Posse Incitatus

How many times will gun control fail before its supporters admit it doesn't work?

Actually the title is a trick question.  Gun control supporters stopped caring about whether it worked a long time ago.  They new push it as a way to signal their virtue and punish people they don't like.

They don't give a damn whether it saves a single life or costs hundreds of additional ones.

But for those who live in an evidence-based world, here's the latest news from gun control paradise (via the hated Instapundit):

Chief constable Andy Cooke, the national police lead for serious and organised crime, said law enforcement had seen an increased supply of guns over the past year, and feared that it would continue in 2019.

I am of course referring to the UK, which for the last two decades at least has been the gold standard for gun control zealots.

Of course, things aren't working out the way they are supposed to in ol' Blighty.  Violent crime is soaring.  It's hard to say how bad it really is, since official figures have been doctored for a while.  This passage is particularly revealing, though:

Cooke said that the dynamics of the streets of British cities had changed and that criminals were more willing to use guns: “If they bring them in people will buy them. It’s a kudos thing for organised criminals.” [Emphasis added]

Ya think?  Michigan just abandoned the war on marijuana for essentially the same reason.  Marijuana is something people can grow themselves and they are willing to break the law to get it.  After spending countless millions of dollars trying in vain to fight it, people have finally decided to give up.

The next paragraph is also pretty telling:

He said said one factor was a reduction in police proactive work because of government budget cuts leading to big falls in officer numbers: “The ability of law enforcement to respond to this rise in the criminal use of firearms has been hampered by the large reduction in police officers and the resultant diminishing of proactive capability to keep these criminals on the back foot.” [Emphasis added]

I emphasized that section because we also know that the UK police are spending a massive amount of time on Twitter and Facebook telling people to stop using naughty words.  So maybe it isn't budget cuts but the fact that too many bobbies are handing out tickets for being impolite rather than working on more serious crimes?

In any event, the failure of gun control in the UK clearly demonstrates why it would never were here.  The UK is an island, which should make gun smuggling devilishly difficult.  The gun supply there was never that large thanks to it being a stratified, urban society.

And yet, despite both of those advantages and having close-captioned tv cameras on every corner, still the supply of illegal guns is going up.

It's a puzzler, ain't it?

Deep State Guerrilla Warfare

For several decades, leftists have vitiated academia, the K-12 schools, the entertainment industry and even mainline Christian churches. However, since Ronald Reagan was first elected in 1980, but especially since the Republicans reclaimed the U.S. House in 1994, Democrats have not dominated in congressional and Senate elections.

Yes, Democrats have taken control for a few years, such as in 2006 during the "W" administration when they took over the House for one term, then were out of power for eight years (including one-sided losses to the GOP in 2010 and 2014). The GOP has held control of the Senate for a few more years than the Dems since 1981, and there have been a few years of split control.

Overall, Democrats have not dominated in Congress, nor has their legislation fared particularly well, with the exception of Obamacare and a few ostensibly bipartisan fiascos such as campaign finance "reform." Nor have they dominated in gubernatorial and state legislative races. During the Obama administration, 13 Republican governors replaced Democrats, and 816 state legislative seats went from blue to red.

So Democrats have not been able to ramrod their entire agenda down our throats, but they have gained a great deal of assistance from leftist judges who believe their activist ideology trumps the voters' wishes. Too, President Obama ruled by executive fiat, sometimes being struck down by the Supreme Court. For example, the Supremes ruled against DACA (the granting of temporary work permits to illegal aliens), Obama's recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board, and the practice of allowing authorities to examine smartphone content without a warrant.

The Supreme Court is obviously not reliable, as evidenced by the RINO-like behavior or Chief Justice John Roberts. He may well turn out to be another David Souter-- a wolf in sheep's clothes. First it was his ridiculous Obamacare ruling in 2012, followed by a second ruling in support of Obamacare in 2015 (allowing the federal government to handle insurance subsidies when the law's language clearly specified that health care exchanges "established by the state" would pay the subsidies, and 34 states elected not to participate).

But regardless of how the nine men and women in black robes rule, it seems the Deep State has taken on a rogue-like, sinister quality in recent years, and is bound and determined to impose its own will. The thuggish behavior of the IRS, Department of Justice and FBI during the 2016 presidential election is clear evidence of this.

And although the headlines focus on the big-wigs such as James Comey and James Clapper, both of whom clearly lied under oath, and loose cannons like Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, there are hundreds of thousands of lesser-known liberals burrowed into the bureaucracy who are digging in their heels. These destructive apparatchiks will prove formidable.

I liken the Deep State's current and future lawlessness to guerrillas in a war-torn land. They cannot oppose their enemy's army head-on, but they can take sniper shots, plant IED's to blow up the enemy's vehicles, and mount various terror attacks to disrupt the rule of law that they cannot get around.

It would not surprise me one bit if, in the near future, various federal agencies will openly oppose Supreme Court rulings, daring anyone to stop them. Their actions may individually amount to an act of vandalism against an army recruiting office, a pipe bomb killing a couple of soldiers, or a Molotov cocktail being thrown through the window of an army barracks. But on a wide scale, drawn out over the period of years, such defiance could well lead to a chaotic breakdown, a death blow to the rule of law and respect for government.

To some extent, this has gone on in the past. But I expect it to become more blatant as the polarization and bitterness in our nation becomes white-hot, and as Democrats continue to be frustrated with the legislative process and separation of powers. They might be much more successful if they'd learn to control themselves and not overplay their hand time and time again. But it's just not in their nature. So they're ready to erupt like Mount St. Helens.

Fasten  your seatbelts: It's gonna get ugly. Really ugly.

Could Trump's shutdown be the end of failure theater?

The prevalence of government shutdowns are a key indicator of the breakdown of the political system.  Such impasses were formerly rare because the system itself prevented them.

Under the now almost-forgotten legislative procedure known as "regular order," bills for each department were generated at the start of the year.  These passed through committees, were marked up, modified and passed by each chamber in turn.  If there were differences between them, a conference committee reconciled them and the final bill was presented to the president for his signature.

A failure at any point in this process would result in a loss of funding for a single department.  The limited scope of the bill provided a check on non-related items, though of course these "riders" were still added in.

The system was far from corruption-free, but it at least had the virtue of keeping the lights on year after year.

When the Democrats gained control of Congress under Dubya, this system went out the window in exchange for massive, impenetrable "omnibus" bills that covered everything under the sun.  The entire discretionary federal budget was "take it or leave it."  Mostly, it was taken.

Among the many lies the GOP Establishment told its base when it sought to regain control of Congress was the fable that "regular order" would return.  Clearly, this hasn't happened and it was never meant to happen.  For all his pathetic excuses, Paul Ryan at least had the power to sort out budget bills, but this was a hill he never intended to fight on, let alone die.

This is because omnibus bills allow the GOP to vote for things it knows its base hates but that its corporate masters like.  The looming threat of a (partial) government shutdown gave the GOP Establishment at every level the perfect excuse to cave into Democrats.  Dubya signed it because he was too responsible to harm the nation.

The GOP House and Senate flirted with it under Obama, but mostly Ted Cruz was being an opportunist.  No actual concessions were wanted and none were gained.

And so here we are again, but this time may be different.  Donald Trump can take or leave the job and if he wants a second term, he needs wall funding.

He also has a higher pain threshold than anyone in DC.  That is why the shutdown continues.

Chuck Schumer and the Democrats have a fascinating dilemma.  They can cave now and give the new Democrat-controlled House of Representatives a clean slate to torment Trump over the next year, or they can hand Speaker Pelosi a steaming dog turd on her very first day in the big chair.  Of course, the Dems could but all sorts of goofy crap in the bill that the GOP Senate would then be compelled to strip out, but doing so would immediately mark Pelosi's restored reign as unserious.

Alternatively, they could go all-in, and it's hard to think of a less auspicious look for the 2020 Democrat contenders than forcing federal employees to endure payless paydays because they hate border security.

Trump knows this, which is why he timed the shutdown for now rather than earlier in December.  Had he held firm earlier, the payless paydays would have hit during the Christmas-New Year week, which would be horrific optics.   Pelosi's speakership would still be a distant future event, not a looming one.

But now all of these lines are converging and Trump loves nothing so much as creating chaos and forcing his opponent to figure out how to deal with it.

As a final added bonus, the Mueller witch-hunt will be a secondary consideration at best.  Lots of Democrat cultists are ready for the House to impeach him as soon as the Dem majority is sworn in.  A shutdown federal government with unpaid civil servants will make this an even more dubious strategy, since it will demonstrate to the world that the Dems are more interested in getting Trump than funding the government or border security.

President Trump consistently traps his opponents into lose-lose situations.  When Trump can't arrange that, he shifts terrain (usually to the dismay of his supporters), but such shifts are only short-term.  The master strategist has been maneuvering for a while and it will be fascinating to see his next move.

Merry Christmas!

The Posse wishes a Merry Christmas to all of our readers, and we thank you for your time and attention.

My co-blogger and I were just reminiscing on the phone the other day about a funny incident that happened on the job nearly 20 years ago -- March 1999, as a matter of fact. That was just a month or two after we first met. I told him it's incredible that 20 years went by so fast.

K.N. McBride started this blog in 2004, so in a few months, it will be 15 years already. I started blogging here on a regular basis in 2009, so I am coming up on my 10-year anniversary.

Like other things in life, blogging as a hobby must take a back seat to faith, family and friends. If neither of us has much to say over the next week or so, it's because we are bathing in the gratitude and joy of the season, trying not to spoil the mood with anger and frustration about the dysfunctional goings on in society.

Those of us who are Christians must keep in mind the Bible's urging to be in the world, but not of the world. The horrors, deprivations, injustices, arrogance, anger, hypocrisy, decadence, violence, idiocy, pain, suffering and heartache in the world should not drag us down into a pit of cynicism and hopelessness.

From Romans 8:38-39:  For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

That doesn't excuse us from doing what we can to help others, but it does provide the solace of knowing God understands our challenges and fully supports us as we move forward attempting to serve Him as best we can.

And specific to the season, God's love for humankind should be apparent in that he sent his Son to serve as the ultimate liaison. Luke, 2:11: For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.

The desire for peace on earth and goodwill toward others, the beautiful music, the bright and colorful lights ... All of it stems from the ultimate gift.

Merry Christmas, and a happy, healthy New Year to all!

 

 

The diminished Pope

Yesterday's post about how the once-respected University of Michigan medical school is pissing away its reputation by twisting statistics in favor of gun control (while avoiding the far more serious issue of youth suicide) reminded me of another example of an organization forfeiting its moral authority.

I'm referring of course to Pope Francis.  I've largely tuned him out these days, simply because he's essentially irrelevant to the spiritual issues of our time. 

I once defended him because, like President Trump, news coverage of him is shockingly dishonest.  Particularly around the holidays, there would be some breathless account of how he's altering the dogma - usually written by someone who doesn't know what it is and who hates the Catholic Church.

But now the spin is going the other way.  It is the Pope who is desperately trying to change the subject and strike hip moral poses on issues near and dear of leftists.  He can't stop talking about global warming, open borders and abolishing the death penalty.

Of course, none of these issues are existential ones for the Catholic Church.  If the earth gets hotter or cooler, Christ's message will still be important.

But that message will be lost of the messenger - The Church - is perceived as hopelessly corrupt.

That's exactly what's going on.

If Francis were truly concerned about his job, he'd have immediately forced the resignations of dozens of top-ranking authorities, and opened the archives to civil authorities in the various jurisdictions where the crimes occurred.

Instead, he's still shielding men who committed horrific crimes against vulnerable children and covered it up for years.  It's now clear that these predators weren't isolated incidents but in fact organized groups who offered mutual protection from church and secular investigators.

Perhaps because they have closer contact with actual lay people, the US bishops are acting quickly to contain the damage and expose the guilty.  Instead of lauding this zeal, the Pope obstructed it.

And then he goes and preens about how bad the death penalty is.

Meanwhile, even my own humble parish is embroiled in this, and while some of fallen away, I'm encouraged by the renewed spirit of both parishioners and the clergy.  They recognize that this is a time of trial and they are gearing up to face it. 

Interestingly, mentions of the Pope are becoming few and far between.  The diocesan magazine used to regularly feature stories and speeches by Francis.  Now?  Not so much.  Instead there are forceful denunciations of corruption, renewed pledges of reform, requests for victims to come forward and overt demonstrations of transparency, such as opening all records to local law enforcement.

The bishops understand that without trust and accountability, nothing else matters.  They can preach until they are blue in the face and no one will care.

Someone ought to point this out to Francis. 

Until he acts to punish the wicked men who abused children and defiled their holy offices, he has nothing to say to me.

University of Michigan Med School goes all in on gun control, wrecks its credibility

We live in an age where once-respected institutions seem hell-bent on destroying their credibility. 

Our latest example can be found in this transparently dishonest report pushing gun control from the University of Michigan.

I've said it before but one of the reasons I turned against "common sense" gun control was the amount of lies and distortions used to promote it.  If the argument for gun control was truly compelling, its supporters wouldn't have to keep twisting the numbers to make the case.

The thrust of the piece is the usual "guns are killing our children" crap, a weary, worn-out formulation that was discredited 20 years ago.

Others have pointed out that in order to goose the numbers of gun deaths, the authors have defined "child" to include 18 and 19-year old adults.  This is of course a lie.  Adults aren't children.

My American Heritage dictionary define a child as "a person between birth and puberty," and I'm pretty sure these doctors likewise don't expect 19 years olds to be seeing pediatricians.

So right from the start, they're lying to make their case.

But there are other lies that are just as telling.  Note that the graphic makes a big deal of total firearm deaths, which as usual includes suicide to bulk out the numbers.

Teen suicide is a growing problem in this country and I think I speak for the vast majority of parents when I say the method is utterly irrelevant to the fact of a child's death. 

For these alleged medical experts to argue that the gun is somehow responsible shows a gross misunderstanding of how suicide works and the danger it presents.  A kid that wishes self-harm will find a way to do it.  Banning guns will not solve the problem but will create a false sense of security.

Again, you'd think people who pride themselves on medical knowledge would focus on the disease itself rather than a symptom.

But dig deeper into those numbers.  It shows 1,102 suicides using a gun and 1110 suicides by suffocation.  I suspect if other methods of suicide were included, it would leapfrog gun deaths entirely.

Ah, but that wouldn't advance gun control, which is why the doctors don't do that.

Speaking of suffocation, there are 235 unintentional deaths according to their numbers, but only 126 accidental deaths by firearms.  Even if one adds the 50 "cause unknown", their numbers prove that accidental suffocation is a bigger cause of death than accidents with firearms.

If these people were truly interested in prevention, one would expect them to embrace efforts to prevent both of these causes of death instead of dishonestly promoting a political issue.

The final element of the gun fatalities is of course homicide, which is a serious problem.  However, as the UK has amply demonstrated, banning guns does nothing to stop a rising murder rate. 

Medical professionals are supposed to have the intellect to understand the difference between cause and effect.  Pushing a policy that self-evidently will not solve the problem is the height of dishonesty.

These people are a disgrace to the medical profession and an embarrassment to the reputation of the University of Michigan's otherwise respected medical school.

 

Christmas Comes Early

Yesterday, I was resigned to the fact that President Trump had completely caved to the Democrats, agreeing for the second time in 9 months to sign spending bills without getting border wall funding. But sometime in the past 24 hours -- perhaps while Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi was twisting the night away in a saloon with fellow Democrats, Trump realized he needs to stand his ground. He now says he'll veto the Senate bill awaiting his signature. MERRY CHRISTMAS!

It might have had to do with outrage -- expressed in tweets, phone calls, emails and talk radio commentary -- that persuaded Trump it's now or never (with apologies to Elvis). And / or, he may have realized it on his own, since the Democrats will take over the House in a couple weeks and there's no way he'll get any border wall funding for the next two years once they're in charge. I suspect Trump knew that the spineless appeasers / RINOs / establishment types are dead wrong. He must keep one of his key campaign promises, and realizes that by doing so, his standing in the polls will be no worse than it already is since 90 percent of the news coverage is negative. Conversely, caving at this juncture may well make it certain he's a one-term president.

If prima donna members of Congress and Senators have to stay in session through Christmas Eve and Christmas, and those who already left town to get an early start on their vacations need to return, so be it. Trump will surely read GOP lawmakers the riot act. It seems Orange Julius is returning to his roots, digging in his heels, and daring the Democrats to declare their love and support of open borders.

Normally, 60 Senate votes would be required to pass the border wall funding. But that's IF Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refuses to change the rules and use the infamous "nuclear option" that has come in so handy for Supreme Court nominations. Stay tuned; this promises to get entertaining. I'd better stock up on popcorn!

BABY, IT'S FASCIST OUTSIDE -- So much idiocy goes on in the world of political correctness and its main catalysts, academia and social media. I try not to spend a lot of time ranting about it, because I believe it will collapse of its own stupid, irrational, moronic weight.

As is customary for the Left, political correctness warriors are overplaying their hand, too dense to realize they're setting up a ferocious backlash. Recently, the leftist censors who can't decide whether they prefer the libertine life or puritan values have denounced the 1940s song "Baby, It's Cold Outside" (originally written for the film "Neptune's Daughter" and since covered by dozens of duets), as a song hinting at date rape.

Mind you, these leftists are the same folks who bestow awards and kudos to vulgar, misogynistic rappers who call women "hoes" and graphically depict violent sex, using all sorts of obscene words for the female genitalia. Fortunately, the backlash and ridicule has been intense. I guess there's still hope for this country, after all.

OUT OF SYRIA -- For seven years or so, I have stated the United States should stay the hell out of Syria. The clusterfuck nation has been ripped apart by a bloody, prolonged revolution involving numerous bitter factions. Vicious ISIS killers, who are Sunnis, are pitted with others against the Shia regime of Bashar al-Assad and his Iranian and Russian supporters. I have heard mixed reports on whether the Russians or Americans can take the most credit for decimating ISIS, but that doesn't concern me right now.

I agree with my co-blogger that it's senseless for our nation to keep sending troops overseas to bleed, die and suffer in endless, pointless wars. We have many serious problems (including runaway illegal immigration) and fiscal recklessness here at home; we have no business biting off more than we can chew in the Middle East. I would also support pulling out of Afghanistan, which is so utterly dysfunctional, corrupt and backward, it's truly a lost cause.

K.N. McBride is spot on: We can use surgical strikes or brief onslaughts to mount intensive, short-term campaigns against the worst of the terrorists, AND make an effort to get qualified, hard-nosed allies in place of the leaders we kill. We failed miserably in implementing competent, forthright leaders in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hamid Karzai was a self-serving, weak and corrupt leader who too often badmouthed the United States. Ditto for Iraq's Nouri al-Maliki. The neoconservative war hawks sure know how to pick 'em!

As for the threat of ISIS taking over Syria, well... The Iranian Islamofascists are almost as bad, and the Russians aren't our friend. If all of these bad guys just keep killing each other off, that's an ugly but effective foreign policy. Sunnis including Saudi Arabia and others also oppose Iran, but are not eager to cozy up with ISIS. The Middle East is the same Chinese puzzle it's been for hundreds of years, and we are damned fools if we think we can do an effective makeover. Donald Trump knows this.

The Syrian pullout

Today President Trump announced that US forces would be withdrawing from Syria.  Their exact numbers and locations have been a closely-guarded secret ever since the Obama administration was forced to re-enter Iraq following the rise of the Islamic State, so it's hard to say how quickly (or completely) they are leaving.

But Trump has been clear:  we are leaving.

Naturally, the people who write about war for a living are upset.  Note that the vast majority of these people have not - and never intend to - actually fight in a war, but they are absolutely certain that endless American combat operations are a great idea.

News coverage is uniformly negative, of course, because Americans should keep on fight and dying in a country we aren't at war with and haven't formally invaded.  And this should go on forever.

It's almost as if that whole "give peace a chance/no blood for oil" line was total bullshit.

It's no coincidence that those beating the drums loudest for endless combat operations are also the biggest fans of the late, unlamented The Weekly Standard.   Their strident opposition tells us Trump is doing the right thing since they are uniformly wrong about everything they advocate.

Some might wonder who will occupy the power vacuum left by America's departure.  It will likely be Bashar Assad, who is still the nominal ruler of Syria.  Some of the uber-hawks naturally want to overthrow him so that the US can maintain a third shit-show of a country.  In reality, the Islamic State has been whipped pretty hard and if it rises again, we can smack it around some more.

This is the classical way to deal with piracy and unsavory actors: punitive expeditions.  It's clear that Trump's "principled realism" is based on the notion that we will never be loved and will never turn the world into upstate Vermont.  What we can do is hammer the ever-living crap out people who displease us, which is a far more reliable (and less expensive) form of deterrence.

Indeed, I admit that was what I expected in both Afghanistan and Iraq:  crack some skulls, kill the leaders, and then set up reasonably reliable strong men to keep order as we go home.   Instead, we have a war in Afghanistan that has dragged on so long, GIs who enlisted after 9/11 will be able to collect full retirement pay before it ends. 

This is insane, and why the Bush family is just as culpable as the feckless Obama crew.

Trump understands this and that's why his goal is to pull back our exhausted and overextended forces, regroup them and at the same time maintain a powerful force in being in case anyone gets ideas.

It's intelligent, sustainable and wise, which is why the usual suspects hate it.

Tragic Death, Appalling Political Opportunists

Bad things happen when destitute people embark on a dangerous journey across hundreds of miles of barren land in an effort to illegally enter the United States. Girls are molested and raped; people are mugged by bandits; deaths occur due to dehydration or venomous snake bites...

A few days ago, a seven-year-old Guatemalan girl, Jakelin Caal Maquin, died after crossing the border and being apprehended, along with her adult guardians, by Border Patrol officers. It is believed she overheated and died of sepsis. While her death is sad, it is not shocking. She has become a cause celebre for Trump haters who adamantly oppose a border wall and think efforts to crack down on illegal immigration stem from bigotry and mean-spirited policies. They immediately began bashing the Border Patrol personnel as likely being responsible for her death, and the lawyers are already lining up to represent the girl's family in a lawsuit, with visions of a large payday dancing in their heads.

Soon-to-be House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has jumped on the shameless political bandwagon, issuing a statement in sympathy for the girl and her family and taking the opportunity to grandstand about immigration policy. Left-wing websites are full of hateful vitriol ("Mission Accomplished" for immigration opponents; "Maquin Was No Terrorist" and other such rubbish.)

Strange, but I never once heard Pelosi utter a word of sympathy for families who've lost a loved one as a result of an illegal alien who committed a murder or slammed into another vehicle while driving drunk. Not to imply that the deceased girl or her family members would ever commit such atrocities, but to illustrate the point: Unchecked illegal immigration wreaks all sorts of havoc, and will continue to do so until we get it under control.

Sadly, the pathetic House Republicans who are finishing a disgraceful, inept lame duck session, haven't done squat to address the problem. They had their chance, but are so spineless and devoid of character, that expecting them to step up is asking too much. President Trump made one of his biggest mistakes when he signed an omnibus spending bill last spring that did not include funding for the wall. He apparently let some Republicans of the wimpy RINO / National Review / Bill Kristol vein convince him that a government shutdown was far worse than not moving forward on border wall construction.

Even if there is a shutdown at this late hour, and even if the Republican House manages to get some money allocated for continuing construction of the wall, it seems impossible that 60 Senate votes could be secured to approve of  the legislation. The border chaos only promises to worsen once the Democrats take control of the House.

Absent a wall, President Trump may need to go the route of his predecessor, and simply resort to executive fiat to put stricter security measures in place. That, and local and state governments along the border will take matters into their own hands. Such is the abysmal state of our congressional "leadership" in 2018. Unfortunately, this fiasco promises to get much uglier and more deadly before it gets better. Ditto for the demagoguery.

 

The Weekly Standard dies a much-deserved death

I've been away from the ranch for a few days, so I was unable to comment on the timely death of The Weekly Standard on Friday.

As a Christian, I derive no pleasure from the thought of people desperately seeking work during the season of Advent.  I have myself experienced a layoff at exactly this time of year and it sucks.

Yet while the timing stinks, the deed was entirely necessary and proper.  As I've repeatedly noted, the magazine served no useful purpose.  It was a low-calorie version of Trump hate and the artificial sweetener simply couldn't cut it when compared to the real thing.

I've also been interested to see how the same people who continue to extol the virtues of "free trade" are suddenly angry with capitalism for allowing members of their protected class to finally take it in the shorts like the rest of us. 

When tens of thousands of blue-collar workers lost their livelihoods and whole communities withered away,  Conservatism, Inc. had zero sympathy for them.  Indeed, the demise of an obscure magazine with perhaps a few dozen employees is getting far more ink than far larger layoffs. 

What goes around, comes around, I guess.

Another lesson learned is that - as I've also pointed out repeatedly - the employees of the magazine worked for pay, not out of ideological conviction.

And now that their gig is going south, they have zero problem with whoring themselves out to leftists and/or corrupt Middle Eastern potentates.

Unfortunately, the more crooked cash these courtesans take, the less anyone will care what they have to say.  Their entire gig was predicated on the notion that they were actually true believers.  Without that, they're not even decent fifth-columnist shills.

Let's face it, the economic value of Quisling Never Trumpers is pretty close to zero. 

See, the free market does work.