Posse Incitatus

The darkest day of the year

Today Jesus lies in the tomb.  He was mocked, scourged, pierced and crucified and died.  He was allowed burial only because those power no longer considered him a threat.

The Son of Man was killed by men.

His disciples are dispersed and in hiding.  His miracles are for the moment forgotten.  Darkness reigns supreme.

Tomorrow everything will change, but that lies in the future.  At the moment, God's victory is in doubt.

More than two decades ago I took a class that probably can't be offered today:  "The history of American intellectual conservatism."  It examined the writings of names many of our readers have doubtless heard of, but they were new to me at the time:  Thomas Sowell, William F. Buckley, Camille Paglia (though of course she would deny that she should be included).

According to the professor, one of the cornerstones of American (as opposed to European) conservatism is Original Sin.  Man is a fallen creature, and his nature cannot be changed.  In the years since taking that course, my knowledge of both politics and religion has grown immeasurably, but the concept of man as a fallen creature remains the centerpiece of my worldview.

The left denies this concept.  They believe that man can be redeemed here on earth, if only the right teachings are used.  Their very name - "progressive" - shows that they think there an evolution underway, one that will result in paradise on earth.

If only the people can be properly taught.

Repeated experience teaches us that this is a deadly lie.

Churches tainted by progressive thought have embraced this theology.  Sacred scripture has been reinterpreted because people back then were so less advanced than we are today.  They have transformed sins into virtues, and for them redemption is found not in the hereafter, but in the here and now by proclaiming an ever-shifting set of public policy objectives.

Note that no spiritual transformation is necessary to achieve this salvation.  It is entirely secular.

When Hillary Clinton spoke of irredeemable "deplorables," she was saying more than she knew, because the flip side of this secular redemption is secular condemnation.

Those who reject this salvation must be destroyed for the common good.  Social media has amplified this sense of righteous fury, and the baleful eye of the Elect can fall on anyone at any time. 

Whether you run an obscure pizza joint in Indiana or a bakery in Colorado, your very livelihood can be destroyed if you fail to say the right thing at the right time.

Apologizing does not good, because conversion isn't the goal.  Punishment is the goal.  An example must be made to keep the others in line.

And so another victim is hanged, or stoned to death, or nailed to the cross as the mob howls in joy and fury.  Their is nary a pause before they move on the next victim.

Today should remind us that we have not changed and we cannot change.  The same sinful impulses that stirred back then are with us still, and all the more dangerous because we have started to deny that they are there. 

In fact, many of us have convinced ourselves that wrath is a virtue rather than a vice.

Not long ago I heard a liberal pastor talk about how important it was to stop Trump and his vile followers and he described how necessary it was to put more "hate has no home here" signs up as a message against those people.

He was of course referring to the deplorables.  The irredeemable.

It spoke volumes to me that this man's solution to the alleged problem of hate wasn't to engage the people he disagreed with in conversation, seeking to understand their views, but rather to urge his flock to advertise their superior virtue.

The Pharisees smiled.

It is shaping up to be a beautiful day, hardly a time for sackcloth and ashes after a long and dreary winter.  However it is worth taking a moment to reflect on our fallibility and thereby learn humility as well as mercy.

Verbal Bankruptcy

My late, great father used to caution that swearing is like filing verbal bankruptcy. It reveals that a person is inarticulate, immature, and devoid of substance. Respectable people tend to look down on potty-mouths.

Unfortunately, my own son has sometimes wallowed in use of the F-word, and I have told him I don't want to hear it. But rather than just scold or get angry, I try to appeal to his better instincts: Set yourself apart from the crowd. Any lowlife or two-bit rapper can wallow in the potty-mouth gutter. But just because someone's doing it (millions of "someones," as a matter of fact) and it's popular in music and movies, doesn't make it right.

Fortunately, I believe my son has moved past that phase in his life (that tends to happen as one gets older and more mature), and I don't think he's still using that language.

But regrettably, left wingers and their media cheerleaders often love to spout off profanities. One of the more disgusting and ridiculous big mouths is a darling of the corrupt media: David Hogg, a student at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, where 17 people were killed in a Feb. 14 shooting. CNN practically gives him carte blanche, and Hogg appears to be another Michael Moore in the making. In fact, Moore participated in the "March for Our Lives" leftist rally in Washington, D.C., last Saturday, and he and Hogg appear ready to team up for gun control.

Just look at this picture of David going Hogg-wild with revolutionary rage. (Hey, where's the Che Guevara beret?) Like so many other teens who marched in Washington, he's another useful idiot, a typical dupe being manipulated by the left-wing activist groups and full-time agitators (think George Soros) who greatly outnumbered the supposedly independent and self-organized youths.

If the media had a shred of critical thinking ability and wasn't completely in the tank for leftist totalitarianism, reporters would challenge Hogg and other foul-mouthed blowhards about why their rage is against the National Rifle Association and Republican politicians and not against A) the school and social policies that swept under the rug the shooter's troubles and threatening behavior, coddling him in hopes he could turn things around by avoiding jail time or legal troubles; and B) the incompetent police who responded to the shooting and botched things up big-time.

But as Hogg might say to me if he read this blog: "F*** you, a**hole!" That's today's left for you. Sad, but true.

 

 

Why do corporations fall for twitter boycotts?

NowOver the last few years, I've noticed this strange trend of companies who sponsor obviously partisan shows suddenly dropping their sponsorship because of complaints on social media.

The latest example is Laura Ingram losing some sponsors for her Fox News show because she dared to clash with the Florida Gun Control Moppets.

I would think that whoever advertises on her show knows thta this isn't exactly a non-controversial thing to do.  Presumably their marketing people determined that right-of-center viewers tend to buy the product they sell.

One would also think that they are aware that left-of-center people may not like this and because they routinely scream and show and throw tantrums, at some point they will threaten a boycott.

This has been going on basically since I've been alive.  The left is always boycotting something because they are miserable people whose only source of happiness is making other people even more miserable.

This has happened to Rush Limbaugh a number of times, also Sean Hannity and so on.

Usually it doesn't work out for the company because the people demanding the end to the sponsorship had zero interest in buying stuff from them in the first place.

Social media is almost entirely bluster.  If you wait ten minutes, the mob will find someone else to hate on and forget all about you.

But core customers have longer memories.  Once you piss them off, you're going to have a hard time getting them back.

Consider the example of Delta Airlines, who stupidly decided to cancel the discount they offered to NRA members.  Delta's proper course of action was to do nothing, perhaps making a statement that they offer deals to a variety of groups with a number of political viewpoints and they aren't going to take sides.

Instead, they jumped on board the Progressive Outrage Train and severed their ties.

That in turn caused the GOP-controlled Georgia Legislature to kill their tax break because Delta had obviously chosen sides.  Delta lost tens of millions of dollars.

Making this even funnier is the news that apparently only 13 people bothered to use the NRA discount in the first place.

Now it's entirely possible that Delta figured that only those 13 people would care, but of course they were wrong.  Lots of people cared and now Delta has picked a side in the culture wars.

Great job, doorknobs.

Speaking of corporate stupidity, it turns out that now-defunct Toys R Us was in fact a donor to Planned Parenthood.  That's right - a business whose entire operation depends on a growing population of children was backing birth control.

That's almost as stupid as when Smith and Wesson tried to suck up to the gun control crowd back in the 1990s.

Complete and total idiocy.

The level of stupid here is legion.  Twitter itself leans hard left, so only an idiot would think its ravings are a representative sample.  Similarly, Facebook goes out of its way to drive conservatives off of its platform, so anything "trending" there likely has a high percentage of astroturf involved.

And yet, CEOs continue to take same awful advice and get the same awful results.

Beware Cyberspace

It staggers the mind.

Aspiring beautiful people who seek employment in the Hollywood cesspool (fully aware of the notorious "casting couch" and the price to be paid for climbing the ladder toward glamor), who, when they DO inevitably get exploited and then tossed aside like a dirty dishrag, suddenly are indignant and file suit for sexual harassment. Those of us who are realists and know the score have a mentality of, "What the hell did you think you were getting into? You knew the rules of the game. Don't come crying to me!"

This kind of naivete also plays out on a widespread, more mundane level -- something involving millions of people who fall for the lure of Facebook, Youtube, Twitter and other major social media platforms. To wit: The absurdity of people putting their lives online and willingly providing personal information to unknown people with often devious intent who are hiding behind those magical apps or seemingly innocuous quicky surveys.

And then, before you know it.... HORRORS! My privacy has been invaded. These S.O.B.'s have packaged and sold my data to marketing companies and offshore scam websites. Now I am getting bombarded with unwanted email solicitations and pop-up ads are proliferating like dandelions in May. Suddenly Youtube thinks it has all of my musical preferences figured out (No, my tastes are not THAT narrow. You barely scratched the surface.) DAMN! What have I wrought?

People need to slow down a bit and think about what they're doing before they do it. Exercise common sense; make an effort to discern; engage in critical thinking. Social media, computers and smartphones can cause tremendous distress, heartache, and in some extreme cases violent crime or even death. Teens who have engaged in "sexting" with others may end up having revealing pictures passed around and achieiving a widespread audience. The teasing, mocking and scorn can and does lead to suicide. While that may be a separate issue from social media and data hacking, it speaks to the same need for prudence and good judgment.

In recent days, the news media has been going hog wild about Facebook's lack of privacy guidelines and a British company called Cambridge Analytica that used Facebook users' personal information (gathered by an external researcher who used a personality quiz app). The data -- gleaned in part from Facebook "likes" and "friends" of users of the app "This is Your Digital Life" --  was used to help the Trump campaign during the 2016 election.

But in 2012, the re-election campaign of Barack Obama also data mined on a large scale. The campaign was virtually in bed with Google and Facebook. And today, Obama toadies weasel around the issue by stating they were complying with policies of these cyber giants, as opposed to Cambridge Analytica and the researcher who created the app in question, who violated policy -- policy that probably is not very effective in the first place.

This strikes me as disingenuous, to say the least. If anything, users were even more naive and clueless in 2012 about data mining and the potential for privacy invasions than they are now. And it's safe to say, even the owners and top management of the social media platforms didn't grasp or appreciate the awesome ramifications of their data-gathering practices. Or, perhaps I should correct myself: In many cases, they did have an inkling, but were without any qualms or sense of responsibility.

With "black hat" hackers running wild, identity theft, ransomware, and untold methods of spying on computer users (including widespread abuses involving Android apps), it is incumbent upon users of social media and other parts of the Internet to proceed with caution.

And if it's not asking too much, maybe the corrupt news media could get off its ridiculous high horse and stop acting like Donald Trump and the Republicans invented the abuse of data. Partisanship combined with low IQ equals callow and shallow drivel, spewed out 24/7 on TV and the Internet.

 

Defense Dept. study proves Obama transgender policy didn't work and couldn't work

It’s getting very little attention, but while the rest of the nation was huffing about Trump’s tweets and ex-lovers, the Department of Defense has been conducting an exhaustive review of the Obama administration’s transgender policy.

What coverage is out there is – as expected – not only negative but wildly inaccurate.

This Military Times article is a great example:

New Trump order would ban most transgender troops from serving

The headline is in fact a total lie.

The new policy would in fact allow the vast majority of transgender troops to serve.  The policy only affects those suffering from gender dysphoria, which is a form of mental illness.

The report – which the writer of that article obviously didn’t bother reading – takes great care to point out that gender dysphoria is not exclusively a transgender problem.  It can happen to breast cancer survivors who endured a mastectomy or combat-injured veterans with genital damage.

I find it fascinating that it is the media which is conflating having a different gender identity with mental illness.

Before going further, it important to keep in mind that – as the report makes clear - fully 71 percent of recruiting age adults in the US fail to meet the military’s admission standards.

(This is pretty alarming, but that’s a topic for another time.)

Thus, the notion that transgendered people are being arbitrarily kept out is false.  In fact, what the Obama policy did was carve out a special exemption for mental illness and physical disabilities that only applied to transgender people.

As the report notes, anyone reliant on hormones is barred from service, as are people who have had major surgery on their chest or genitals.  Mental illness is also a disqualifying condition.

What Obama’s policy did was declare that people identifying as transgender – and only people identifying as transgender – were to be given a special dispensation.

This has nothing to do with equality and everything to do with virtue signaling.

As the report documents, people with gender dysphoria are under intense mental strain.  The suicide rate is ten times that of the general population.  Why anyone would want to subject these people to further stress and risk is a mystery to me, but then again progressives never gave a damn about the results of their ‘compassion,’ so I supposed I shouldn’t be surprised.

Our resident troll insists that hormone treatment and genital mutilation are medically required to treat this psychological condition.

But if the sickness of gender dysphoria is so extreme as to demand surgical and pharmacological sterilization, why isn’t it also serious enough to disqualify someone from military service?

Those are the rules for every other serious illness requiring lengthy treatment.   The new policy simply treats all these conditions the same.  You know, equality.

The paper points out that the medical costs and lost work time necessary to support afflicted service members is extreme.  There is simply no way to justify the costs imposed on military readiness.

Which demonstrates yet again that Obama didn't give a damn about military readiness.  For him it was a social engineering plaything, a way to cement his legacy as a thoroughly progressive president whose navy was the most diverse in history.

It was also incapable of steering its ships and this resulted in needless deaths, but who cares about that?  They died so he could preen.

As I noted above, this business of conflating mental illness with transsexualism is a rather curious move for progressives to make.  The report is arguably kinder and fairer than the media in this respect, pointing out that the majority of transsexuals in military service don’t have gender dysphoria.  They need neither hormones nor surgery.  However, demands that they be counted as a different gender and treated that way has already led to a host of problems.

Ironically, the Obama policy anticipated this.  The current guidance offers a hypothetical example of a female who identifies as male and wants to wear a male suit during a swim test (that is, swim topless like the guys).

Tellingly, the Obama policy doesn’t provide a solution.  It offers suggestions but basically throws the problem into the laps of the hapless commanders who are forced to figure this out on the fly.  It is guidance without any actual guidance.

But the problems are no longer hypothetical.

The report offered a real-world example of a male who identified as female who wanted to use the female showers.   When the unit’s females got wind of this, they filed an EEO complaint against it, arguing that the military cannot compel biological women to shower with biological men.

The females were on solid ground.  Congress has explicitly forbidden such arrangements.  Female troops are entitled to bathroom, shower and berthing areas free of males.  So the request was denied.

And of course the male then filed an EEO complaint alleging discrimination against him.

The recommended guidance would solve this problem by allowing transgendered people to enlist on the condition that they wear the uniform and train to the physical standards of their biological sex.  If they want to dress in drag in their spare time, that's their business and the Pentagon has no problem with it.

And why not?  Who among us hasn’t dressed in drag from time to time?

But when they are on duty, they are expected to act in a manner conducive to military order and discipline - just like everyone else.

Blame McConnell and Ryan for the Cromnibus fiasco, not Trump

I offer a rare second post today because my response to my esteemed co-blogger is too long for a comment.

Like just about everyone else who follows politics, I regard the "Cromnibus" budget recently signed into law as a travesty, a bloated bag of giveaways and sellouts to the Washington Establishment.

Unlike everyone else, I know exactly where the blame lies, and it isn't with President Trump.

Many conservatives called for Trump to veto the bill.  He clearly heard them and - as is his wont - toyed with the idea. 

(One thing I like about him is that he thinks aloud.  It throws other people for a loop, but I much prefer this method of policy generation to the usual secretive backroom deals conducted under a smokescreen of empty rote platitudes.)

Trump ultimately had to abandon the veto because (brace yourself) he didn't really have a lot of options.  The man knows a weak hand when he sees it and the fact of the matter is that in budgetary concerns, Congress holds all the cards.

The Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan want you to believe otherwise.  For years GOP leaders whined that they needed both chambers and the presidency to govern in a conservative manner.  They are now revealed to be lying sacks of shit. 

Here again we see how Donald Trump brings clarity where there once was illusion.

The awful truth of the matter is that the GOP has never wanted a balanced budget.  Okay, maybe under Gingrich in the 1990s, but that was only because the GOP had been in the minority for so long, they forgot how nice it is to spend other peoples' money.

Now that they are in control, they rather enjoy the graft.

Of course, they can't come out and say this, so they shift the blame to arcane Congressional rules that they could change with a simple majority vote.  The filibuster, for example, is a parliamentary procedure, not a Constitutional entity.

Originally it was there to prevent fast-track legislation from avoiding a public hearing. 

In the 1970s it was changed so that senators didn't physically have to speak to stop a bill's progress.  Instead it imposed a super-majority to stall controversial legislation, and it has done that job wonderfully ever since.

Everyone in Washington knows this.  They also know that the GOP could simply send up individual departmental budgets one by one for approval.  This is in fact how things operated for most of American history.

The problem was that this process didn't allow enough opportunities for graft.  Thus the solution was an "omibus" bill that no one would actually bother to read in full.

To further limit scrutiny, the bills would be submitted after the start of the fiscal year, thus creating an artificial sense of urgency.

Trump was dead right when he said that the US military was being held hostage by congress.  If you want to know why our ship crews are untrained and our aircraft are breaking, this is a big part of the reason for it.

Congress knows this as well, hence their constant can-kicking.

Had Trump issued a veto, the military would once more have been forced into starvation mode.  There was also zero chance that his budget demands would have been met. 

I also part ways with conventional conservatives in worrying about the national debt.  Frankly, if it gets too big, we'll simply default.  It won't be pretty, but it also won't be the end of the world.

Long before that point, bond vigilantes will emerge and demand higher rates of return, which will in its own way provide a check on borrowing.

Back in the day, deficits were much more worrying because we could literally run out of money.  When bills have to be paid in gold and silver, there is a very real chance of the treasury being empty.

Today, we just print more paper or add some ones and zeroes to the digital account.  The Federal Reserve basically makes up whatever it wants and everyone pretends that it's solvent.

Finally, I must note that Candidate Trump never bothered to pay lip service about balancing the budget.  If someone can find that, I'd be interested in seeing it because I remember the Quisling Never Trumpers hammering him on this quite a bit.  So this isn't a broken promise at all.

Now Paul Ryan talked about budget discipline all the time.  Mr. Fiscal Responsibility, that's him.  Why he even drew up a Road Map!

And now look at him.  Another lying swamp creature.

The president has now put down a marker, of course.  If we know anything about him, it is that he takes such things quite seriously.  I will be interested to see how he moves forward - and how the GOP Congress manages to contain the righteous fury of the yet-again-betrayed Right to Life movement.

Has the filing deadline passed?  There could be some interesting primaries this year.

 

 

Of Drunken Sailors and Lying Hacks

Maybe that Blue Wave isn't so far-fetched after all. What transpired inside the Beltway these past few days reminds me a lot of the reckless spending of George W. Bush back in 2004-2006, and how it led to the Democrats taking control of the House in the 2006 election. We just might be headed for an encore.

Granted, the unpopular Iraq War had a lot to do with the 2006 election results, but I do recall many exasperated conservatives throwing up their hands and figuring "What's the use?" as far as getting spending under control. Many of them sat at home on election day, figuring it would serve the Republicans right to be taught a lesson. (Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face, as Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats put reckless spending on steroids!) And who could forget the idiocy of former House Majority Leader Tom Delay declaring that we had cut all of the budget fat we could, and there was nowhere else left to cut. Is there such thing as NEGATIVE IQ? Sometimes I wonder.

Fast forward to 2018... After President Donald Trump signed an egregious, $1.3 trillion spending bill on Friday, I see the same dynamics at work here. The pork-laden bill continues funding the ghoulish Planned Parenthood butchery, sends money to China and Vietnam, raises spending caps,  and throws money at boondoggles like the Gateway Project connecting New York and New Jersey while depriving the border wall of meaningful funding.

Trump angrily declared that he will never sign another bill like this, but his words ring hollow, just as his veto-threatening tweet earlier in the day did. The only redeeming quality of this "CROMNIBUS" (Continuing Resolution + Omnibus) bill is that defense spending was increased -- albeit by a measly $61 billion, approximately 9 percent.

The Obama administration's defense cutbacks were almost criminal and traitorous in nature, but if the Republicans control the Executive branch and both congressional chambers, they should not have to lard up a spending bill to boost defense spending.

The House had only about 24 hours to "read" the 2,200-page bill (scan is more like it) before voting, and in the wee hours of Friday morning, the Senate quickly complied. It's as if Trump was worried about a government shutdown and having to call the worthless pols back into session -- many of them abruptly left town for a two-week Easter recess as soon as they had cast their votes. Do any Posse readers get a two-week Easter break? I didn't think so. I sure don't; nor does my co-blogger.

House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell may go down in history as the lousiest Republican leaders EVAH in their respective chambers. And considering how many bad ones there have been, that's really saying something.

It is not looking good for Trump. But then again, he's fooled people time and time again, myself included. He may have some things up his sleeve as he plays the "long game" at the expense of temporary withering criticism from his own supporters.

Until the members of Congress decide to act like responsible adults and start passing normal budgets on time each fiscal year, we will continue to endure budgetary brinkmanship, threats of a "shutdown" (a misnomer, as only about 15 percent of government employees are affected), and over-the-top drama. And our children and grandchildren's debt burden will continue down an unsustainable path.

Again, I quote the Wicked Witch of the West, as she melted away into nothing following Dorothy dousing her with a bucket of water: "Oh, what a world, what a world!"

 

 

Another day, another massive rape scandal in the UK

It is difficulty for me to express my complete and utter contempt for the useless creatures that style themselves "feminists."

One would think that if they were truly concerned about the plight of women, they might bestir themselves to remove their pussy hats and rise up against the callous government of Great Britain, which seems to - as a matter of habit - look the other way while thousands of underage girls are raped and tortured.

Why is Theresa May still Prime Minister?  Sure they scandal should have toppled her government and resulted in mass resignations?

Where are the national protest marches demanding justice for these victims? 

This is why I regard feminists as a waste of good biomass.  They trumpet universal concerns, but in the end most of their issues are trivial.  Pronouns, botched come-ons and bad dates dominate their discourse.  Organized rape gangs?  Sorry, they're not interested.

I'd love to be proven wrong, but I find it telling that the same media that gave wall-to-wall coverage about a single pervert doctor (who has been duly sentenced to two centuries in prison) is more preoccupied with Donald Trump's ex-lovers than pre-teen girls being repeatedly beaten and sodomized while law enforcement openly looked the other way.

But by all means, let's talk about this imaginary "affirmative consent" standard!  I'm sure that will fix the problem of rape gangs.

 

Bombs, cigarettes, opioids and meth - banning them won't make them go away

Today I went to pick up some of the full-strength decongestant.  In Michigan, this can't be placed on the shelf.  Instead, one must take a plastic card from the shelf, bring it to the pharmacy and then provide ID for the Pharmacist, who will sell you a box of cold meds.

The reason for all this annoyance was of course to combat the scourge of methamphetamine addiction.  If even the slightest dent has been made in the use or availability of the drug, I am unaware of it.

I'm pretty sure the people who make the stuff are still able to do so.  The only real effect has been making it a pain in the ass to buy effective cold meds.

Some folks may remember Eric Garner, who died because he was selling loose cigarettes in defiance of confiscatory excise taxes in New York City.  It boggles the mind that there could be a black market in a legal substance sold in this country for more than a century, but progressives are masters of achieving economic disaster.

Earlier this week a bone-fide mad bomber was found in Texas.  The fellow blew himself up rather than surrender to police, but not without creating considerable mayhem.

Presumably no one told him it was against the law to use explosives.

The new hotness is cracking down on opioid addiction, and once again the government's brilliant new, never-been-tried-before idea is to limit legal sales of a very effective pain medication. 

I'm not a libertarian.  I believe that certain items can and should be restricted from the general public.

I am also, however, a realist, and I know that things that are highly desired and easy to produce will be obtainable whether or not they are legal.  Putting taxes or restrictions will only create a black market and fuel violent crime as gangs and cartels compete to corner the trade.

This is one of the reasons I find gun control stupid.  Guns are more durable than any of these objects.  It is possible to manufacture guns with 19th century technology.  Maybe "gun crime" will fall, but violent crime as a whole will rise.  There may be less school shootings, but more bombings or stabbings.  In the UK, acid attacks are now a thing.

I don't think that's much of an improvement.

For decades the left has talked about "root causes" whenever the problem of crime comes up and I find it fascinating that the real issue in the country - it's abysmal mental health system - is suddenly a distraction from the urgent need to ban guns.

The strange thing in all of this is that school shootings are fairly recent.  When gun laws were lax, such things were unheard of.  Then we began to restrict them and - oddly - they became a thing.

This indicates that it's not the guns, but something else.  If guns went away tomorrow, the murderous impulse would find other outlets, such as using trucks or explosives.

School bombings go back quite a ways - all the way to the 1920s.

The issue - as I've said before - is that our system for checking up on each other is failing.  Broward County failed on every level imaginable.  The FBI has also covered itself in ignominy, fumbling one investigation after another.

It may be emotionally satisfying to shout "Ban all the things!!!" but in the end it accomplishes nothing.  In fact, it arguably makes things worse.

But that's all progressives have to say.  I guess we shouldn't be surprised.  This is the same intellectual movement that came up with the idea of banning alcohol. 

And we all know how well that worked out.

Austin Bomber Prediction

Maybe I will be wrong, but I have a prediction about the disturbed young Texas man who built and mailed several bombs over the past few weeks, killing two, injuring five and leaving a city on edge. I predict the media will demonize conservatives with a very broad brush after it is learned this individual has written an anti-government manifesto, or perhaps was reported to have ranted about minorities, illegal immigration and gays/transgenders.

It's already being reported that he was home-schooled (there's a red flag for spiteful progressives) and his mother was a survivalist. Yes, there are people on the right end of the politicial spectrum who are crazy and will harm other people, just as there are nuts on the left (e.g., James Hodgkinson, who shot Republicans on a baseball field last June in Alexandria, Virginia).

I suppose there were conservatives who generalized about left wingers after that incident, declaring that ALL of them have violent tendencies and wish to physically harm conservatives. I don't like leftists and progressives, and I abhor their beliefs. But I absolutely do not believe that most of them wish to commit a felony by assaulting, shooting or in any other way physically harming conservatives. (If that WERE the case, my sister and brother-in-law who live in Ann Arbor would have been injured or killed by now!) Yes, many liberals will hurl insults and behave arrogantly or condescendingly, or attempt to piss off conservatives with snarky, sarcastic, tasteless and belittling social media posts or bumper stickers plastered all over their Subaru's and Priuses. But there's a big difference between verbal denunciations and derision on the one hand, and actual physical threats or harm on the other.

However, when it comes to a "conservative" who exhibits violent tendencies or commits an atrocity like Eric Rudolph or Timothy McVeigh, the press goes into high gear demonizing conservatives and blaming their behavior on the bogeymen of the day -- Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh in 1995; George W. Bush, the Koch Brothers and Haliburton in 2005; Donald Trump, Fox News and the Tea Party in 2018.

The progressives and their corrupt media stooges are enraged and indignant when an Islamofascist commits an act of terrorism and conservatives start denouncing Islam, a religion that does have an undue number of violent adherents, even if they are in the minority. "He's just mentally ill; don't indict an entire religion because of one deranged individual," they say. Oh, but let some nut like Rudolph declare he's a Christian and bomb an abortion clinic, and the press immediately drips with vitriol and disdain for conservative Christians and the Tea Party. You can bet that jackasses like Stephen Colbert and Jimmy Kimmel will be champing at the bit to get out there on stage to dump on Christians -- one of their favorite pastimes.

Some, like the absolute moron Brian Ross of ABC News, will jump to wild conclusions without anything to back them up, just to satisfy their craving to take potshots at conservatives. Recall that Ross was suspended last December after he falsely reported that former Trump National Security Advisor Michael Flynn was prepared to testify that candidate Trump had urged him to contact the Russians during the 2016 presidential campaign. Wrong! It was president-elect Trump who wanted Flynn to reach out to the Russians during the transition period.

And who could forget Ross impugning an innocent Colorado resident who was involved with the Tea Party as the possible "Joker" theater shooter in 2012. “There is a Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado, page on the Colorado Tea Party site as well, talking about him joining the Tea Party last year,” Ross recklessly proclaimed on the air after it was learned the deranged shooter was named James Holmes (not the same guy).

And the 2012 fiasco followed others by Ross. In 2001, Ross reported that Iraq and Saddam Hussein may have been responsible for anthrax attacks on the United States, citing four anonymous high-level sources who claimed there was bentonite in the anthrax. The White House quickly debunked that lie as "concocted from the start." No one has ever verified Ross' claim.

Just as irrational, emotional liberals bash the NRA for shootings such as the one in Parkland, Florida in February and fail to hold criminally incompetent police and school administrators culpable. Just watch: The press and liberals will trash conservatives with relish in the coming days. Brace for it.