Regarding the narrative shift

John Hayward posted this tweet this afternoon:

He’s right and it’s important to realize why.  The first and obvious reason is going back to catch-and-release means going back to a wet cheesecloth border.  It means the flow of illegals will increase because they will be able to get in and disappear and no one will be any the wiser and the Democrats will insist there’s no point in even trying to find them all except until it’s time to vote at which point they’ll all somehow mysteriously be locatable by Democrats driving vans to the polls.

The second and less obvious reason is that if President Trump backs down on zero tolerance without getting substantial concessions otherwise or getting significant progress done on the wall, it’s pretty much over for him and the GOP.  The Democrats are talking a big game like their “blue wave” hasn’t turned to piss in the wind but they were watching the primaries.  They know Trumpian candidates won and GOP-E types got sent home or had uphill fights.  If they can break President Trump on his signature issue, if they can make him break this promise of all promises, that’s really their only hope left for the midterms and for 2020.  Getting illegals in and voting will just be the icing on the cake if they pull that off.


Stripping the gears shifting the narrative

The narrative’s gonna need a transmission overhaul after this.

Earlier today President Trump announced there would be an executive order forthcoming that would end the separation of children from their illegal border crossing parents.  Before the order was actually entered, such luminaries as Linda “My Name Means Cockroach For Real” Sarsour and various fake news personalities were already lighting into it because it purported to call for…keeping families together?  Yes folks, the people who have been wailing for the past week about “ripping children from their parents’ arms” are now getting ready to wail about “detaining families together.”  Which pretty much demonstrates that what many of us have been saying all along is correct, that they don’t actually give a good damn about the kids involved, they don’t care about discouraging illegal border crossings, they want to go back to the ineffective catch-and-release practice and they want to end zero-tolerance border enforcement.

To my understanding, President Trump’s EO does keep families together…in detention.  Zero-tolerance ain’t goin’ anywhere, kiddies, but illegal alien border crossers will be detained together and deported together under this executive order.  And this ranges from a very good thing to a not at all bad thing, even if it has a little feeling of “caving in” about it.  Let me explain why.  First of all, from the outset there were two options.  We could either put kids into adult lockup with their parents, or we could put them into some kind of care separately.  Let’s be very clear here: cutting them loose with a summons so they could promptly not show up for court to be deported was not and is not an option.  Now, for either of these actual choices, the left was going to scream.  If the kids were separated from their parents then we’d have the hysterics we’ve been seeing for the past few days.  If they were put in jail with their parents then we’d have heard equally overwrought histrionics about “putting babies in jail” along with horrific tales of the inevitable rapes and assaults that would happen when you put small children in a lockup with criminal adults.  And make no mistake, we’re going to hear those horror stories now.  The Trump administration made its initial call based on what was first of all the objectively safest thing to do for the kids concerned, secondly was literally no different than what happens to any other criminal parent, and finally, was actually legal.

You see, technically, putting kids in adult lockup is in violation of a consent decree from the Billy Jeff years.  Some folks are already predicting a judge is going to waltz out and strike this executive order down, others have pointed out that for all the bloviating, no federal judge came out to “strike down” zero tolerance.  The important thing to remember is that from the outset, the Democrats and the rest of the amnesty shills were going to scream at anything that was not catch and release.  They had canned lines and talking points loaded and ready to go for either contingency–as will be obvious now as that squealing sound you hear followed by the terrible crunch of garbled nonsense indicates a high-speed shifting of narrative gears.  Because despite how this may feel like a typical GOP cave-in, I think this looks like Trump-jitsu at work.

We are about to hear the selfsame people who wailed and cried and invoked Nazi Germany over and over again for a solid week about “ripping children from their parents” and filibustering any attempts to argue in response to their unearned moral high ground now try to tell us how it’s awful NOT to separate these illegal border crossing families and how horrible we are to be sending them all home together.  The faster the amnesty shills ditch their old narrative and pivot on two wheels to the new one, the more obvious it will be to the normals that they were never serious about keeping families together at all.  Come on, did anyone really believe that the statist left was actually incensed about CPS taking custody of children?  The left did not care one bit more about these children than the parents who willingly endangered them in order to use them as leverage to cross the border.

Meanwhile we have two potential scenarios from here.  One, a federal judge loudly strikes down this executive order, at which point President Trump is entirely justified in going back out and saying “I tried, I signed the order to end separation of families and this is what happens, so over to you Congress–like I said should happen in the first place.”  And then Congress bears the responsibility for actually coming up with something that can pass muster and get the President’s signature.  Or two, the EO stands, detentions and deportations proceed, and inevitably someone gets assaulted or raped in detention.  At which point President Trump is again entirely justified in going back out and saying “this is why we were separating the kids in the first place.”  And that would still be the fault of the parents who risked their kids’ lives to put them in that situation to begin with, NOT the fault of the people enforcing immigration law.

I do have to acknowledge that there is a third potential scenario, and that is we’re in for another week of autistic screeching followed by President Trump doing another EO in which he throws in the towel and ends zero tolerance, and goes back to catch-and-release.  It’s possible, but it’s a far outlier.  I don’t think we got here by accident and I don’t think this timing is forced.  Furthermore, both the support for zero tolerance among Republicans and President Trump’s own overall approval numbers (even from the fake news) indicate that he’s got no reason to alter his course.  If he does, well, I’ll be wrong, and I’ll accept it.  But I’m not worried.  If he does I’ll have a lot bigger things to worry about than being wrong.

The left is accustomed to backing Republicans into a corner where they cower and wilt until they finally give in to the pressure and let the left have its way.  I honestly think what President Trump is doing here is turning their own arrogance against them as much as he is using their own tactics to counter-manipulate them.  He dragged this fabricated outrage out long enough to bring it to a fever pitch and get the amnesty crew all on record about how separating families was the worstest thing anyone could ever possibly do (ignoring that it happens to criminals every damn day), and now he’s flipped the table.  Again.  This is neither unexpected, nor unplanned, nor is it forced, and it is definitely not a loss.  As long as zero tolerance remains intact, then the important part of immigration enforcement is getting done, and the left will continue to demonstrate that for all their loud crying about how much they care, they never saw these people as anything but political tools.  If they really actually gave a damn, they’d stop encouraging unfortunates to try to cross the border illegally and endanger their children’s lives just for the purpose of using them as “get out of detention free” cards.  But because we actually want to discourage that horrible practice and shut down the coyotes and the human traffickers we are the bad guys.  Not how it works, children.


Always consider the source, and the goal

It’s Father’s Day weekend and the fake news along with the amnesty-pushing vote-farming left have stumbled across a new angle to go at President Trump’s administration’s efforts to actually enforce our immigration law for the first time in a quarter century.  As usual, their fallback point is their perennial cry of “won’t someone please think of the children?” as they use ginned-up outrage over Border Patrol and ICE agents “ripping families apart” at border crossings.  Also as per usual, they’re hopping from one convenient narrative to the next as quickly as their underlying lies get shot down and dismantled.

First they tried to claim that people were “seeking asylum,” to which Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen calmly replied “if they’re seeking asylum at points of entry like they’re supposed to, they’re neither being arrested nor separated.”  Of course, if they’re seeking asylum, they’re also most likely being denied (because as I discussed recently, political asylum doesn’t apply here), which is why so many of them are NOT going in the front door.  It’s the same line of thought and action that a bank robber undertakes when he doesn’t just go up to the counter and politely ask for all the money in the vault–he’s not going to get it, but he won’t be arrested either.  But seriously, this whole “asylum” thing has been done to death by the amnesty crowd and it has not ever been true.

So next they moved on to the standard Nazi comparisons and putting up pictures of children in cages…that were actually taken during Whatshisname’s administration and/or were pictures of staged protests.  They started claiming that children were being held in “concentration camps” under horrible conditions…that turned out to be not horrible at all.  The kids had beds, they had food, toys, medical care, clean diapers, playgrounds, Disney movies, even a soccer field.  Hardly conditions of deprivation.

I’m going to take a sidebar here to explain a very simple concept.  Whether the left likes it or acknowledges it or not, being an illegal alien in this country is a crime.  Dragging your children along on an illegal border crossing is not only criminal, it is dangerous.  Any other parent who commits a crime that endangers his child is not only going to be treated more harshly by the court and legal system for doing so, but he’s also going to be separated from said child, often for quite a long time.  This is true when you are arrested for drunk driving with your child in the car, this is very true if you have a meth lab in your bathtub and your kids’ bedroom is two doors down, and no one says a word, not even full-throated defenders of parents’ rights like myself.  The “zero tolerance” policy that amnesty shills are wailing about is an end to the old “catch-and-release” practice wherein ICE agents or Border Patrol would apprehend an illegal (with or without kids), serve him with a summons, and tell him to come back for a court date, then act surprised when he didn’t show up.  Proponents of this practice would in fact be the same people who have told us for years that illegals “live in the shadows” and that we’ll never be able to find them all, and then have the nerve to act surprised when we start treating these criminals like the flight risks anyone with a brain knows them to be.  They also have the nerve to act outraged when unaccompanied minors “disappear” into the system when they are discharged to relatives under similarly loose circumstances.  But let’s be crystal clear on one very important point: neither ICE nor the Trump administration are responsible for “tearing families apart” or “ripping children from their parents.”  Like the drunk driver or the meth dealer, the person responsible for the parent’s illegal actions and everything that follows to her children, is the parent.

Getting back to the main point, after it was reported that these kids weren’t exactly being sent to the gulag, the person doing the reporting (Colleen Kraft of the American Academy of Pediatrics) made a claim that is making the rounds and getting the left to clutch their pearls.  Having failed to demonstrate that children were being held under inhumane conditions, she made a big huge deal of an assertion that staff at these facilities were told not to “touch or comfort” the children.  You could practically hear the choked sob in her voice as she said “how could you not comfort a small child after she was ripped from her parents’ arms (gotta work that in there)?”

Frankly, I call horsecrap.  Let’s see the statute cite or regulation that requires that nobody can hug the kids.  I can guarantee you one of two things–either this supposed rule does not exist, or if it does exist I can tell you where it comes from.  I’ll update this if someone can show it to me but I’m willing to predict that this is a misinterpretation of overly-sterile foster care rules being cited to this activist to make sure no one accuses the facilities of stepping out of bounds, OR is an outright lie.  Given the source, I’m gonna say there’s a 100% chance that this claim is at least substantially if not totally false.  Don’t take my word for it, go check out the website for the American Academy of Pediatrics and look at their “advocacy” page.  Be sure to bring your galoshes though, the SJW bulls**t is pretty deep over there.  It’s not like anyone didn’t know the AAP was just another propaganda arm for the Democrats anyway.

And no, I’m not going to link you there.  I feel dirty enough having that site in my browser history as it is.

So now that we know we’re being lied to (Laura Bush, I’m looking at you)(EDIT: Ben Sasse, I’m ALSO looking at you), it’s important to also consider what these people would suggest as a solution.  Other than the immediate resignation of President Trump of course, which ain’t gonna happen.  I actually had a troll suggest to me that it would be “simple” to cordon off part of a jail for families so they could be protected from MS-13 and that it would be hunky dory to keep kids there with their parents then.  That kind of brain-dead stupidity is so far down the rabbit hole it’s almost adorable.  And perhaps some of the amnesty backers would actually like the optics of having children locked up with their parents in adult jail cells.  But the real and only workable aim here is clear: the amnesty shills want to go back to catch-and-release.  They want these “families” to get booked, get served, and then get lost, and not turn up again until they sign up for food stamps and housing assistance in Kansas or Montana or Pennsylvania or New York City.  The rules are being enforced, it’s effective, and they don’t like it.  The purpose of bail and pretrial release is generally twofold–to ensure that the accused does not continue to commit criminal acts, and to ensure that he shows up for his day in court.  The left can compare illegal border crossing to jaywalking all they want but the fact remains that it is and always has been a serious crime, and if the parent remains in the country, they are committing an ongoing crime.  Furthermore, the left has acknowledged, admitted, and even bragged that illegals scatter to the winds where we have trouble finding them again when they’re released.  And that is what they want.

It goes without saying that the left and the establishment GOP do not actually care one whit about illegals or their kids.  To them, these unfortunates are nothing but political tools.  Consider the source when you hear their outrage.  Consider the source when you’re told something inflammatory that might have a single grain of truth in it, from a person who went in hoping to find Anne Frank and instead found the Boys and Girls’ Club.  Consider that the source of these kids’ “traumatization” is the knowingly illegal actions of their parents, just as it is for thousands of kids nationwide whose parents commit any other type of crime that endangers them.  And consider that the goal of these filth-ridden liars is to go back to a system that hardly even puts up token resistance to illegal immigration and thus encourages people to endanger themselves and their children trying to cross the border.

They can save the moral outrage.  We’re not buying it.

lying liars lie

SECOND EDIT: I’m going to copy over a comment I just left up at Twitchy responding to a bunch of ignorant quotes and statements from people who claim to be on the right and yet are still repeating this ignorant blather, in response to the evergreen accusation that “durr you pro lifers don’t care.”


Pro tip: if you repeat the buzz phrase “rips children from parents’ arms,” you immediately lose all credibility. Same for citing a long litany of NeverTrumpers.

“Pro-lifers, you harm the cause of life when you shrug at child separation. “

No, we really don’t. But continue to conflate butchering a child with not putting children into adult lockup with their lawbreaking parents just like happens to any other criminal parent .

“Separating children from parents without just cause is immoral and cruel”

Of course it is. Being an illegal alien in this country IS just cause. It’s not hard.

“The policy is not only dumb, it’s ineffective”

The wailing we’re hearing would seem to indicate otherwise. But telling people “it’s cool, just get across the border and mumble asylum and you’ll be fine” for years might have some effect on that.

“It’s never acceptable to use kids as bargaining chips in political process.”

Nobody’s doing that, but amnesty shills are trying to use them as human shields. That’s much better I’m sure.

“It’s disgraceful, and it’s terrible to see families ripped apart and I don’t support that one bit.”

Franklin Graham’s quote sounds a little cherrypicked to me.

Look people, if you’re conflating not putting kids into jail with adult criminal offenders with ripping them limb from limb like so much dog meat then there’s really no help for you. And if you’re comparing the detention centers that even the AAP’s propaganda minister said were fine and dandy to a gulag then you really need to study your history. Finally, all these church organizations that think this is such a horrible policy, I trust you will be forwarding your members’ contact information to ICE so they can send each of you a family to stay at your personal residences. I’m sure you’ll be willing to post a bond to ensure said family’s appearance in court–oh don’t worry if you don’t have cash available, you can always put up the deed to your house. As long as they show up you don’t have a thing to worry about. What’s the matter? Don’t you want to keep families together?


The G7, the Norks, and the Art of the Deal

There are a few things we need to make very clear before I get into these related subjects.

First, making some snide obvious-joke comments about the War of 1812 does not mean President Trump suddenly sees Canada as a “strategic threat.”  Oh how that would stroke Pretty Boy Justine’s pride…but no.  Nor is it treating anyone as an “enemy” to finally say “hey, we’ve had these trade deals for the longest time that you’ve been cheating on, and well, we’re done.  You don’t get to deal yourself $500 every time you pass GO anymore.”  I believe it was Larry Kudlow (correct me if I am wrong) who said that the trade negotiations were not akin to enemies trading blows across a battlefield, but rather were of the nature of a family dispute.  So you can stop declaring that Angela Merkel is the “leader of the free world” (that’s rich).

Second, before you hyperventilate over President Trump suggesting that Russia ought to be back in the group and oh-my-Gaia-that-means-he’s-Putin’s-puppet, let’s not forget what happened to get Russia kicked out of the G8 and make it the G7, and that’s the annexation of the Crimea from Ukraine.  As in, the annexation that Whatshisname was too impotent and powerless to do a blasted thing about, regardless of the fact that we were kind of obligated to protect Ukraine after she gave up her nukes.  So your last president successfully disarmed a nation that Russia would love to have back as a province, and was so tied up getting humiliated by freaking Syria that he couldn’t do more than weakly protest when Vlad rolled in and took over a port on the Black Sea.  It’s arguable that Crimea wanted to be part of Russia, it’s arguable that was bogus, I don’t know and I don’t especially care, but your last president let it happen and actually broke a promise the United States actually made in the process.  But maybe that was just him “being more flexible” as he told Comrade Medvedev.

Third, if you’re posting pictures of Otto Warmbier to shame President Trump for saying nice things about Kim Jong Un, you might want to remember when the left was cackling about how Warmbier’s “white privilege” didn’t save him, or how the fake news gushed and fawned over Kim’s little sister and the North Korean cheerleaders at the Winter Olympics, or how they ignored and downplayed it when President Trump had a former North Korean political prisoner stand up (on his crutches) at the State of the Union.  If you’re so outraged that President Trump could say anything positive about Kim Jong Un, maybe you ought to talk to rising Democratic star Tulsi Gabbard, who said just a few months back that North Korea needed nuclear weapons to protect themselves from us.  From US.  From the good guys.  From the people and country she is sworn to serve.  This is like saying that drug dealers need to carry automatic weapons in order to protect themselves from the police.  Kindly see yourself out because you’re obviously not worth talking to.

I have never read “The Art of the Deal,” but it hardly takes more than a rudimentary and honest understanding of human nature to see what the strategy is here.  Where the G7 is concerned, President Trump and the United States as a whole do not need to spend time convincing France and Germany and Canada and the rest of them to come to the table.  We are in the position where we SHOULD be dictating terms to the rest of the world, but because we are who we are we do not and never have.  I’m not claiming that in some sort of moral sense (not entirely anyway) but in regard to the fact that most of the rest of the world sees us as an “other,” both culturally and economically.  We expect to get treated differently than a European nation or a member of the British Commonwealth or a Southeast Asian nation, and when that results in an imbalance against us we deal with it.  We do business on those terms.  That led to a belief and almost an unspoken policy that the United States would not retaliate against unfair trade practices from her friends and allies, despite them happening on a constant basis (NAFTA, I’m looking right at you).  The reasons for this could be the subject of a doctoral dissertation but I’m inclined to say it was a combination of our outsider status, our Marshall-Plan-based desire to help our friends and allies succeed even at our own expense, and our Cold War priority of winning over hearts and minds to the side of freedom against communism, no matter how expensive that might be.  President Trump has given some clear signals that that mindset is out of date, the Cold War is over, and we’re about to settle things up.  In what world does it enhance your leadership position to allow yourself to be walked on constantly without a word of protest?  If there is a “trade war” it started a long time ago.  President Trump has staked out a position that is our best and only chance at ending the trade imbalances and outright cheating going on in our supposed “free trade” agreements.  No one with any intellectual honesty thinks for a moment that President Trump or the United States intends to suddenly become hostile or isolationist.  We’re just not going to let our partners declare every card in their hands to be wild.

As for the North Koreans, there’s no question what President Trump thinks of Kim Jong Un and his regime.  For months the left clutched their pearls in horror and told children they were due to be nuked any day because this “crazy” president was calling this otherwise stable and peace-loving dictator names.  You know, the same pot-bellied dictator who routinely threatened to bathe the west coast in flames and kept hucking rockets into the Sea of Japan?  They screamed for his impeachment (again) when he went to the UN and said that if the Norks took aggressive action, the USA would have no choice but to completely obliterate them–of course taking him out of context and claiming he “threatened” to nuke North Korea without making reference to the clear and obvious meaning that he meant to deter them from taking catastrophic actions.  Nobody with a shred of intellectual honesty thinks President Trump thinks Kim Jong Un is a good guy.  As a result of his tough talk and his demonstrations (specifically in Syria and to an extent in the rest of the Middle East) that he was not afraid to use American military might, the North Koreans blinked.  After the western fake news media lavished praise on the Kim regime throughout their Olympic coverage, the leadership met quietly with the incoming Secretary of State, and as a result, President Trump got several hostages released and gained other important concessions from North Korea before any summit took place.

Of course the media went looking for ways this historic peace process could blow up.  The Norks obligingly began making noise about what kind of demands they’d have, prompting President Trump to jerk them around a bit just to show them who was in charge, which in turn prompted Kim Jong Un to come begging back to the table.  The result of course was the Singapore summit–and if you’re going to claim that President Trump cancelling wargames with South Korea for next year is any kind of “huge concession” then let me introduce you to this thing we call “a calendar” and this other thing we call “an eraser.”  Seriously, putting it back on the schedule is as simple as making a phone call to Mad Dog Mattis.  Reassembling the nuclear plant that the Norks scuttled, not so much.

So President Trump came home from Singapore after meeting with Kim Jong Un, with talks underway for a future meeting in Washington…and the fake news and deranged left who wailed to the heavens about President Trump “threatening” to destroy North Korea if they nuked Japan or South Korea now began wailing about how President Trump was “legitimizing” a murderous dictator.  The President made some comments about how Kim “loved his country” and seemed to go out of his way to find things that were laudable about Kim Jong Un…and the people who set their hair on fire in fear that Trump was going to get us all nuked now accused him of cozying up to a communist strongman.  In their most recent string of nonsense propaganda the fake news is even taking a flippant remark from President Trump about how he wished his people would respond to him the way the Norks respond to Kim out of context–President Trump literally pointed at the White House when he said “his people,” not meaning “the American people” but very obviously (to all but the willfully ignorant) meaning the people who work for him.  Reporters from both the left and the NeverTrumpers tried to “gotcha” the president on these effusive remarks by pointing out, as if the President didn’t know, that “but Kim is a killer!”  Duh.  I know the fake news thinks President Trump is stupid and doesn’t realize this, and I know the NeverTrumpers think President Trump is crazy and, again, doesn’t realize this, but those of us who have a memory more than six months long, we aren’t going for it.  And thankfully, President Trump doesn’t care.  He knows the fake news is going to make him look stupid and will make stuff up if they have to in order to do it, so he gave the answer that the fake news can spin into “OMG can you believe what he said” rather than give the answer that will make Kim Jong Un take his ball and go home.

Because dealing with Kim Jong Un is not like dealing with Angela Merkel, Emmanuel Macron, and the G7 twits.  They have an incentive to deal with us like adults, he did not.  The first step was to make him believe that if he started something, he would not win (a belief, I might add, that the last president did nothing to instill in him).  President Trump’s strong words and strong actions in Syria accomplished that.  The next step was to bring him to the table but make sure he knew he was the junior partner in this deal–when the North Koreans started squawking in advance of the first planned summit, President Trump simply replied by saying “ok, peace-out.”  Which almost immediately had the Norks come crawling back and insisting no, no, they really DID want to go through with this, please come back.  We are now on to the stage of the game where we have to show North Korea in general and Kim Jong Un in particular what’s in it for them, and again, we have to do this expressly because of failures of the last president.  Because I guarantee you that on Kim’s list of “where should I look for examples of what the Americans will do,” the name right after Bashar Assad is Muammar Khaddafi.  As you may or may not know, Khaddafi spent years sponsoring terrorism and proclaiming “death to America” until things got pretty decent in Libya, and he actually turned relatively friendly or at least noncombative towards the West.  But as ISIS became a thing and the migrant mess started, instead of propping up a reasonably friendly and mostly harmless strongman, Whatshisname and Dr. Pantsuit not only allowed Khaddafi to be deposed and tortured to death, but actively participated in it.  As Dr. Pantsuit bragged, “We came, we saw, he died, hahaha!”  Cute.

These fools attacking President Trump’s tactics care more about calling people names than they do about the people suffering under Kim’s regime or about getting fair trade deals.  Right now the only way to keep this peace process on track is to let Kim Jong Un have our way.  He needs to be able to pitch it to his people as a win and we need for him to see it that way too, rather than believing he’s going to get dragged out into the street and cannibalized if he blinks.  Frankly, if the price for a unified Korea is letting Kim immigrate to Southern California and buying him a mansion next door to Dennis Rodman where he can live out his days in full Gangnam Style, I and millions of Koreans can live with that.  This is how you achieve that aim without having to go to war and get hundreds of thousands of people killed in the process.  Also, if you’re crying about the president of the United States justifying “the use of concentration camps, summary executions, torture, and mass forced starvation,” in case you haven’t noticed, Whatshisname isn’t president anymore and we’ve rolled back pretty much everything he did in Cuba.  As I posted on Twitchy not long ago regarding this obscenely stupid outrage at President Trump NOT trying to derail the peace process:

“Oh for the love of all that is holy, get a life. What the actual f**k do you lefties and NeverTrumpers (but I repeat myself) want him to do, go to Singapore and inform Kim Jong Un that the bombers are on their way and nothing will remain of Pyongyang by the time he gets home? President Trump jerked this guy around for months to demonstrate who’s in the driver’s seat here and you whined and wailed while he called him “Little Rocket Man” and claimed he was going to get us all nuked because you’re too f**king stupid to understand how diplomacy and negotiations work.

Let me make it real clear for you retards–the “Little Rocket Man” schtick was part of the package that brought Kim to the table. Showing we mean business got us concessions already. Now the President is just going to a summit to try to play nice and you’re out screaming that he’s given something up by meeting with the Norks? Again I ask you, did you expect him to just roll across the DMZ, or did you want him to make a deal? Because this is how you make a deal wherein nobody else has to get shot at. Do you want him to point fingers at Kim Jong Un and try to piss him off AFTER he’s strong-armed him to the negotiating table, or do you want him to work something out that actually might help the people Kim’s regime has been starving and oppressing all this time? Because your moral posturing (and don’t misunderstand, you’re right, Kim is a brutal dictator but you don’t get a brutal dictator to step down willingly by waggling your finger at him) isn’t how things work in the real world. Making Kim feel powerful and letting him think he’s winning something when in reality we’re letting him have OUR way, that will work. So how about you let the proven dealmaker do his thing?”

people who don't know what they're doing

Words That Leftists Should Not Use, special narrative edition addendum #1

I said when I ended the Words That Leftists Should Not Use series that I reserved the right to re-open the lexicon as needed, in part because it could theoretically go on forever even at that point, and in part because the corruption of the language and the misuse of big and/or obscure words to confuse low-information types is something the left does on an ongoing basis.  As we are hearing from the latest outrage narrative directed at telling everyone what mean awful people Americans are for daring to have immigration laws and borders that we’d like to see enforced, the left has embarked upon using one word in particular that they really do not understand.  The word for today is “asylum.”

In the context we are concerned with here, “asylum” is defined by Merriam-Webster as “protection from arrest and extradition given especially to political refugees by a nation or by an embassy or other agency enjoying freedom from what is required by law for most people.”  Emphasis added.  Asylum is granted to people who are seeking to escape prosecution, persecution, or other forms of harassment or peril from their governments based upon political reasons.  Those reasons can include ethnicity, religion, or political beliefs or affiliations.  Actual asylum seekers request the protection of one country against the laws of another based upon the claim that the other country is seeking to silence or harm them for political reasons.  A great (if overused) example of this would be Jewish folks fleeing Germany and occupied Europe during the Holocaust.  Thus an asylum seeker is distinguished from the general definition of “refugee” based upon the fact that while a refugee can be seeking respite from something like a natural disaster or the collateral damage of a war, an asylum seeker is expressly seeking not just admission to but the protections of the host country.  I believe there are exceptions to the generally-accepted rules of dealing with refugees because of this (i.e. the requirement that a genuine “refugee” stop in the first safe nation he reaches and does not continue on until he finds the one that will give him porn and Nutella, for example), but correct me if I’m wrong about that.

Nobody coming across the southern border qualifies as an “asylum seeker.”  You do not seek “asylum” from bad economic conditions or natural disasters, you seek it when your government is actively out to kill you because you’re part of a disfavored ethnic group, or you practice a disfavored religion, or your political party lost the last sham election and it’s time to put people up against the wall.  The current narrative from the left is that President Trump and the Republicans are committing this horrific abuse of human rights against these “asylum seekers” trying to cross the border illegally, by…enforcing the law and not putting children into adult lockups.  Sorry children, that’s not the least bit true.  They’re not asylum seekers, they’re not even genuine refugees, and the door is wide open if they want to immigrate legally.  They are not doing so.  They are crossing the border and entering the country illegally.  That makes them criminals.  Every other type of criminal who gets arrested with kids in tow has his children “ripped out of his arms,” and I’m sorry lefties, but your dogged refusal to acknowledge that being in the country illegally is in fact a crime does not change the fact that, you know, it is.  It really, really is.

What the left is trying to do here is set up another no-lose scenario and hope it gets people to ignore the truth.  If children were not being separated from their criminal parents at the border, the parents who dragged their kids across the border illegally (and believe me, involving your children in your criminal behavior does not get you any sympathy from a judge or a prosecutor and will often result in the gravity of your crime being jacked up as a starting point), then it would not matter if the adult/”family” detention centers were the equivalent of the Ritz-Carlton.  The narrative would be “Trump administration puts children into adult jails!”  Watch how long MS-13 would remain a figment of the right’s imagination when the left could claim we’re locking Dora the Explorer up with Animal the MS-13 monster.  However, since illegal alien entrants are being (correctly) treated like every other criminal, their children are being separated from the adults.  They’re going to relatives where possible, foster care when available, and the majority are going to children’s detention centers where they have beds, air conditioning, medical care, schooling, and are subjected to such horrid deprivation that they are only allowed to…play soccer and watch Disney movies and stuff.

The “cages” were a staged protest.  Fake news.  Kids getting lost in “the system?”  Relatives and sympathetic foster parents helped them ghost.  Considering the flow of illegals (even at the reduced rates under President Trump) the number (~1500) of children “ripped from their parents” is actually far smaller than I’d expect.  It’s also entirely 100% the fault of the parents who brought or sent them across the American border illegally knowing full well their actions were illegal.  So you can stop citing the Bible (which you clearly haven’t read and usually freak out when anyone even suggests it should be allowed in public discourse) and telling people it’s awful how we’re “breaking up families”–we’ll be happy to send the entire family home.  The “Dreamer” thing fizzled when President Trump said he’d be on board with amnesty for them in exchange for the wall and a permanent stop to any more coming in, when it became obvious that the aim was not just the so-called “Dreamers” but ALL of the illegals the Democrats could smuggle across the border, so now this is the tear-jerker narrative.

They’re not seeking “asylum.”  They’re not even “refugees.”  They’re simply criminals who the Democrats lured with promises of free stuff in exchange for amnesty and votes.  You want to blame someone for “breaking up families,” blame the parents who dragged their kids along to sneak across the border, and blame the Democrats who gave them every reason to think they’d get away with it.



Followup to obligatory post

I’m still not going to get real excited, or excited at all, but I am going to repost a Twitter thread from Kimberly Strassel regarding the IG report.  Excerpted text:

“Don’t believe anyone who claims Horowitz didn’t find bias. He very carefully says that he found no “documentary” evidence that bias produced “specific investigatory decisions.” That’s different…It means he didn’t catch anyone doing anything so dumb as writing down that they took a specific step to aid a candidate….But he in fact finds bias everywhere. The examples are shocking and concerning, and he devotes entire sections to them. And he very specifically says in the summary that they “cast a cloud” on the entire “investigation’s credibility.” That’s pretty damning.”

cookie monster good point

Consequences are an impossible dream, but there’s something in vindication for its own purposes.  Check it out for yourself.

Obligatory post about the IG report

I haven’t gotten excited or said anything about the IG report that dropped today, regarding the extensive corruption and incompetence in the FBI.  And with good reason.

Look folks, it’s very simple.  It is damning, it is full of bombshells, it implicates everyone who we have all said was involved in covering for Dr. Pantsuit, it lays bare what the bomb throwers on my side have been saying about a multitude of scandals from the supposedly “scandal-free” last administration, it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the FBI is rotten to the core…and it all means nothing.  As usual.  It’s the Starr Report all over again.  If you needed the IG report to tell you that James Comey, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and distressingly large swaths of the FBI are corrupt political hacks unfit for the job of dogcatcher, who abused their taxpayer-funded offices and powers to try to undermine, obstruct, and even remove the duly elected President of the United States, then I’m sorry, but you haven’t been paying attention, or you’re willfully ignorant.  If you needed it to tell you that the FBI’s investigation of Dr. Pantsuit was a sham from the getgo then there’s really no helping you (and don’t forget, Saint James of Comey has already admitted that he reopened and hastily re-closed the investigation into “her damn emails” so close to the election in order to prevent Team Trump from scoring points off it).  And if you need this blog post to tell you that not a blasted thing will come of this report, that not a word of policy will shift nor will anyone be given so much as a paid leave of absence as a consequence for their actions, then I would really love to have your kind of optimism again.

This is why I haven’t been worked up about the IG report.  We already know what’s in there, we already know the fake news is going to spin and ignore it, and we already know nothing at all will happen.  Seriously, there are thousands of decent, hardworking, talented law enforcement officers and attorneys who would love to go to work for the FBI and the DoJ, many who would consider it the fulfillment of a major career and life goal, and instead my tax dollars go to pay pieces of filth like Peter Strzok who call Trump supporters “retards” and promises his paramour that “we’ll stop him” when she texts him crying about how she can’t bear the thought of Donald Trump being President.

I hope it hurt.  I hope she cried.  I hope it felt like her world was collapsing in on itself.  And if that sounds harsh, sorry if I don’t feel any sympathy for a person who appointed herself and her adulterous boyfriend to be the arbiters of who the next President would be whether people like me liked it or not.  Oh wait, I lied, I’m not sorry for that.  They’ll all have to soothe their anguish with the knowledge that all of them, from Dr. Pantsuit and Whatshisname on down, all of them are going to get away with it, and all of them are going to keep their lavish government benefits (funded by us Trump-supporting retards of course) in full.  Such is the way of things.

If you’re still buying into the FBI’s bogus “we spied on Trump in order to protect him, honest!” nonsense, maybe this piece from Sharyl Attkisson will help clear things up for you:

Seen about town

Now for something completely random…I have mentioned before I frequently journey to the depths of darkest Madison Wisconsin for work.  I see a lot of messed-up bumper stickers in the parking garage, everything from every possible iteration of “[this grievance group] for Obama” to a multitude of variants on “I’m With Her” and of course no shortage of faded, worn, even-more-pathetic-than-when-they-were-new “Recall Walker” stickers.  Unsurprisingly I’ve even seen a few that have to have been homemade as they rambled on about calling the Tea Party the Taliban AND the KKK.

They’re almost cute.  Of course I did not put a Trump sticker on my car since I figured I’d come back to find it Road Housed, and I like my car.  But the other day I saw something that just had me at a “what…the…?” moment.  And amazingly enough, I found it on the internet, so apparently this is a thing?


So…either I’m missing something or…are there actually cook-centric policies that cooks look for as a group?  Could there be cook-phobic political parties?  What issues do cooks supposedly consider important and base their vote upon?  What, pray tell, is the cook platform?

I should know these things, I’m a pretty good cook myself.

Why Star Wars is dead to me

I talked once before about the fact that in the original script for “Return of the Jedi,” Ewoks didn’t exist. Endor was populated not by Wicket and his adorable squad of shamanistic teddy bears but instead by Wookiees. But in the first real instance of the Star Wars story being watered down to “appeal to a broader audience,” the movie series that had done horrifying things like have Luke Skywalker see his own severed head behind the mask of a hallucination of Darth Vader, showed a wampa covered in blood as it devoured Luke’s ill-fated tauntaun (and then showed another tauntaun’s guts spill out as Han Solo eviscerated it), and culminated in a beaten-up Luke getting his hand cut off by the actual Darth Vader, suddenly decided to make a marketing play for young kids by introducing a race that seemed destined for stuffed toys and animated spinoffs.  And, of course, one of them still ended up getting fried by the Empire for a few tug-at-your-heartstrings points.

I was too young at the time to really appreciate the significance of what writing out Wookiees and writing in Ewoks meant.  Hell, at the time I was in the target demographic and I have a cousin about my age who carried his beloved stuffed Wicket everywhere with him until he went off to college (and I wouldn’t be surprised if he still has him).  It wasn’t until many years later that a friend of mine pointed this fact out to me along with the important detail that all the Ewoks really did was serve as a distraction.  The traps they set for the Empire’s AT-ST walkers either plainly failed (as in the rope trap that dragged a dozen Ewoks along behind the walker without even slowing it down) or were so obviously contrived and even slapsticky (as in the log trap) that in a universe with guys throwing magical lightning and fighting in space with laser swords it strained credibility.  The believable part of the whole forest battle was that the Ewoks provided cover for Chewbacca to carjack a walker himself and that move was what really turned the tide.

I’m nerd-sperging out here but there’s a reason for it.  The wrongheaded mindset that wrought the very-pardonable-compared-to-what-came-later Ewoks stuck with the Star Wars franchise when it was reawakened over a decade later, with the re-released “special editions” that altered or added content to the original trilogy.  At this juncture it still seemed innocent enough and was even welcome in some places, but for one VERY controversial move–the Han Solo versus Greedo scene early in Episode IV, better known as the “Han Shot First” controversy.  Fans of the series originally met Han Solo as a man living on the fringes of society, a smuggler and a pirate who dealt with gangsters and relied on nothing more complex than his blaster.  Living in that world, of course he ran into shady characters like the bounty hunter Greedo, and of course he knew Greedo meant to do him harm.  The only reason Han lived long enough to get a shot off at all was because Greedo had to gloat and try to extort some more money out of Han, but let’s be clear about one thing: Greedo was going to kill Han Solo and take him back to Jabba the Hutt dead.  No reason not to (and if he didn’t, Jabba the Hutt obviously had even worse things in mind for Han).  So Han filibustered him until he could get his own weapon free and wasted Greedo first.  But we couldn’t have that.  That was violent and uncalled for if Han wasn’t being shot at.  How could we possibly have a “hero” in the modern, enlightened 1990s who would shoot someone…who had a gun pointed at him and explicitly said he had been “looking forward to this?”  So in the worst hackup job ever released in serious cinema, Greedo the bounty hunter takes a wild shot from two feet away, misses as Han Solo shifts his entire torso like he’s a cutout in a popup book, and then Han shoots back.  It took years of fan outrage before Lucas even acknowledged the goof.

These long-forgiven moves on the part of George Lucas and the Star Wars team planted the seeds of the reasons why I and millions of other fans (as evidenced by the failure of the most recent film “Soylo: A Pointless Story”)(not the actual title but it should be) have said thanks for the memories and walked away from Star Wars.  The first thing they did wrong was to try to take the formula that obviously worked for Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back, and for no other reason than these wildly successful movies were derided as “nerdy” they went back and messed with that formula to “appeal to a broader audience.”  In other words, they told the people who made the films successful in the first place that they weren’t good enough, and so the creators were going to take out huge chunks of the stuff the fans like to replace it with mass-market pablum that no one would want if it didn’t say “Star Wars” on it.  How this makes economic sense, I have no idea (and as I will get into momentarily, it only does make sense in non-economic terms).  The second and ultimately more insidious thing they started doing was trying, overtly or subtly, to push an agenda. Ewoks and droids led to Gungans and battledroids, while Princess Leia and the metal bikini that helped millions of young boys realize “hey, so that’s what a woman is” led to the nonsense of a planet led by a fourteen year old girl in geisha makeup, and continued to where Star Wars is today.

The point where both of these offenses converged is the point where Star Wars truly died.  I will acknowledge that I and countless other fans went to see Episode I in theaters multiple times and some of us tried very hard to convince ourselves that what we had seen was worth the fifteen year wait in between Return of the Jedi and The Phantom Menace.  I was practically out of my seat when the title scroll ran to John Williams’ classic overture, and even now I have to say it was the right move to start with a scene featuring young Obi-Wan Kenobi and a lightsaber fight.  But the movie quickly went downhill from there, and ended up with such garbage as Jar-Jar Binks, podracing, “midichlorians,” and the most stupidly pointless space battle in all of science fiction history that a nine-year-old kid won by accident.  In the final analysis the only good things about Episode I were the callbacks to the original trilogy–Obi-Wan, R2-D2, C-3PO, Jabba the Hutt, and of course the four seconds of Darth Vader breathing that every true fan stayed to the end of the credits just to listen to.  It did not take the true fans long to decide that okay, Episode I is terrible, but there were enough places where George Lucas was letting us know he still remembered us and still knew what we wanted to see that many of us were willing to give him another chance.  Of course, many of us were not, and went into Episodes II and III expecting them to be terrible.

In fairness, Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith had their low points.  Pretty much the entirety of the Anakin/Padme romance was stilted and unwatchable, as was the ostentatious posturing of practically every Jedi from Mace Windu on down, with the notable exception of Obi-Wan Kenobi.  Personally I thought and still think that Episodes II and III were decent, not up to the original trilogy caliber, but decent.  Of course, part of that has to do with my transition later in life to believing the Empire was in the right and the Jedi really were about as worthless and borderline “evil” as the fallen Anakin Skywalker believes, and the prequels aren’t at all flattering to the Jedi.  But that’s a whole other post in itself.  Through both of these movies, George Lucas managed to steady the helm and keep from going down the Gungan road again, gave us more callbacks to characters like Boba Fett and explanations of how Episode IV’s setup came to be, and any underlying agendas stayed fairly low-key–yes, of course there was the requisite barely-concealed dig at George W. Bush and things like the Patriot Act, but it was every bit as much a slam at bureaucracy and democratic government in general.

When Lucas sold Star Wars to Disney, the scuttlebutt was that Lucas had offered to give them his scripts for episodes VII, VIII, and IX, and Disney said “no thanks.”  Which led to the joke that Disney had paid billions of dollars to take whatever train wrecks George Lucas came up with and chuck them.  We the fans thought there was nowhere to go but up.  We were wrong.  In the extended interim between Episode III and Episode VII, filled in mostly by animated series fleshing out the Clone Wars, Star Wars went through a change of character that fans from twenty years earlier would never have believed possible: it went mainstream.  The tentpole of geek culture for decades had become so ingrained in normal society that somewhere along the line it ceased to be geek culture. Star Wars was for more than nerds and young boys.  Yet somehow the marketing geniuses behind countless lines of Star Wars merchandise failed to recognize that this was not because Star Wars had been infused with some sort of artificial and incongruent “inclusiveness,” but because the themes, images, and messages (and at one time the special effects of course) of Star Wars had themselves resonated with a broad audience that just needed time to get over their prejudice towards a scifi space opera.  For me, I believed Star Wars was dead the day I walked into Wal-Mart and saw as part of the early hype for Episode VII a big middle-of-the-aisle display…of Star Wars nail polish.  Twenty-five years earlier, even suggesting to a woman that she ought to watch Star Wars with you could result in not getting a second date.  Now it’s makeup.  And what’s worse is I don’t think the marketing geniuses made a mistake at all.  I’m fairly confident that what happened to Star Wars has been done on purpose.

I said that what killed Star Wars was the convergence of two things, the abandonment of the fan base plus the rise of an agenda.  With Episode VII and the movies that came out around it (Rogue One, Episode VIII, and now Solo), that agenda became obvious–and not even from reading between the lines but from explicit remarks from the writers and directors themselves.  I have to acknowledge that I have only seen (and I’m only going to see) one of these four movies.  I watched Rogue One on the advice of a friend who told me that most of the movie was indeed crap, but there was a scene towards the end of the film that in itself was worth the price of admission.  He was right on.  Jyn Erso was a poorly played, poorly written male action hero cast as a woman, in a story full of nonsensical tangents and credibility-straining leaps of faith that I was no longer willing to make, in which the only parts that made it watchable at all were the callbacks to what I once held dear.  As for Episode VII, I had every intention of seeing it at some point until I was told (spoiler, sort of) that Han Solo dies.  I had already seen the teasers and the trailers, I knew the movie had been cast for maximum diversity (except the bad guys of course, all white, almost all male, as always) though at that point the world still didn’t know how bad MaRey Sue was going to be, and at that juncture I said to hell with this because I considered that to just be a cheap fix for bad writing.  I literally had tears in my eyes when Han told Chewie in the trailer “we’re home,” and to hear that Episode VII took that kind of emotional buildup and brought back a beloved legend just to kill him off was all the evidence I needed to know the movie wasn’t worth my time.

I didn’t know how right I was until Episode VIII came out and the few valiant faithful still watching Star Wars movies made their discontent known.  I watched Sargon of Akkad’s brilliant synopsis of the movie and its defenders and learned that I, as one of Star Wars’ old diehard fans, had not merely been forgotten about, but rather I had been deliberately cast aside. Seriously, the writers and directors of the new Star Wars universe don’t want fans like me around and fussing about how they’ve taken our toys and broken them and now they’re laughing at us for being upset.  Reading the reviews, watching the summaries, and stomaching the full-throated defenses of this garbage didn’t convey the message half as clearly as two important things.  First, Mark Hamill (who is an SJW piece of trash himself) voiced his own extreme displeasure at what Episode VIII did to the character of Luke Skywalker, and I agree if for no other reason than the death they wrote for Luke in Episode VIII is not how a legend like Luke Skywalker goes out.  Second, a line from supreme evil white guy Kylo Ren (who let’s be clear, should have walked out of Episode VII carrying Luke Skywalker’s lightsaber in one hand and MaRey Sue’s head in the other) summarizes what seems to be the attitude of the powers behind Star Wars now, and since I haven’t seen it I’m going to have to paraphrase: “Leave the past behind, kill it if you have to.”  This is not merely reading between the lines, either–numerous people behind the scenes from executives to writers to directors from the head of Lucasfilm on down have said in as many words that they are not making these movies for the old fans anymore.  They’re not making any secret of it and in fact they are quite proud of themselves for giving the fans that made Star Wars a multibillion dollar franchise the finger for the crime of not being “diverse” enough.

I’m not going to get into all the ways MaRey Sue is both unbelievable and unbelievably stupid.  Sargon of Akkad and countless others on YouTube have done that at length already.  I’m just going to say that if you have to make a character like her in order to have a feminist heroine, then it’s no wonder feminists are pathetic whiners.  I’m also not going to delve into the stupidity of the “rebels”‘ leadership and how painfully brazen the “girl power” nonsense was in Episode VIII, right down to Vice Admiral Genderstudies’ (h/t Sargon) purple hair.  Not because it’s insignificant or unimportant, but because it’s so bald-faced that it really speaks for itself.

But then, that does lead us into the train wreck that is “Solo.”  Another movie I have not seen and do not wish to see, where the bulk of the hype has been on the detail that Lando Calrissian is revealed to be somewhere on the LGBTZ4QQQBatmanSymbol spectrum and is apparently dating a droid built by Antifa.  I hear said droid gets wasted somewhere in this movie and that’d be about the only reason I’d go see it.  All accounts point to Solo suffering from a contrived plot, a weak and emasculated Han Solo (hence the moniker “Soylo”) instead of the swashbuckling space pirate we all knew and admired, and overwrought female or quasi-female characters being awesome for no apparent reason at all.  At last count, “Solo” is expected to wind up a money-losing flop, and people are blaming Star Wars fatigue and/or the concept that “white male leads are no longer box office draws.”  I’m not sure which of those is more absurd.  The reason Solo has bombed is that the fans no longer have that last little hook to tell them the writers still care about them.  The Star Wars universe is not someplace we recognize anymore and in fact we are getting the loud and clear message that we’re not welcome there any longer.  Making such a big media deal out of futzing with the long beloved Lando Calrissian sent a powerful signal, telling us that these people will retcon and rewrite everything we ever thought we knew and believed, not to tell a good story, but because they can, and moreso, because they know it’ll piss us off.  The diehard fans are finally getting the message I got when I saw that nail polish display: the people who laughed at us for what we loved for all this time have now taken it over, and will laugh at us some more while they destroy it.

And of course, old-school Star Wars fans being who they are, we’ll just sigh and move along, because that’s what geeks and guys do.  But feel free to call us snowflakes because we dare to complain about it, it’s always kind of cute when lefties try to do that.

When the prequels came out, George Lucas gave an interview in which he said “when you put the whole series together it becomes clear, the story is not about Luke Skywalker, it’s about Darth Vader.”  Personally, I believed long ago that the story of Star Wars should have ended with the death of Darth Vader.  From that viewpoint, Star Wars is a tragic epic of loss, betrayal, lies, and ultimately redemption.  Obi-Wan’s mealy-mouthed “what I told you was true from a certain point of view” rings as self-serving as his earlier/later infamous line “only a Sith deals in absolutes,” while Luke’s stubborn and misguided determination to suppress his anger like a good Jedi just ends up meaning Vader has to take the Emperor out the hard way and die in the process.  But who needs to see things in black and white when you can pick up a lightsaber for the first time and win a fight against a trained assassin who learned everything he knows from Luke Skywalker himself?  Who needs tragic and painful character development when you can just fly the Millennium Falcon because, I don’t know, reasons?  Star Wars no longer has heroes, just a bunch of walking MacGuffin women boosted with cheap doses of emotional angst derived from killing off old champions that the new order doesn’t want around anymore anyway.  In the immortal words of Master Yoda, “that is why you fail.”