are only two reasons why I’m not saying “let’s give them the state-sponsored or free-market oppression they clearly want for their fantasies”-

                  1)Once you let that genie out of the bottle, the history of that is never good (Bloody Kansas is a US example that is criminally under-taught in American schools).
                  2)Most of the people I know that are on the other side are not malevolent, just idiots looking for something to believe in. The “resistance” and “revolution” has filled the role that the Church used to fill, and has failed to fill.

                  1. If they taught about Bloody Kansas and John Brown in school they would have to tackle the historical fact that even morally wonderful movements, like abolition, can have adherents who are morally repulsive, ethically bankrupt, and murderously violent.

                    And that hits just a tad too close to home.

                  2. Sort of related to number 2, because it’s something I’ve observed lately: One of the common memes I see when people try to separate the Nazi party from the ‘real socialists’ is ‘they killed their socialists later, so weren’t real socialists.’ They don’t like the reality that the German Nationalist Socialist party was, in fact, a Socialist party (and German socialism post WW2, from my experiences in living it in East Berlin, was not much better other than ditching overt racism for political tribalism instead)

                    This is really no different from how Islam rose to power – piggybacking on established religion, taking elements of the religion and rewriting it to suit when desired, and using the claim of being ‘the new improvement to the old religion’ to have a stain of validity. (There is a reason why I call Islam Mohammad’s fanfic of the Bible.) Yet at the same time, people in general acknowledge that Islam is descended from Judaism and Christianity because of those notes and stains of borrowing. This is not afforded to Nazism and Socialism.

                    The young socialists of today – much like the socialists of Germany post Hitler – need to desperately believe that the philosophies are really, truly different, and are not related to each other. In East Berlin, they tried doing this by completely erasing the Second World War in it’s entirety. For the youth of the decades that followed, the only World War was the First, called The Great War. I found this out by accident from a teacher who was explaining to me what the older students (4th grade) were doing, and I innocently asked “What about World War 2?” After a few moments of her being puzzled and confused about what I was talking about, she said “Ah, yes, that’s right. You have the lies that the American Capitalists have made up about there being a Second World War, and Germany being defeated by them. No, there never was a ‘second’ world war, only the Great one, and we overthrew the Kaiser and now we have Socialism, which is better.”

                    When I protested I had read books about it, she said that ‘anybody can print books and they can say it’s truth, but we know the real history of it all.’ Looking back on that with adult perspective, I wonder how that teacher dealt with the reality. The people who had lived through WW2 were told flat out to never speak of it on the pain of …well. Bad Things.

                    And yes, they really did believe that nobody had ever set foot on the moon, and the first real space travel was done by brother USSR. I wish I still had that East German encyclopedia that was full of the grand achievements that the Communist-Socialist nations supposedly had gotten over the foolish Capitalists.

                    They need to believe it’s better, reality be damned, and insist that the ‘other’ socialists and communists didn’t ‘practice the real thing.’ Some of the things I saw that as a kid I accepted as This is How It Is Done Here seriously disturb me as an adult. And as an adult I know that the True Believers will say that I never ‘really lived’ in East Berlin, I was a diplomat’s daughter, privileged and sheltered and all that bullshit – which is false.

                    Unlike the other diplomats, we didn’t live in the enclave where the Diplomats and their families and such were assigned to live. By sheer accident, there wasn’t any space there, so we were placed in an apartment building that was the housing for the Stasi families. I never saw the diplomatic ‘village’ so to speak, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was a bit of a Ptomekin Village setup; that the East Germany they saw was very different from the one we did see and live in. (The second apartment we lived in was right across from the North Korean Embassy, just a couple of blocks or so away from Checkpoint Charlie.)

                    I mention these things because there are things now I see that remind me very strongly of the things I saw back then in East Berlin. I know what they’re pushing for, even with a child’s memories of what was.

                    1. I’ve held since I was in Junior High (math teacher had gotten out of East Germany, never got that whole story) that the only difference between fascism, communism, and socialism is that communism and socialism has a better PR firm. And that Communism was better able to hide it’s crimes against humanity.

                    2. Yes. Especially on the ‘better PR firm.’

                      I had a socialist teacher in college, was VERY upset that my description of East Berlin was not a shiny chrome-covered Utopia, but dusty, dingy, and with a strange tendency to grow four leafed clovers in the lawns where clover grew (so, lots of localized mutations due to some kind of pollution). The bread was hard by the next day and the only way to salvage it was to turn it into bread pudding. It so upset her that at the end of the year she took points off my final grade (crossed out what should’ve been a 90 and turned it to 85.) My classmates, and the dean of my course were outraged. I told them there was a lesson to be learned here – not by me, but for the people around me.

                      I chose not to contest it because it was a passing grade, and I had to prepare for a flight to France that weekend. (Was a diplomat’s kid, and Dad was assigned to Paris then.)

                    3. “There is a reason why I call Islam Mohammad’s fanfic of the Bible.”

                      Oh, I am SO stealing that……

                    4. Very interesting info, Drow. It conforms to what I’ve heard from Germans.

                      And Islam is very much like that. They tell blatant lies to their people, then insist that anyone writing or speaking otherwise is just a poor demented, misled fool, or they’re lying to you. None of those things the rest of the world has evidence for could possibly be true. And that’s based on actual interactions with the smarter of these individuals.

                      (And concur it is what we’re seeing develop among the progs here.)

            2. Of course the planned protests will be spontaneous. Stalin proved that if spontaneous protests were not carefully planned, the wrong people might be shot. Oh

              1. Nevermind, they’re just peasants, anf who cares who or how many get shot. Joseph Ilivitch Stalin. (Just paaphrasing, but I think yhe basic sentiment is true )
                The progressive organizers never care about the street-level thugs. Whether they riot and die, or riot and kill, the organizers will try to claim victory snx keep pudhing their agenda.

            3. Their goal in using language s to obfuscate, not clarify. Like using a spotlight to blind rather than illuminate.

    3. Oh, I figure anywhere they think they can gather in large enough numbers is a target – but if they’re hoping to foment college kids, by en large, those turn out to be all talk and no action when facing police in the light of day. It takes overwhelming faculty support and active police collusion (Berkeley) to usually get that, or bussing in large numbers of paid and volunteer protesters from elsewhere to get the critical mass for a mob.

      As to where that’s going to be… Anywhere they identify as a soft enough target and get the cameras set up ahead of time.

        1. The Home Depot shooting bugs me– why on earth would someone stand around after a shoplifting charge until the cops got there, and then shoot?

          RIP, officer Santander; hopefully officer Crystal Almeida pulls through, and Mr. Painter doesn’t go critical.

          1. Solidly cliche article about it, here, complete with grandma saying the guy ON VIDEO SHOOTING TWO COPS AND THE SHOPLIFTING PREVENTION DUDE is a sweet, lovable person although his friends might be a bad influence.


            The outstanding felony warrant was for a stolen car they caught him in, and he had previous drug convictions. (The standard “possession” that means he was caught red-handed doing something, but wasn’t a known criminal, so they did a plea deal for an easy conviction and him not having much of a record.)

          2. Because the whole purpose of the shoplifting was to get the cops called to be shot while not telegraphing they needed to come in hot. Elementary tactics.

            Meanwhile, the LP guy either wasn’t tough enough to search this perp, or had been specifically TOLD by Home Depot / the security company not to, in order to avoid a countersuit.

            Of course, if the cops HAD come in hot, the cop haters would have been screaming about excessive force, why didn’t they shoot to wound, and there will be a Black Lives Matter rally this weekend. See article you quoted.

            This is one reason the thoroughly blue areas have an official or unofficial policy that cops don’t respond to shoplifting calls for less than $500 or $1000.

            1. That, sadly, DOES make more sense than catching a cop’s eye, hanging out, etc.

              They really want to turn Dallas cops into Seattle cops.

            2. > search this perp

              I dunno about Texas, but in Arkansas that’s a serious no-no. The store could face assault charges, among others.

              1. It might go under citizen’s arrest, but God help you if you’re wrong about them being a major hazard, and probably God help you anyways. While I don’t think Louise over at our home store would even think of such a thing, I’d do my best to murder anybody putting hands on me because I was suspicious. Waiting for the cops, sure, fine– you wanna BE the cops, die.

                1. Which is why you’re going to see a rethink on having any kind of anti-shoplifting effort at all. It will be cheaper to eat the losses and raise prices rather than stop anyone…… at least until the losses make running any kind of physical retailing location unprofitable.

                  1. Or they’ll respond in a more reasonable manner and include “getting stopped for shoplifting” in the list of possible ambush tactics.

  1. I’ve been predicting that the Democrat ‘wave’ is actually going to be a ‘flush’. Yes, typically the opposition party makes lots of gains. However, I don’t think we’ve had the situation where the opposition has loudly and publicly lost their ever loving minds to this degree.

    Sadly, the Democrats opponents are the Republicans who have this amazing habit of grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory.

    We’ll see, November is a long way away and there is still a lot that can (and will) happen that will influence elections.

    1. All the lefties have to do is keep on talking. Screaming. Whining. Calling everyone raaaaacists, dancing on the grave of innocent and recently deceased First Ladies, and beating conservative college students over the head with bike locks.
      Just keep it up, Lefties. We’ll fill a hot-tub with your tears, come November…

      1. That’s my thoughts as well. The Left’s behavior is the gift that keeps on giving.

        By now I’m guessing that even people that don’t like and don’t pay any attention to politics are starting to get sick of the constant ‘TRUMP!’ only to have it turn into nothing.

          1. Arguably, I think the “not act crazy” goes for Trump too. I’ve noticed that I haven’t heard any media freak-outs about unhinged Trump tweets lately (which I assume means he’s been taking it easy on twitter), and his numbers are going up. I know correlation doesn’t prove causation, but I think there is something to this.

        1. They’ll create sympathy for the man with their constant attacks. And then what?

          1. That’s the part I wonder about. The Progs are going to believe everything on TV, even when stuff contradicts itself or mysteriously vanishes from coverage.

            The few ‘normals’ I interact with on a fairly regular basis seem to be ‘getting it’ so I’m hoping it’s spread.

      2. I think that this is the most likely thing. Of course Republicans have to actually run people who don’t have bunches of really stupid things they’ve said in the past, which isn’t a given. The screaming and name calling and what-not will happen no matter what so the thing to do is to make sure that it’s all obvious hysterics.

        “Deplorables” was a gift.

        And the way of things suggests that it will just keep on giving. The idea of NOT calling people horrible names in order to “motivate” your base to show up to vote is unthinkable. It’s a tactic that’s worked, after all. War on Women! But at some point you just can’t ramp it up anymore without motivating the “deplorables” to bother to vote against you.

      3. There are two parts to winning an election, one is getting MORE voters on your side, the other is getting YOUR voters to the polls.

        What the Dems are currently doing is turning off (some) of their voters.

        What the Republicans are NOT doing is stuff that will get more of their voters to the polls.

            1. I voted despite not feeling well because I didn’t want my town Californicated by new voters.

          1. If Hillary had managed to STFU she’d be President now. Same for Kerry and Gore. They all had the election sewn up, and lost ground every time they opened their mouths and let the stupid roam free.

        1. This thread today prompted me to check when the primaries are. Looks like I’ve got some reading up to do on the candidates for a few of the offices. The R’s have got a zillion candidates for nomination for US Senator, and zero for state senator and state representative for this district.

    2. Best way for the Blue Wave to wash us away?
      Complacency, silence, and failure to vote on our parts.

      1. That and the Republicans in Washington. . .being Republicans in Washington.

        Right now it does seem that both Democrats and Republicans are both fiercely competing for the label ‘the stupid party’. The Progs just decided to add ‘the stupid AND insane party’. I can see where arguing for stupid people to be in charge might limit the potential damage they can do but adding the whole ‘insane’ thing tips that scale into the ‘oh hell no, I’m not letting the lunatics run jack or shit’ territory.

      2. I’ll be voting in November, but only because it’s a duty.

        I am UTTERLY unenthusiastic about the Libertoonians, the Republicans are pissing me off, and I’d rather shoot someone than vote Democrat.

        So I’ll vote, but I’ll not be happy about it.

            1. Good lord, do you hate her that much? Then again, it would shake up congress a lot. On the gripping hand, less time for her to write books. So do not want her in congress.

              1. She could spend the entire time in Congress writing books and do less damage than they do now.

                1. If she runs for Congress she will want a good campaign song …

                  She could probably finance her re-election campaign by PPV of her committee hearing interrogations of government officials.

              2. ((image of Sarah with either a broom or frying pan, in a room with a bunch of Congresscritters, and nothing between them and her))

                It would be glorious, mind you…

            2. What has Sarah ever done to you, that you should wish such a fate upon her???

        1. The Libertarians are being infiltrated by the Left since the smarter Progs know they’ve pretty much killed the Democratic Party.

          I have no idea why the Republicans are spineless stooges. I can suggest a few surgical options that might fix both. . .

          I’m not thrilled about voting in November either. But if the alternative is letting the Progs win, I’ll be going to vote with a smile on face. Probably wearing a MAGA hat and t-shirt.

          1. I really would like to be able to walk into both senator and reps offices and slap some sense into those progressive liberal feminists, but I’m afraid it would be wasted effort. Add to the pot that we have Sander’s wetback son (crossing the Connecticut river, not the Rio Grande) running for one of the offices; which really torques my jaws. Vermont exporting their crappy socialists.

            State legislature isn’t much better. I’ll have to beat up one of the more liberal reps at the fencing club tomorrow.

          2. I’ve been suspicious for some time that the Libertarian Party is a false flag op run *by* the Democratic Party, for the express purpose of splitting the conservative vote. This got clinched by something Lauren Southern said about when she worked at Reason Magazine… seems pro-Hillary articles were okay, but pro-GOP or worse, pro-Trump articles got scuttled.

            I’m also fairly sure that most (maybe all) Libertarian candidates are blissfully unaware.

            1. If so, they’re doing a lousy job of it. I seriously considered voting Libertarian last election, but I just couldn’t bring myself to vote for the guys who were in favor or cap-and-trade agreements, gun control, and jailing Christian bakers. If the Libertarians had run on a platform that was even close to an actual “we’ll get the government out of your life” agenda, I’d have gone for it on the grounds I hated the two major party candidates pretty much equally (yes, Trump has been much better than I thought, but that was a low bar).

              1. I pretty strongly dislike the Libertarian Party. But they have never been effective enough to carry out mass murders in the US. Given my theory at the election that Trump was a Democrat…

                1. I still think he’s a Democrat. But the media, etc. keep pushing him right.

                  And he’s doing much better than I expected when i voted for him.

                2. I don’t think Trump gives a damn which party he’s nominally with; he’s interested in results. No doubt he looked at the field of candidates on both sides, decided the fix was in for Hillary so running as a Dem was pointless, and it’s easier to win against a crowded field where everyone dilutes everyone else’s message… he figured he could beat all the GOP candidates, so ran as a Republican. But once he claimed a side, he also gave it his loyalty… and of course every time the Dems pull another obstructionist stunt (exactly the opposite of Trump’s whole business model), the wisdom of his choice is reinforced.

                  1. An astute comment, Rez … and I shouldn’t be surprised a couple of decades down the line, to have it proved accurate.
                    I keep reading here and there — that The Donald is a much nicer person, one on one, than his public image has always been. There are all sorts of reports of him being privately and unostentatiously charitable … and a while ago, I read about one particular circle of women — I think they were in the real estate business? They knew him from a long time back, thought the world of him, said that he was amazingly focused and hard-working, and backed him all the way when he quixotically decided to run for higher office.
                    Read about all this in the mainstream media? Yeah, I’m not holding my breath on that one.

                    1. I keep hearing things that make me suspect he’s one of those folks who knows that being nice can and will be used against you.

              2. One of the more cynical statements I’ve heard used on reason was gays, grass and Mexicans. Outside of that they were pretty reliably leftist.

              3. You’re not the target audience, though; you’re keyed in enough to pay attention.

                The target is folks who are pissed but don’t really research much.

                1. At least in my state they seem to be taking the same ‘screaming loony’ route that the democrats are. EVERY person I have known who has gone into politics in the Libertarian party has gone from reasonable and well reasoned to frothing loon almost over night. It’s almost enough to make me believe in brainwashing.

                  1. I think it comes from a bad premise. Maybe a couple.
                    Both sides are wrong =/= both sides are EQUALLY wrong.

                    Possibly also what amounts to ignoring ones sense of proportion… there is a massive difference between saying ‘no’ to a desire someone has because of the observable results, and saying ‘no’ to a desire someone has because it’s politically useful.


                    Guess it’s the old “can’t make any value judgements” problem– especially combined with the restriction on saying ‘no,’ which requires almost all Libertarians hold the conflicting views that 1) everyone is responsible for the results of their actions, 2) you are not allowed to initiate harm against anyone, and 3) you can’t restrict anybody.
                    Which runs right into the biggest thing people don’t want to be told ‘no’ about is sex, which does cause new people to come about, which the theory then must either say those people are required to care for (as a direct result of their actions, those new people are put in mortal hazard).

                    There are multiple options, here…and none of them are going to sell very well.

                    I’d probably go with pot, too.

                    1. Most of the ones I’ve seen either go complete totalitarian on point 2 or point 3. Often Point 3 will take immigration or pro-abortion as a hill to die on (heaven help you if you suggest that the non-aggression principle should, perhaps, include protecting the unable to aggress unborn). This sort seem to start as the ‘joined for ideals’ sort. Point 2 gets really wacky. As in “Off with their heads!” wacky. This seems to be how the ‘Joined because I’m angry’ set go off their rocker.

                      The contradictions make me think Libertarianism is an excellent personal philosophy, but other than ‘make the government little’ is probably not a workable way to build a party.

                    2. I tend to think of it as a pretty dang cool attempt to build a moral philosophy without requiring moral judgement.

                      Sure, it doesn’t work– part of why it reminds me of communism is because that’s an attempt to build a society around a moral good (generosity) without requiring moral judgement– but it’s still interesting, and a lot less dangerous, and you can use a lot of it. Contrast with trying to make “everyone should have what they need, and do what they can” into a political philosophy!

                  2. Watched an interview of Gary Johnson with.. um, probably Dave Rubin (someone mild-mannered and inoffensive, anyway). At one point, might have been on the Open Borders thing, Johnson’s body language became fullblown intimidation tactics. He didn’t have a valid answer, so “you’ll believe me because I’m bigger’n you.” That’s the point where I decided he was either a fullblown loon or in someone’s pocket in a bad way. Or both.

                    1. Hm, I’ll have to pay attention for that in the future.

                      I just have noticed the noisy big-Ls tend to put my teeth on edge, even when they haven’t pulled some of the word-totem magic. (You’re going to freely choose to follow my theory, just as soon as you try it! If you don’t, then you haven’t really tried it, and need to be forced to, for everyone’s freedom! Gosh, why does that sound familiar, an idea so good it’s gotta be mandatory….)

              4. It doesn’t have to do a good job; it only has to siphon off 1-2% of the conservative vote to beat the GOP in a lot of districts. Hell, look how close some presidential elections have run. 1% is more than enough.

          3. There doesn’t have to be somebody you want to vote for, merely somebody you want to vote against.

            For example, I didn’t vote for Trump in 2016 but I sure as heck voted against Hillary.

              1. “Shocked as heck he won, and pleasantly surprised since.”

                Triple “ditto”. Did a little dance when I heard there were more than a few (no matter how they hid it) magazines, papers, who had to rerun because the anointed one did not win; well once I got over the shock she didn’t, & the OMG, OMG, he won! Yea! 🙂

                1. Heh, I couldn’t sleep so I was sort of bopping around online, in a horrible mood… dang near fainted when I heard Bryan Suits pointing out “…wait a minute. These results…they’re pointing the wrong way. This..this is really unexpected, here.” Or words to that effect.

                2. That’s terrible.
                  I bet you also thought it was great when the Wicked Witch of the West melted. No thought at all given to all of those flying monkeys out of a job, the balance of power being disrupted, the total lack of bipartisanship in melting her!
                  You were just all “Yay! I was rooting against her!”
                  Tsk, tsk, tsk……

                  1. Humph!

                    Those poor flying monkeys out of a job?

                    You are ignoring that they were slaves of the Witch and the Witch’s death meant that they were free. At least until Dorothy Gale found the Golden Cap that allowed the wearer to control the monkeys. 😉

                    On the other hand, the monkeys know own the Golden Cap and aren’t bothering people anymore.

                  2. 😉 What can I say? Other than: BUSTED …

                    Someone expected me, ME?, to go along, to get along, just because Hillary was female? Or any candidate who says “vote for me, I’m female”; Oh, good lord, …, no, Hell no.

                    1. “vote for me, I’m female” — some exceptions apply, of course. As was said about Sarah Palin: she’s not a female, she’s a Republican!

                      We can be confident that the “she has a vagina and she’s willing to use it” argument will not apply to Nikki Haley when she runs.

                      It would be appropriate to note that the “females never lie about sexual assault” rule doesn’t apply when the female is Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey or Gennifer Flowers – just ask Hillary about what shows up when you drag a $20 through a trailer park.

                    2. We can be confident that the “she has a vagina and she’s willing to use it” argument will not apply to Nikki Haley when she runs.

                      While I’m not up on her personal relationships, other than being aware she’s not hard on the eyes, isn’t actual use of reproductive organs a thing that kind of disqualifies you? At least if you do it more than once or twice. Recreational stimulation, sure, but not actually USING that system, repeatedly, especially with the same man to whom you are married.

            1. My suspicions go way back. I met and spoke with an early Libertarian POTUS candidate. That man had not an original thought in his head. But I also recall a much sharper guy who kept a peculiar sort of watch on him and occasionally intervened to answer questions… if that’s not a handler for a puppet, I don’t know what is.

              1. I ran into the proto-Libertarians in the mid-70s in California. I was moderately liberal at the time (voted for Jerry Brown in ’74, but his act work thin pretty quickly), but the message was pretty much pot, prostitutes and mumbles on foreign policy. Didn’t make much sense then, and it’s loonier now.

                1. I contend all you have to do to determine who is backing a third party effort is determine from whence the third party (or “independent”) candidate will draw votes: The backer is the other one.

                  Ideologies, professed strongly held beliefs, party platforms and so on do not matter one whit. If it hurts A it’s backed by B.

        2. You can find an individual pol you dislike the least. I’m happy that Ted Cruz is my senator.

          1. I’m fairly ticked at everyone in the house and senate who sponsored SESTA and the other bill.

    3. I recall a recent analysis that showed that while the (leftist biased) polls were showing the voters leaning left, it was only about 7%….a LOT lower than is usual for the opposition party in a mid-term election. In fact, even if you accept the polls as honest (ha!) it’s almost within the margin of error.

      Are they pumping themselves up for another massive letdown? It would be consistent with their SOP. And if the ‘blue wave’ turns out to be a red tide, I must confess I look forward to the EPIC gnashing of teeth and rending of garments.

        1. Yes, exactly. And they expect us to take them seriously. I would have expected a lot of ‘news’ stories about how the methodology was being changed to make them accurate again, at the very least.

      1. Well, you know, the Error of History and all that. It’s FATE! Read the portents, scan their entrails, the answer is in the stars!

        Besides, if their Baghdad Bob news air support ever told the truth their fund-raising would dry up. We must Fight the Party of Fear and Corruption by scaring the crap out of the rubes bien pensant and making whatever deals with the devil we can cut.

      2. Rasmussen is showing a 5 point advantage for the Dems in the generic congressional ballot, but that’s at 40%R to 45%D with 15% undecided. Rasmussen seems to be one of the better polling firms out there, given that they had some of the closest numbers in 2016 and that the Dem mouthpieces attack Rasmussen whenever their poll shows good numbers for President Trump – or just parity with Obama at same time in office.

        1. That is a national average advantage, meaning that it is probably +50 points in California, New York and Massachusetts and -45 points throughout (most of) Dixie. Remember, the House is 435 individual races and while the Dems may have a big advantage in Pelosistan they aren’t winning many seats in rural Tennessee.

          Historically the Dems have been very inefficient in their vote patterns, winning BIG in cities and losing in the suburban and especially the rural districts. Winning Maxine Waters’ seat CA-43) by 75 percent and losing Mark Walker’s (NC-6) by 1 percent still leaves one of each party in the House.

          Which is why the Left is trying mightily to gerrymander the nation.

          1. There’s at least two major conceptual problems with the “generic congressional ballot” polls. One you’ve just addressed. The other is that it completely fails to address any specific race, where aspects such as incumbency, charisma, and past mistakes can impact things.

            That doesn’t make such polls useless, but does limit their overall predictive power. Similarly, four of the presidential polls correctly called the 2016 popular vote very closely – but that meant nothing when it came to the electoral college, because those were national polls. Heck, I don’t think many (any?) of the national polls they have enough samples from any given state for calling the presidential race in the states.

            Sample size and granularity are lacking. That makes the “generic congressional ballot” polls even less predictive than the national presidential polls.

        2. I’m still skeptical of the “undecided” responses. I’ve never met one, anwyay.

          I figure they’re just saying that to give the pollsters a polite brush-off.

      3. If blue wave goes red tide; expect a whole lot more of the leftist loonies to be engaging in acts of violence. Think more attacks on the GOP groups like the one that tried to kill them on the ball field; and more, and worse, in the vein of Charlottesville and Berserkley.

        1. I wonder if they realize that it is exactly those actions which push people to vote against them in large numbers?

  2. The biggest worry is that a real attempt at secession would make them aware of how completely unprepared they are, and they’d welcome in hostile third parties. It seems unavoidable if they’re crazy enough to try it, and I think they are.

    The number of politicians and quasi-politicians who are involved in seriously shady business makes third-party influence a possible driver of secession. A lot of them have 3 of the 4 MICE factors pushing them.

    1. Secession is only one, and currently the first, alternative being pushed in California. I suspect they’ll easily get the 364,000 signatures to put it on the ballot (heck they could do that with citizen registered voters, and never touch their illegal alien illegal voters.) But even if they vote for it, and they get the California legislature to approve it; I doubt it would pass the necessary votes in either house of Congress.

      I’m more interested in the new state movements. THAT might actually pass a Congressional vote.

      1. The issue you’re referring to in California would split the state apart but all parts would stay in the U.S. I think that’s a good idea. It’s when the Leftist part of California says, “I don’t have to listen to you, *Dad*!” that it gets dangerous.

        1. I still say they should split the state—but only if the northern and eastern parts retain control of the water that comes from there. “No economic resources,” my butt. Just imagine how much screaming there would be on the coast if they had to PAY for the water they use.

        2. There’s also a new Cal-Exit measure that’s apparently just started gathering signatures. Note, though, that none of my lefty friends here in SoCal want to leave the US.

        3. I looked it up online after I saw the petition, and I can’t see any merit in it. It does split off the part of southern California where I live without including Los Angeles, which is all to the good—no one in SoCal outside LA wants a state where LA has more than half the votes—and it puts LA into a coastal strip that runs up to Monterey. But it includes the rest of the coastal strip, including San Francisco and Berkeley, in a northern state along with the far north and the interior, who would have a constant struggle against the craziest leftists in North America. I don’t think the lines were well thought through.

          1. As with any divorce, the biggest fight is over who gets the baby — or, in California’s case, who gets the pension debt. I suspect that argument will compel cooler heads to take the reins.

            1. a lot of CA’s budget could be fixed by telling state retirees they only get to retire with one pension, and they can’t collect one while working at another state job.

              1. Possibly, but then you have the issue of breaking a contract which the employee signed in good faith. Not a road one wishes to go down if it can be avoided.

            1. Bingo. Every one negates the rather more conservative rural and inland votes. The upshot would be to ensure a bunch more Dem votes in the Electoral College, as well as in Congress.

              Now, break off Jefferson, the Inyo Valley, and the high desert plus Bakersfield, and you’d see a very different picture.

              1. I have fond fantasies of the California and Illinois GOP entering amicus briefs in the SCOTUS appeal of Pennsylvania’s gerrymandering …

                1. yeah, if the ‘Malibu, along the coast, turn east into Beverly Hills” district that CA used to have isn’t Gerrymandering, i haven’t seen it.

          2. I think the lines were very specifically worked out to maximize enhancing the Democrats’ power in national elections.

          3. “Roughly equal population” is the concept—but putting San Francisco in with Northern California is a big misstep. And Sacramento isn’t as blue as you might think; there’s an awful lot of spillover from the Bay Area (housing costs are pretty insane again), but it’s surrounded by farms and there are a LOT of traditional conservatives here. You might manage to convince people that Sacramento should go with Northern California only if they understand that all the politicians from Southern California and the Bay Area would be gone.

        4. I’m pretty sure the Draper approach will founder on the Northern California bit. A fair amount of people are already pissed off at SF and Sacramento ruling their lives, and that plant keeps the same situation.

          OTOH, if CalExit happens, I’d be happy to support a wall on Stateline Road. 🙂

      2. My memory of that, though is that they merely created the states of LA, San Francisco/Sacramento, and maybe San Diego. Still net insanity.

          1. Not enough, though, and increasingly diminishing in effective power as time goes on.

          2. If memory serves, reconquista is proceeding apace there. Still leans red but changing.

            1. IIRC, in spite of the gov’t, people keep assimilating.

              My kids’ great grandmother has a house keeper, second generation she’s had from that family– there won’t be a third, because the daughter is in some kind of science program.

              When the housekeeper lady was doing her homework in GG’mas house, they’d jump back over the border to visit family all the time.
              With the grandaughter? Oh, realms of the dead; not THAT stupid. Mexico is a pit and they’re well out of it, by their logic.

              That family, on paper, are solid Dem voters. I, uh, rather suspect that they wouldn’t be able to deal with that lady if they WEREN’T solidly Republican.

          3. Most of them probably aren’t registered to vote in CA. When I was stationed there it was cheaper to keep my license/plates etc in my home state and it seemed like a lot of the other guys on the ship did the same thing.

            Plus between short cruises, deployments, and well, being a 20-ish man in San Diego. . .we weren’t really paying all that much attention to much beyond women, beer, sun, and sand.

        1. I wonder what the boundaries would look like if each county got to vote on what new state it belongs to. I can tell you none of the rural areas would want to be in a state controlled by SF or LA with zero balance from anywhere else.

    2. Yep. Not only will there be more brushfires overseas, probably including coups and invasion but probably get cartel/Mexican army involved at least.

      1. Only if Cartel, Mexican army are out of their fricking heads. You’re looking at this through the proggies’ eyes. What’s in it for outsiders, facing the US? Some plundering at the edges, sure, but against an armed populace? They’d have to be crazy.

        1. Keeping things low down, the Cartels in whatever form are protected from American Citizens.

          Yes, that sounds funky, but it’s true– things go hot? I would not want to be a coyote anywhere near the border. Hell, I wouldn’t want to be ANYBODY that you don’t instantly recognize anywhere near the border, or you’re likely dead.

        2. Not so much cartels as foreign powers eager to exert regional influence. I agree they’d have to be crazy to engage in actual hostilities, but if they don’t think it would come to that, a foreign power would be very happy to establish a naval base in Leftyland, where they can exert a ton of influence over a new government that already agrees with most of their (stated) ideas. Tbe progs would see themselves as an important member of the international community.

          1. Thing is, I’m not sure any of those foreign powers truly grasp just HOW armed most of the populace is, outside the cities run by the gun-grabbers. Or how hard it would be, logistically, to deal with the vast distances in the US.

            There was a WW2 POW camp not far from where I live (which would be Back End of Nowhere, Wyoming). They didn’t have heavy security, overall. There was no point. As a couple of German prisoners who ‘escaped’ found out: they were found a good forty or so miles away a couple of days later, sitting in the stands of that town’s rodeo arena, and were more than happy to give up, as they were exhausted and hungry and lost. I don’t think they had any hostile encounters with the locals (who were of course pretty much all armed)…they just…gave up, because they were in the middle of SO MUCH NOTHING. (And winter was coming.)

            (And for a number of the Italian POWs, at least, they enjoyed their time in the POW camp–where they were put to work cutting trees, and fed plenty of food and even *paid* for their work, and invited to dinner at locals’ houses–that a chunk of them emigrated to the US as soon as the war was over.)

            1. There’s also the fact that while people may tolerate a domestically grown oppressor, they tend to despise invaders or outsiders imposing order.
              Cops hate domestic violence calls because both parties are likely to turn on them.

            2. I knew a veteran who had supervised PoWs during the war. The Italians were no trouble; they just wanted a little vino and to play their mandolins.

              The Germans, however, had a fair amount of attitude. My friend was supervising them building wooden shipping crates; they would put the nails in to make a swastika pattern.

        3. Remind me again where’s the evidence shown that the armed populace will actually do anything. All their estimates are based on that reality.

          1. There was a big uptick in reported justified shootings after that old farmer was found dead on his ranch, 4-wheeler missing, when he reported border jumpers using his ranch.
            Then there was a sudden drop in any border crossings there at all.

              1. And has defensive gun use been more or less likely to involve legal hassle over that timeline? Hint: When I first got my homeowners policy, there were no clauses about number of guns you could have covered against theft, or extra liability riders / policies if you wanted coverage against being sued by lawbreakers. Now? Trends matter.

                1. Steve? What in the actual hell? What does that have to do with the price of potatoes. In general, no, it didn’t involve an over amount of legal hassle. It has to involve SOME. Do you want people to shoot whomever they want and claim self defense? No? Then it has to be investigated.
                  Good Lord.

                2. And has defensive gun use been more or less likely to involve legal hassle over that timeline?


                  Two easy ways to validate this– the extreme rarity of the gun-grabbers pointing at a story to say “See, see? XYZ murders in supposed defense!!!1!”, and the fact that so many states are putting the burden on the state to proof self-defense (and broadening when deadly force is justified– wasn’t involved before they charge that the Zimmerman attack got nation-wide push. “Stand your ground” is gaining, “duty to retreat” is under attack; Castle Doctrine is becoming normal. “Make my day” laws are standing strong.

                  They are losing, and frantic about it.

                  1. Here’s one of the crazy* people attacking it– via the rate of justifiable homicides for stand-your-ground states.


                    * Someone who thinks that the “moment to reach for another weapon might change their mind” and can’t carry through to the reality that it would probably “change their mind” by them being dead due to the goblin they, having a gun, were able to kill first– is not in touch with reality.

          2. Sighs. Go to ace of spades. MILLIONS of defensive gun uses a year. You’re falling into the trap of “but I didn’t read it on the MSM.”
            If you mean against the state, for pitty’s sake, Steve, read the LONG fuse to the American revolution. We’re not a people who revolt lightly. Just thoroughly when we do it.

            1. Those Americans inclined to being revolting are already in the streets. The real revolution won’t start until the vast majority of the polity get tred of the mess in the streets and decide to clean up.

              1. BTW, the distinction to be made is between those with something to lose (aka, something to fight to defend) and those with nothing to lose (no home, no family, no career.) There is little so terrifying as confronting those who’ve decided to defend what they have, if only because those are the folks who know how to organize and fight as an army against the mobs.

            2. And the fuse here’s been burning since 1913, 1933, 1968, etc. depending on who you ask. Longer than the run up to the American Revolution. And how much does that precedent take off the burning? How long is long enough?

              “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism,”

              What part of that pattern has not been thoroughly established?

              PS: I’ve read as much American history as you have; I just didn’t draw the same conclusions.

              1. Steve. Go read unexpurgated histories. We’re actually making gains against how bad it was in 1913. You’re reading this too superficially and with a whole lot of preconceptions.

    3. That’s not a bug in the Soviet agitprop they’ve been raised on, that’s a feature. To the Soviets, anyway. What, you thought America was supposed to crumble and go internationalist while Moscow stood by with folded hands and did nothing?

      Just because the USSR couldn’t hold out long enough for the USA to fall doesn’t mean the things they set in motion changed course.

  3. You have to keep fighting. The two things the Progressive Left are very, Very, VERY good at is persistence and infiltration. They didn’t take over academia overnight. They didn’t take over the APA and overturn a hundred years of classifying significantly abnormal sexual behavior as a mental health issue overnight. They didn’t take over the Democrats, and RINO-ize the GOP overnight. BSA didn’t decide overnight to put gay and straight teenage boys in the same tents with each other, and then put gays in charge of troops and packs. And the anti-2nd Amendment crowd is just as wide-spread and picking away as ever.

    They’re discouraged, but they’re not giving up.

    It’s like being infected with a chronic, incurable, but treatable, disease.

    As far as violence is concerned, each one of us have to ask ourselves, “Is this situation correctable legally, or does it place me, my family, or my friends in actual risk of loss of life, limb, liberty, or property? If legal correction can work, then violence is not the answer. If legal means won’t fix it, either because of outright denial of the legal process (mob attack, corrupt government officials); or you only get lip service and the reality is no, then violence is called for. Don’t act until you have a well defined goal, a plan (and alternatives) to reach that goal, enough resources to get there (including peers, accomplices, comrades-in-arms, leaders, etc.), and an organization to tie all that together (family, clan, tribe, nation). I’ll add one more thing, an addition to the plan-goal parts: what are you going to replace the system with, that won’t have the same, or worse, weaknesses of our current system? Mind you, the one thing our system of government does NOT have here in all the United States, is an active, effective means of removing old, onerous, useless, or detrimental laws, statutes, rules, and regulations at the national, state, and local levels. Jury nullification just doesn’t have enough teeth, and the judicial establishment has long been doing their best to castrate it.

    1. I will argue, on the BSA front, that if a Scout is a Scout it damned well doesn’t matter what their sexual orientation is, because they should adhere to the rules of good behavior. I’ve known a number of Eagle Scouts in my life, and some of them were gay, and from the perspective of other Scouts and campers, it was totally irrelevant.

      1. Scouting is, or a least was supposed to be, a celibate organization, as far as the boys are concerned.
        I’m a parent, and a former scout leader.
        I was a teenage boy, once upon a time.
        And I’m also a realist.
        Words like “should” need to be excised from your vocabulary when referring to teenagers. Boys don’t do “should”. they explore, and push boundaries, all of them. They do “what can I get away with when isn’t around?” And even so-called Eagle Scouts can be cannibalistic and predatory. The point is, you don’t EVER allow them to be in a situation where they can engage in those behaviors. Best fictional scenario illustrating this is from Starship Troopers where Zim gets his ass chewed by the commander for allowing a situation where a recruit could successfully punch him in the face. I’ve seen too many times when relying on “should” destroyed both the lives of the scouts and the leaders.

        1. Day Job rules – two students are not permitted to be unchaperoned in a room UNLESS one is playing the piano and the other is singing, and someone checks on them (door is open). Teacher is never alone with a student UNLESS the door is open and both parties are easily visible from the door. Students are never left unchaperoned in a classroom, period. As the Headmaster put it once, “It’s not that they aren’t good kids, but impulses happen, and explaining just how a student managed to get into the ventilation ducts is not something I care to do.”

          1. That’s already the BSA rules that have been in place since at least the mid-80s. As for privacy in a tent, have you BEEN camping? Heck, most tents have done away with zippable windows in favor of a mesh top, only given a semblance of privacy by the rain fly.

            Mostly I object to the idea that people who are gay are inherently more problematic than, say, the kid we had who set the camp on fire. I was a summer camp counselor for four years, one who had to play by extremely restrictive rules because we could not have the appearance of impropriety, and it damned near pushed me into a breakdown my first summer because I was so isolated. (They’ve relaxed those rules since, which is good because some of them were stupid.) I saw almost every permutation of Scout out there, and the problematic nature of sexual orientation was so far down the list that it didn’t even register—expect for those Scoutmasters who freaked out when a staff member put on a dress for a campfire skit, because Oh No.

            (Um. In case it didn’t show, I Have Opinions about Scouting. Mostly positive, but I can point to exactly where a lot of things go wrong, and it’s all on the leadership level, from leaders who don’t really want to be there.)

            1. Never said the gay boys were more problematic. The predation can go both ways, and it gets ugly quick.

            2. “(Um. In case it didn’t show, I Have Opinions about Scouting. Mostly positive, but I can point to exactly where a lot of things go wrong, and it’s all on leadership level, from leaders who don’t really want to be there.)”

              – “Don’t want to be there: Like religious groups using BSA programs, & their BSA leadership is “you volunteered”; FWIW some actually want to, but a lot resent. Although with the recent BSA policy regarding openly gay or female youth membership, that problem is solving itself (these religious groups are removing themselves).

              – Rule where if a scout acts out inappropriately, parents can & will be called to pick up said scout, no matter how inconvenient, when you know that parents won’t come, even tho they signed the papers when joining & reaffirm every single outing permission slip. You can’t prevent the scout from joining activities until it happens, but da** when it happens, how do you tell the scout his parent aren’t coming? Don’t care enough to come.

              – Gay issue. Came under “not my business.” No where, ever, does (did) the BSA application, either youth or adult ask your preference. Gender, yes. Who to contact in an emergency, yes. But it does not have to be a spouse.

              – Gender. Our unit co-registered as Venturing Crew since it was possible. Until now females couldn’t earn their Eagle. Now they can. A lot of rural units BSA & GSA have units that have partnered. Heck it was happening when I was in GSA in late ’60’s. So policies took a while to catch up …

              We’ve been out of leadership now for about 10 years. Primarily because we are firm believers that those with youth in the programs need to step up. BSA does NOT stand for Baby-Sitters-of-America!

              1. On your first point, VERY much the truth. Admittedly, one of the best Scoutmasters I saw came from that religion, but he wasn’t voluntold like so many of his compatriots (or if he had been, it was met with “Yes! I feel the call to do this!”)

        2. “I’m a parent, and a former scout leader.
          I was a teenage boy, once upon a time.
          And I’m also a realist.”

          Ditto. Except take out the 2nd line, being female; but I was young once & in GS (trust me just as inventive). I am married to someone who was a teenage boy, once upon a time (even tho son swears it was before dirt was invented; whatever). When whining, complaining, commenting, on why the scouts couldn’t pull anything over on their leaders unless said leaders pretended to not notice (some hi-jinks are tradition, even then attention was paid least said tradition get out of hand; at least with our group). Some of us commented “Nope, not happening. Guaranteed your leaders invented it. You know, when they weren’t busy out running T-Rex?”

    2. what are you going to replace the system with, that won’t have the same, or worse, weaknesses of our current system?
      This is why the ONLY answer with lasting results is returning the culture/society to the moral bounds it once had, and to restore a vigorous jealousy among the people for their rights and freedoms.

      Anything else is fighting a rearguard action on a retreat from Moscow. We can preserve liberty in some areas, but they will shrink as the new totalitarianism presses in.

      Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

      1. This is why the ONLY answer with lasting results is returning the culture/society to the moral bounds it once had

        Tell me, how is that egg unscrambling project going?

        1. Can be done, though. Christianity has a history of “revival movements”, where large sections of society (that had previously been paying no more than lip service to religion) rekindled religious enthusiasm in a widespread kind of way. (If there are similar waves in the history of Buddhism, Hinduism, etc., I’m not aware of those religions’ histories enough to know about them.)

          Now, I don’t believe that one can successfully return a society to its former moral bounds without simultaneously returning it to the religion that those bounds sprang from. Morality needs to come from somewhere, and “Because God said this is the right thing to do” seems to sink in deeper in the human heart than “Because I’ve worked out from first principles that this is the right thing to do”. I couldn’t tell you exactly why that is; just something about human nature, I think. I won’t claim that no atheists have ever worked out a good system of ethics from first principles — I can think of several counter-examples — but as a general rule, ethics that come from religion tend to “stick” more broadly: deeply-religious cultures tend to have fewer people breaking the rules than deeply-atheist cultures. Maybe it’s because an atheist usually believes “you only live once” (though some people who don’t believe in any god do believe in reincarnation, so it’s not 100%), whereas a religious person usually believes in some sort of afterlife where one is punished or rewarded based on one’s bad or good deeds in life. (I would also count the Buddhist tradition of karma as fitting into this category). And just as with laws, where 10-15% of people will do the right thing no matter what, 10-15% will be criminally inclined no matter what, and 60-80% will do whatever the law tells them — I think the same applies with religion. 60-80% will do whatever their religion tells them to do, and if their religion doesn’t tell them what to do, then they’ll fall back to “what does the law say?” rather than “what is the ethic that I’ve worked out from first principles?”

          Of course, that’s just a very long-winded way to say what GWB already quoted: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” In other words, I could have just said “John Adams was right” and left it at that. 🙂

          1. I’ve a vague feeling I’ve seen something like Buddhist revivals in some of the history I’ve come across.

          2. There is a you that exists after death. A very low level, e-m signal, from the moment of your birth, to your death, is given off by your body and brain, spreading out at the speed of light across the universe, and becoming weaker all the while. How much impact does that have on the universe? About the same as you had while alive. The universe is a really BIG place, and we’re such small animals. (Okay, I’m going a little bit Piglet here.)

          3. Christianity, heck, isn’t that pretty much the entire freaking Bible?

            “God gave us a good deal, we were cool for a while, then we screwed it up and got smacked; repeat.”

    3. I have a friend who got a masters of theology from the Lutheran seminary at Berkeley, and came out quoting a lot of the indoctrination narrative (this was way back in the 80s). One thing she said that I didn’t really understand at the time, but which has haunted me lately, is that she said words to the affect that, as her group’s ideas weren’t popular with the mainstream, they were going to take over the universities so that they could have a place for “Our Side” as she said. I said that universities were supposed to be a place for all sides, and she didn’t answer, and we’ve never discussed this since (we just don’t talk politics, though I have to say, I think she’s moved more centrist since then).

      At the time, I thought “Our Side” meant gay rights, but I now, given what’s happened with the universities, along with everything else, I think it was something more. Including the church, since she got this at a Lutheran seminary.

      1. The ELCA is one of the most Progressive groups, and, sadly, also strongly detached from reality. My folks saw it in the ALC during the civil rights era, when the minister felt it was more important to march in Selma than to visit seriously ill parishioners. (I was in confirmation at the time, and we transferred to the then-less crazy LCA. Looks like the leftists got the reins when they merged.)

        When my 90+ year old mother visited us in 2016, she got a little miffed by $SPOUSE’s insistence on not badmouthing Donald Trump. This year, she mentioned that she was eager to see the 60 minutes show about Stormy Daniels. I made some comment about Bill, Juanita Broderick and rape. We don’t talk politics any more. 🙂 (Mission accomplished. I’m tired of leftish talk, especially from family.)

        1. Grew up raised Missouri Synod, the progressive Lutheran sects are regarded as communist cults…

          1. Agreed, but the Wisconsin synod seems to be more conservative. A friend of mine briefly attended a WS church. It didn’t go well when the minister said he hated Baptists. My friend mentioned that his father was a Baptist preacher. Then walked out.

            I think that WS minister would consider Missouri synod types to be leftists, if not communists. 🙂

            1. The Wisconsin Synod folks are… a bit rigid and legalistic, according to Missouri Synod folks.

              1. If we ever get close enough to town to consider going to church (the local Friends/community church collapsed, and the other church is too much of a social club for our tastes), the Missouri Synod church would be a good candidate. The local ELCA is trying to stay on the right track, but they’ve got a lot of church hierarchy against them.

                $SPOUSE is happy with the televised ministry of Dr. Charles Stanley, so Baptist isn’t out of the equation, either.

  4. Today’s DemocRat Wave!!! news:

    The last two weeks the newsies have been calling this AZ race for the Dems. Republicans have already lost, just say home, blah blah blah.

    Today, “GOP unsettled by narrow win.”

    If you start from the premise that every single damn thing in the news is either a deliberate lie or is simply, stupidly, stunningly wrong, you’ll be better off.

    “It would be the same as admitting their lives have been in vain or perhaps in the service of evil.”

    Some of them ARE openly in the service of Evil, capital E, and they know it. Have you seen that stuff falling out of the Allison Mack Nxivm arrest? She’s been charged with child trafficking. It is reported that little Allison is singing like a canary.

    The Bronfmann sisters are heavily into that cult too. Guess who runs Canada? The Bronfmanns. Guess who else has been hanging out with Allison? Hillary’s team guys. So I thing it’s safe to say there might be some “there” there, if you know what I mean, wink nudge.

    So, the “service of evil” thing may not be an entirely rhetorical flourish. This would go a long way to explaining all sorts of things, like uncontrolled immigration, maintaining parts of the world in mass disorder, etc.

    1. Why are some Bronfmans into a “cult”? There’s got to be something more fun to do. If they’re adrenaline junkies go join the Armed Forces.

      1. Cults aren’t about the adrenaline. A cult is an organization that searches for people with psychological vulnerabilities, and exploits those vulnerabilities.

        Person A starts a cult, probably having previously developed skills to feed the appetites of a predatory and grifting personality. A uses those skills habitually, and can recognize someone who is responding favorably to his game, who is vulnerable. A collects a small community of his victims, who start reinforcing each other’s common vulnerabilities through mob psychology. That pool of victims can be used to attract others with predatory tendencies, who A may decide to recruit and train. A trains some others in his manipulative predatory techniques, and they gradually take over the work of recruiting.

        Hollywood is fairly lousy with cults. It attracts many people who want to be famous more than they want to be safe, which is a vulnerability that can be manipulated.

    2. Allison Mack is a method actor, and was just getting in character for her portrayal of a young Hillary Clinton.

      Mack may be able to run in 2020. Ready for Allison, Organizing for Allison, etc…

  5. I’m assuming that’s John Kerry, not Jean, or did I miss another sex change?

    Sarah seems quite upbeat compared to some of the FB posts I’ve seen from Ringo lately. I’m somewhere in between. I’m expecting the GOP to hold onto its majorities, but I think they’ll slim down some. With all the people deciding not to run again, a lot of seats are up for grabs.

      1. The thing about Kerry that baffled me was how could he NOT forsee that his anti-vietnam warmstance was a HUGE problem…when the fix was so easy.

        “When I came back from Vietnam I was a very angry young man and did some very foolish things. I’m older now.”

        Problem solved. But without that, his testifying before Congress in the company of provable frauds is a vote killer right there.

        A man with that little forsight is unqualified for the Presidency.

        1. I confess, I really, really wanted one of the “Flush the Johns” bumper sticker, but one of my profs was the local (D) precinct chair, and it wouldn’t have been smart.

            1. Yeah, handy check for optimists: How many of you have Republican / conservative stickers on your cars? On cars you drive to work or other venues where people know it’s yours?

              I have them on my truck, but my truck doesn’t go to work since I either work from home or at the end of an airline. It’s also old enough that random keying won’t bother it, and I live in an area of the country where deadly force CAN be used to protect property — and the enemy knows this.

              We’ll be winning when we can go out in public with a reasonable expectation of not being assaulted / vandalized / fired when people find out our views.

              1. Part of why I’m glad to be out of Seattle.

                My parents were warned, in the 90s, not to drive their pickup there– the Beef stickers would set people off.

                My husband tries to live by the spirit of the law, so we don’t have any political bumperstickers on any of our vehicles. Working on base and all.

              2. Wrong premise, wrong conclusion. It’s not a matter of “are you afraid to be a republican in public” (Things have changed a lot, btw. Not stickers, but people talking back. EVEN in SF/F)
                It’s a matter of “I won’t deface my car because I might want to sell it” and also “They key cars, we don’t.”
                NOTHING to do with beliefs of standing up for them. Different personalities.

                1. Sarah, I’m sorry, but that sounds suspiciously like “You provoked the attack because of what you were wearing.” NO ONE should expect to be attacked just because they’re walking in the wrong clothes, or wearing the wrong colors for the gang territory you’re in.

                  That is 180 degrees from rule of law and civilization. There is no way to sugarcoat it. It’s appeasement.

                  1. You know “no one should” is a pretty thing. In fact, I have an article to take apart that is exactly that “All these women get killed because they’re women.” Well, hell no. They get killed because they’re small, weak, get drunk and think they have the right to be protected (by whom?)
                    Non leftists being realists KNOW that blame doesn’t attach to you for having a bumpersticker, but that idiot leftists WILL key your car. (Has happened to me.)
                    It’s a risk we take into account.
                    What the hell are you talking about appeasement? Are you going to force people to run the risk an unhinged lefty will key their car or break their windows? HOW?
                    Seriously. the fact the left are violent assholes needs to be taken in account. It’s not right, no. It shouldn’t be that way, no. BUT IT IS THE REALITY. Protecting your property by not catching the eye of violent assholes is prudence, not appeasement.

                    1. OK. I can’t quite square that with “Ride right through them. They’re unarmed.” in yesterday’s column over at PJ Media, but OK.

                    2. Oh, Steve. Damn it. Have you been listening to the crazy right again?
                      There is a difference between “most women are safe from rape” and “get drunk blind and go to a party and then scream you were raped because you should have been “safe” no matter what the conditions.”
                      You would require that we completely ignore the fact some leftists are psychopaths. JUST LIKE THE FEMINISTS think that men should be able to psychically control every other man in the world.
                      What paradise do you long for?
                      Look, stop listening to the doomer and gloomers. They don’t know much history. They don’t realize what we’re coming up from (and we ARE coming up) they don’t accept any setback.
                      BUT their reward is that this exonerates them from continuing to fight. So they can just rant of doom and DO NOTHING.
                      You’re better than that. I’ve known you long enough to know that. Just get your head out of their quadrant. They’re the usual nuts.

                    3. I’ll let you argue with Dr Hanson:


                      “The danger to the country this time around is that the Left has so destroyed the old protocols of the opposition party that it will be hard to resurrect them when progressives return to power.

                      We are entering revolutionary times. The law is no longer equally applied. The media are the ministry of truth. The Democratic party is a revolutionary force. And it is all getting scary.”

                    4. I’m a depressive too, but unlike most people I have been one since I was a toddler, which is why I’ve learned to analyze things “as they are outside my head” to avoid the spirals. I would not have got here without that.
                      Incidentally, it’s a handy tool to analyze the rest of the situation, but that’s incidental.
                      For the record we MIGHT be approaching revolutionary times. READ “approaching.” That means my grandkids MIGHT be in the thick of it. Meanwhile we do what we can to avert it.
                      PRAY it doesn’t come sooner. If it does we’ll get the equivalent of the Roman Empire, which is more communist than not.

                  2. That is why we always send spies, saboteurs and agents provocateur out n uniform, so as to not be seen to appease our foes.

                    1. We also don’t claim that those individuals have any claim to normal rule of law, either. They chose to take that assignment. Again, I’m hearing “she asked for it wearing that.”

                  3. No one *should* get hit over the head and be robbed if they walk into a dark alley in a sketchy neighbourhood with large denomination bills sticking out of a pocket, but what has that to do with anything?

                    1. So what you’re saying is that sticking your head out of the ghetto is asking for it.

                    2. No, saying that screaming about how the snake you saved shouldn’t bite you is dumb.

                      There are snakes. Recognize they exist. Don’t shove your hand where you can’t see it. If it’s “fair” or not.

                      Good grief, it’s like you want to buy into that old baloney about how because those who follow the law don’t get the same “advantages” as those who break it, we need to get rid of the law. Gosh! Criminals don’t follow the law! We should TOTALLY tear it all down, that’ll fix it….

                      Oooor we can do the best we can to enforce the law, make sure not to make it easy for those who break it to harm us, and keep on keeping on, realizing we are in a fallen world.

                    3. I’m saying that moral responsibility attached to the perpetrator of a crime. That doesn’t mean one isn’t being an idiot for advertising oneself as a target while knowing that bad people are out there..

              3. I just presume that non-decorated vehicles are conservative … Only liberals are willing to ruin paint. 🙂 😉

        2. When did a Liberal ever say “I made a mistake” much less admit, “I was wrong.”

          Okay, George McGovern, but it took a business bankruptcy for him to recognize it.

          1. Bill Clinton did. With regards to Monica Lewinsky. Sort of.

            And… um…

            That’s it?

            1. Bill only admitted to knowing Lewinsky because there was DNA evidence, and Hillary claimed he only lied about it because the VRWC forced him to.

              1. That’s still probably more than we would have gotten out of Obama in a similar situation. He would still to this day be insisting that he only knew about that person he was rumored to have had an affair with because he came across the story in the media.

        3. In the run up to that elections, the press went all out to try to convince us that Kerry was the second coming of JFK.
          Didn’t work- Kerry has zero charisma, and no amount of press softball could fake it. Kind of like a certain other recent candidate.

        4. That. I live in San Antonio, where you can hardly throw a rock without hitting at least a dozen military retirees … and in the leadup to that election, I could’t find any who didn’t despise Jean-Francoise Kerry with a white-hot burning passion for how he had traduced the military … all for making political bones in the early 1970s. And then to turn around, and claim to have been the good and patriotic citizen, reporting for duty? (and yes, that salute of his where he accepted the nomination … words fail.)

    1. You have to understand, when the people who vote you in start demanding you actually do what you promised to do, it’s not nearly as much fun being inside the Beltway as it used to be…

    2. The GOP winning doesn’t necessarily solve any problems. Though I saw John had said something to the effect that if his descendants and genetic relatives of future generations wanted to live without the benefits that we enjoy, who was he to demand they do elsewise.

      But when I read it I thought, you know, we haven’t actually bothered to try to explain the importance of liberty for a couple of generations, now. And even before that I think it was just assumed that people would understand why it was worthwhile to put up with people who were wrong headed.

      It’s no accident that the progressive left, now firmly in control of the culture, will NOT put up with people they feel are wrong headed. Even if it means changing the meaning of the word “authoritarian” to “doesn’t let me make the rules” and “freedom” to “I get to make the rules.”

      But there were very few people bothering to explain why anything in the Constitution matters, why free speech is so important that it *has* to be the right of bad people, too.

      Look at me! Noble warrior! Fight! Fight! The only purpose of Free Speech is to excuse Racism!

      We need to bother to TEACH some of this stuff.

  6. Bernie et al going full-bore Communist may be a wonderful gift to the not-Left, assuming no one on the not-Left goes full zucchini. If he’d waited till next week, on May Day, it would have been even more apropos. Universal wage! Universal Employment! Universal [something else]! And nary a word about who will pay for the universe.

    1. Except once the electorate decides it’s time for punishing reps for screwing up and elects Dems the mantra will be not that the repubs lost but that the win was just on the farthest left segment of the platform.

      And just look at the results. Weaponized law enforcement, judiciary and bureaucracy mean that the ratchet is even more rusted one way.

      1. > Except once the electorate decides it’s time for punishing reps

        I’ve been hearing this since I started voting.

        Y’all been voting for the establishment Republican candidates all along.

        How’s that working out?

        1. Oh I’m not saying there’s a good solution other than involvement. Just noting how Republican wins show need to tack to the left. And Democrat wins are because of their most leftist policy. But I’m just cynical about all the ‘look how crazy’ pollyannaness.

            1. The root problem is culture. When one side has the megaphone and at best drowns out, at worst silences the other it is very easy to flip in the wind. Plus the discrepancy in political leaders. One side is led by idealogues. The other by ‘pragmatists’ and they stew in a cauldron of bile against the ‘pragmatists’ constituency.

        2. Gun rights have been getting more and more protection, homeschooling is legal in all 50 states, self defense protections are being strengthened all the time, property rights in the face of environmental BS are getting protection–
          and going off of the liberals, they think it’s working.

          Even if it’s not fast enough.

          1. This is true. Distinct issues are easier to work forward on. Fiscal responsibility less so. 😦

            1. Mark Russell had one tune that started…

              Hey, look ’em over,
              What have here?
              Broken campaign promises,
              From last election year.

              “Elect us,” they said,
              “And the deficit we’ll fix!”,
              But if they could balance books,
              They wouldn’t be in politics!

              And now, decades later, that part of the tune remains true. *grumble*

              1. Every candidate claims he will fix the economy, fix education, be tough on some kinds of crime, yadda yadda.

                If any candidate could do even *one* of the things they promised, they’d be re-elected as President-for-Life.

                A lot of people seem to have unrealistic ideas of how much power the President has. Even when he claims he will rule by telephone and Executive Order…

                1. And even more when he has an entire bureaucracy on his side and perfectly willing to act as knights to his Henry the Second and rid him of those troublesome priests.

                  Exhibit A: Obama jokes about “auditing his enemies” and Lois Lerner shows up.

                  And anyone, like Ms Kenyon, who wants to try and gaslight me by claiming it’s only a few, can reflect that Henry only had four…. and 400 who stood idly by and let it happen.

          2. Home schooling legal in all 50 states, okay.
            How much oversight/interference by Uncle Jackboots?

            1. That is determined by state– and if you pop over to HSLDA, you’ll find they are quite good at making the folks trying to ratchet down control in such libertarian strongholds as…Hawaii.

              Really, go look up the write-up for that protest, it is the most understated funny I’ve seen in a while.

              HSLDA is so good, the folks wanting to get more state control have to go with astroturf and talking about “Responsible home schooling”

            2. I can’t find the original, but here’s the post-event write up:


              Background, on January 29th they issued a red alert about three different power-grab bills.

              The background check one is the only one that made it through the next two weeks, and even though they pulled every stupid scheduling trick they could thing of, the politicians still faced over four hundred home schooling families.

              Headed by a native Hawaiian lawyer, who was home schooled himself, and works for HSLDA.
              *big grin*

              1. …because showing your children how their government works is, of course, part of their education…

              2. I wish the Hawai’ians well, but to quote the immortal saga – that was too easy; they let us go.
                Watch for the legislators to sneak the same type of language into some other bill, or pass a similar bill before anyone finds out it’s been done.

                1. Oh, they’re on that. This was just the latest attempt in at saga of at least half a decade of power grab attempts– first round was trying to blame a couple of horrific tortured-the-kid-to-death-at-home cases on homeschooling, one of which was from the 90s.

                  If there weren’t so many lawyers watching, they could probably get away with skirting legal requirements– but there are lawyers watching.

          1. Of course. We’re not completely immune to the, “I want it now syndrome.” Last I checked, I have 23 pairs of chromosomes, and bleed red.

        3. What you see on the ballot is what the Party organizations already voted for.

          In my state, at least, you can’t get on the ballot unless you’re the representative of one of the four (five?) state-recognized political parties. There’s no such thing as a write-in ballot.

  7. First of all, there is the problem that they’re not sure how much of the “default left” is real and how much is a put on show for their benefit.

    Thus the demonization, bullying and loyalty tests that have been going on for the last decade or so.
    You know, things like walking up to someone with video running, and asking them a question with an obvious answer– which is then used to show that they are horrible, evil, nasty bad people who are totally valid targets for hate.

    There are four lights.

  8. For a while, it looked as if the dominant leftist position was going to be environmentalism. In fact environmentalism and related doctrines still has a fair bit of cultural cachet; look at the prevalence of “non-GMO” foods sold right next to the organic foods (and with about equal scientific justification). There were a lot of people who were light green, a smaller number of watermelons, and a tiny number of black greens who openly favored total nonreproduction, human extinction, and the destruction of all domesticated species. But over the past decade or so “climate change” seems to have lost appeal as a cause as Gaea has disobligingly failed to produce catastrophes; it might not be a coincidence that that’s the period in which identity politics has been turned up to full craziness.

  9. One of my favorite quotes from my favorite tv show:
    “Now, ironically, in astronomy, the word “revolution” means “a celestial object that comes full circle.” Did you know that? Which, if you think about it, is pretty funny, considering here on earth it means change. “ Mike Milligan, “Fargo”

  10. I will also say that Orwell was wrong. The future under tyranny is not a “boot stamping on a human face, forever”. It’s some bastard holding onto a tiger’s tail, knowing that if he loosens his grip, he’s dead.

  11. Endless Lawfare will be the next step if 2018 does not produce the “Blue Wave”. And, the trend will be to greater and greater ignoring of the written and unwritten rules of “US Politics”.

    As for Secession, the Dems tried that once. The precedent is “Oh -hell- no.” An unfree society cannot coexist with a free one. They have to destroy us, or we will be a permanent “brain drain” on them. Plus, they will very quickly make alliance with governments hostile to ours, who will -leap- at the chance to get a foothold on the North American continent.

    But such an attempt -does- open the door to reconquest of the attempted secession area, as there will be plenty of loyal US folks there for us to protect. -Their- rights are -not- voided by a local majority vote. They can be neither displaced nor disenfranchised by a “secession” vote. That alone provides the “casus belli” for ending the attempt.

    But -this- time, no re-enfranchisement of those who seek to wreck Constitutional governance of the USA. Which in th long run is probably the best outcome. The “seceding” proggies will self-select for non-participation in politics going forward.

    Grim? Only if they insist.

    1. Ah, so we pull a Russia on the Crimean to retake California and evict all those who aren’t Usains?

  12. … all but the professional hysterics get tired of tallying up pico aggressions.

    If we would abandon the effort to quantify the immeasurable we would greatly advance this type of discussion. I propose we identify these offenses as “minor annoyances” or “small bads.” In keeping with pseudo scientific jargon I suggest we term such offenses as petit mal — which also handily characterizes the outrage expressed by such sufferers.

    Alternately, we might want to use the acronym from Hysterical Insane Super Sensitive Yobbo.

  13. The difference between childhood and adulthood is that when you’re a child there are adults to tell you “no”. When you’re an adult you have to tell yourself “no”.

    Now, in general, this sucks. But that’s life and that’s adulthood.

    So very much of what I see, and yes, among the young, too. Is that people don’t want to tell themselves “no”, and they don’t want someone else to tell them “no”, and along comes a politician who promises NOT to tell them “no.”

    After all, we can have everything we want and the only reason any of those baddies say “no” is pure spite.

  14. Will the US break up?

    Probably. Be careful about which side of the San Andreas fault line you live. Politically? Look, even harry Reid is advising the party hotheads stalwarts to shut up about impeachment (at least, until after the 2018 election.)

    1. “we fooled them in 2006 and we not only got to drive the bus and destroy the enemy from 2006-2008 but we got the first step to “universal healthcare”. We can do it again. We can take the mask off the first day of ruling”

  15. picoaggressions

    “Hey, you’re not taking this seriously!”

    “Dude, you admit if they are even ‘aggressions’ they’re only micro. Grew up during the Cold War. You think anyone is gonna care about ‘micro’aggressions after having megatons aimed in their direction? We even made fun of it. o/` It’s Christmas at ground zero! The button has been pressed. The radio just let us know, “This is not a test.” o/`

    * Befuddled look *

  16. I’m pretty sure I had at least one Christmas alert duty when I was a single missile launch officer.

Comments are closed.