Keep Up the Skeer

From Victor Davis Hanson:

The new post-Mueller media narrative is “weariness” and “exhaustion” with President Trump’s tweets, his cul de sac Sharpie controversy, his ideas about buying Greenland, his unorthodox art-of-the-deal foreign policy that resulted in a plan to talk to Taliban leaders in the United States, and his firing of arch-conservative John Bolton.

The Drudge Report, once a go-to site for Trumpism, now seems unapologetically anti-Trump, in its often trademark snarky style.

Are Trump supporters then weary?

Well, are we? I can’t speak for you, but I’m weary as hell of the Dims, the news media, and even the Labour party (BIRM) attacking western society. Would I prefer that Trump didn’t feel the need to Tweet so much? Yeah, but then again, it’s about time somebody stood up for the normal people, and that is what he does. So I can live with it, while what the rest keep saying is simply sickening.

When we look to alternatives, all we seem to hear is multi-trillion-dollar hare-brained schemes from radical progressives and socialists masquerading as Democrats at a time of record national debt. The Green New Deal, Medicare for All, free healthcare for illegal aliens, reparations, the abolition of $1.5 trillion in student loan debt, and free tuition for all—are the stuff of fantasies and either would have to be repudiated by any of the Democratic nominees who actually was elected, or would destroy an already indebted nation.

So, again, where exactly is the supposed dissension in the Trump ranks, given that in 2020 he will be only the alternative to the above? […]

Google the phrase “Trump weariness” or “Trump exhaustion” and dozens of progressive articles pop up suggesting that Trump’s base is worn out by Trump’s antics. Julie Kelly has summarized (and dismissed) the same phenomenon among the Never Trump bloc. Trump supporter Michael Walsh worries about the effects of “Trump trauma” on the 2020 election: Trump’s supporters are seen as tired of his detour Twitter wars, impatient that he appointed deep swampers like Christopher Wray at the FBI, and now sense a distracted Trump’s only half-heartedly pursues his appointments or MAGA agendas.

All that may be true—but only to a certain extent.

Trump certainly did not need to assume the role of a discordant weatherman at a time when the Bahamas were flattened, or kneel to spar with nutty George Conway, or remind the nation that his new transient primary rival Mark Sanford is seriously delusional. Trump can be funny, as when he did not take the media bait by saying he didn’t like the Democratic debaters, but instead had “respect” for anyone willing to undergo the ordeal of a presidential candidate (such as he had done), or, earlier, speculated what alcohol might have done to a type-A personality such as himself. More of that, and less of tweeting about Greenland and the huffy Danish ambassador of course might be wise.

Then again maybe Trump’s clarity is a good thing. There are many enemies of western civilization no longer hiding in the weeds but out in public telling us how awful Trump is. Every time I read them, and it’s nearly every day, I thank God for a man who fights my battles better than I could. And you know, the world is noticing, in Hong Kong, in Venezuela, even in Great Britain,  where as people who think the same way as we do, tend to distrust Boris (and who can blame them really), they see an American president standing up for our shared, essentially Anglo-Saxon beliefs. The leader of the free world, indeed.

Trump was elected on the apostate position that if China is not stopped now in its systematic destruction of the global commercial order, it will end up as a hegemony that will devour the West. To that end, no one so far has come up with a more effective lever than the rusty iron bar of tariffs. Pre-Trump, our policy was to shrug or offer a whine or two about China.

No one in the Republican party previously believed that either offshoring or outsourcing was all that bad. Republican orthodoxy was more or less to let the Midwestern out-of-work deplorables eat cake, defined as getting in their old pickups and heading to the fracking fields in between oxycontin flare ups. The market alone would adjudicate their dismal futures.

Much more at the linked article, and it’s all good. Do I get tired of the constant commotion? Of course, I do, just as you do. But you know, I’m beginning to believe that if we “keep up the skeer” we just might survive as a free people, and yes, as the city on the hill that keeps the fire of freedom burning for all the world’s people.

It took a long time for it to get this screwed up, we’re not going to fix it next week. But we fought for seven years against the greatest empire of the age to assume our place in the world, now is no time to give up the fight  Thomas Paine told us long ago:

“THESE are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated”

It’s the same the whole world over.

 

The Wednesday Compendium

Richard Gere visited that refugee ship that the Italians are preventing form landing its passengers (good for them, in my opinion). Weasel Zippers tells us this.

He [Gere] compared the political situation in Italy, where League leader and Interior Minister Matteo Salvini has repeatedly refused requests by migrant ships to dock, to that of the U.S. administration of Donald Trump.

“We have our problems with refugees coming from Honduras, Salavador, Nicaragua, Mexico… It’s very similar to what you are going through here,” he said, accusing politicians in both Italy and the United States of demonising migrants.

Italian Interior Minister Matteo Salvini came very close to winning the internet with his response.

“Given this generous millionaire is voicing concern for the fate of the Open Arms migrants, we thank him: he can take back to Hollywood, on his private plane, all the people aboard and support them in his villas. Thank you Richard!” he said in a statement.

Well done, Minister Salvini. Sounds like something we’ve all thought, and perhaps said, more than once, doesn’t it?


National Security Advisor John Bolton is currently in London, talking to the British about Brexit and how it will affect our relationship. According to Guido, he said this:

He makes clear the US would “enthusiastically” support the UK if it left with no deal:

“If that is the decision of the British government, we will support it enthusiastically. That is the message I am bringing: we are with you. Britain’s success in successfully exiting the EU is a statement about democratic rule and constitutional government that is important for Britain but for the US too.”

Which is exactly what I’ve wanted ever since British Independence Day back on  23 June 2016. That it has taken over three years to finally get to this point makes it clear that Theresa May was the worst Prime Minister since at least Lord North.  As somebody said, Lord North only lost America, Theresa May did her best to lose Britain itself. Thank God for Boris Johnson, and may he steer a proper course back to independence. Somebody, back in some dangerous time, signaled, “England expects that every man will do his duty” Nothing much has changed in that regard since 23 October 1805.

This is part of the reason it is so important. From Mr. Bolton.

“The fashion in the European Union when the people vote the wrong way from the way the elites want to go, is make the peasants vote again and again until they get it right.”

Bolton, like many in the Trump administration, is an ideological supporter of Brexit as well as a pragmatic one. Remainers can complain all they like but it’s not a bad thing to have in your closest ally at this moment in time…

There are a lot of Americans (including me) who think that way, and some 16.7 million Britons as well.


Over at American Thinker, Eileen F. Toplansky wants to know why blacks are relinquishing their birthright. It’s a good question. Here is some of her article.

The Democrat Party knows only one way to reach the Black population in this country. They race-bait; they lie; they foment change that never actually helps Black people. They engage in covert racism against the very people they claim to want to help.

Cities that are Democratically-controlled have an abysmal record of assisting Black citizens. Yet, when election time comes around, the Democrats swoop in with their promises only to leave when the television cameras cease running.

She then talks about The Freedmen’s Bureau established in the War Department during Reconstruction.

On April 19, 1866, former slaves Benjamin Berry Manson and Sarah Ann Benton White received an official marriage certificate from the Freedmen’s Bureau, officially known as the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands.

The Wilson County, Tennessee couple had lived as slave man and wife since October 28, 1843, and for the first time in more than two decades their marriage had finally received legal recognition. The Freedmen’s Bureau — established in the War Department by an act of Congress on March 3, 1865 … provided freed people with food and clothing, medical attention, employment, support for education, help with military claims, and a host of other socially related services — including assisting ex-slave couples in formalizing marriages they had entered into during slavery.

For the Mansons — who had lived intermittently on separate farms — the marriage certificate issued by the Freedmen’s Bureau was more than a document ‘legally’ sealing the sacred bonds of holy matrimony. Listing the names and ages of 9 of their 16 children, it was for them a symbol of freedom and the long-held hope that they and their children would one day live free as a family in the same household.

Benjamin and Sarah Manson were not alone in their quest to put their slave marriage on a legal footing. When freedom came, tens of thousands of former slave men and women — some seeking to marry for the first time and others attempting to solemnize long-standing relationships — sought help from Union Army clergy, provost marshals, northern missionaries, and the Freedmen’s Bureau.

We don’t talk enough about how we tried to help the former slaves and accomplished quite a lot.

Regarding education, how is it that so many black students are not excelling in school?  Frederick Douglass innately understood that slavery and education are incompatible because ignorance is one way slave-owners kept their slaves manageable.  Why aren’t black students demanding that they be taught the basics and not a slew of left-wing indoctrination meant to divide people and keep them down?

While no one is in actual iron chains, the Democratic Party keeps black people manageable because they have been denied the tools to succeed in reading, writing, and ‘rithmetic.  If you can barely read, you are ripe for the indoctrination and emotional angst the Democrats whip up.  If you are praised when you speak street talk in an effort to avoid appearing educated, what kind of gift is that?  If Democrats — now diehard leftists — use “white privilege” arguments in order to lure in naïve black students, these students have become useful tools to the left-wing Democratic Party.

As Thomas Sowell has written, “[d]uring the half century following the Civil War, an estimated $57 million was contributed from the North to educate black students in the South and blacks themselves contributed an additional $24 million.  But the Southern states dragged their feet on creating schools — and especially high schools — for black children.”

In fact, it was the Southern Democrats who were determined not to let black children realize their full potential.

Read it all. She is completely, thoroughly, and unequivocally correct. It’s a shame that Johnson and his heirs have so suborned the blacks that they actually do believe that their oppressors are their friends. I suspect than when the scales drop from their eyes, there will be hell to pay. I hope it comes soon because the longer it takes, the worse it will be, both for them now and for us all later.

Not for nothing did President Kennedy say:

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.

And that applies to all three stories we have here today.

A Hero Comes Home

Hi guys. *waves sheepishly*. 🙂 I’ve been having trouble most of the week with my digestive tract, and at least for me, it tends to screw badly with my sleep schedule, and so yesterday, I forced myself to stay awake. Well, today is the perhaps inevitable result, So this won’t be a complex post! 🙂


I suspect most of you have seen this, but it won’t hurt any of us to see it again.

Jackson Proskow, a Canadian journalist had an unusual experience this week, at Dallas Love Field. Let him tell it.

This week, the long flight home took me from the devastating shooting in El Paso, Texas, to Washington, D.C., with a layover in Dallas.

Jackson Proskow

@JProskowGlobal

I’m at the airport in Dallas, waiting for my flight home to DC from El Paso, and something incredible is happening.

50.4K people are talking about this

Dallas became the place where the weight of the world seemed to melt away — the place where the good outweighed the bad for the first time in days.

When we arrived at our gate at Dallas’ Love Field, I noticed a few camera crews waiting. I didn’t think much of it. Perhaps they were waiting for a politician or a newsmaker.

A few minutes later, a gate agent from Southwest Airlines appeared and started handing out American flags.

Then came the announcement over the P.A. system. A gate agent, his voice cracking, told us about the very special arrival we were about to witness.

Jackson Proskow

@JProskowGlobal

I’m at the airport in Dallas, waiting for my flight home to DC from El Paso, and something incredible is happening.

Jackson Proskow

@JProskowGlobal

Our incoming plane is carrying the remains of an American pilot shot down over Vietnam in 1967. His remains were only recently recovered and identified and brought back to the US.

4,961 people are talking about this

Our inbound plane from Oakland was carrying the remains of an American airman, Col. Roy Knight Jr., who was shot down in combat during the Vietnam War in 1967.

Colonel Knight was a Sandy, flying the very last propellor propelled Air For aircraft, the Skyraider, on search and rescue missions, to try and save his fellow airmen. He held the Air Force Cross, Silver Star, Distinguished Flying Cross, Purple Heart, and six air medals. Nothing ordinary about this hero at all, and yet, amongst the “Sandys” nothing unusual either. Some of the best amongst us.

So Love Field and Southwest Airlines did it right. The water arch from the big Oshkosh fire vehicles, the appropriate pomp and circumstance, the little flags and pretty much rapt attention on the concourse, even solemn TSA employees.

But there was a bit off difference when then Captain Knight left for Udorn AB, he left from Love Field, and amongst those saying goodbye was his five-year-old son, who would not see his dad again. Well sort of, that son of Colonel Knight’s commanded the Southwest Fight that brought him home to Love Field.

Welcome Home, Colonel. We’ve missed you.

A Cold Civil War?

Ugh!

I very much fear that J. J. Sefton’s Morning Report at Ace’s yesterday is spot on.

Good morning, kids. A commenter, whose name I apologize for not remembering, remarked yesterday evening (paraphrasing) “we wake up, have bacon and eggs, send the kids to school, walk the dog, go to work, come home and everything seems just fine, and then we turn on the internet to find out we’re on the verge of civil war.” Well, that is exactly right. Unfortunately both parts of that observation are indeed happening and they are not in the least contradictory. At the risk of repeating myself from yesterday, in 2016 we the people elected Trump to stop the madness of the 100-year project to fundamentally destroy the nation as founded, and for that mortal sin, we are witnessing the reaction to that rejection by the Democrat-Left-Media-Globalist-Deep State Complex. The question is, is it their death rattle (to the extent that the underlying evil that infects their core beliefs can ever be killed off) or the hours before an imminent banzai charge?

Whatever it is, there is no doubt that the ramping up of violent rhetoric and the concomitant violence it has engendered since Trump was elected and arguably going further back into the Obama eight-year reign of error can be 100% laid at the feet of the Left. And by that I mean its political and media leadership. From typical smear tactics and mere lying to the never-before treasonous abuse of the instrumentalities of government to overthrow this president and undo a legal election, everything they have used to thwart this President’s legal ascension to the office has failed, and spectacularly so. The horrific shootings in Texas and Ohio have now sent them over the edge, both in terms of a new tack in attempting to take him down by pimping him as the leader of some mythical “white supremacist” movement and conveniently as yet another pretext to destroy the Second Amendment. And the GOP-e, true to form, is reverting to its usual position of curling up into a ball and letting the left stomp all over it. More on that in a bit.

Rush Limbaugh has been saying for the past three years that regarding Trump, this is what fighting back in the rhetorical sense looks like. It’s not pretty, (although his Tweets and retorts are glorious after decades of Republicans just taking their lumps) but it sure as hell is effective. With the media now denuded of the ability to take him down and what there was of its credibility in tatters, and the Democrat Party completely off the rails in terms of anything remotely resembling sane policy proposals or reasoned criticism of their opponents, they can collectively do one of two things: Admit defeat and enter into a period of introspection and reform, or hit the accelerator into “Ludicrous Speed.” Guess which one they’ll choose.

Keep reading.

This has gone beyond the point of disagreement, and since we know how unlawful the Democrats have become, any so-called ‘Red Flag Laws’ or pretty much anything else, are now beyond the pale. In an environment of lawful enforcement, they might be a fair idea, with careful drafting, but as it is today, if they are not misused on day one they will be on day two. So the answer is no. And for me, at least, this is a must. If the President supports such a thing, he loses my support.

Somebody yesterday said we are in the opening stages of a cold civil war. I fear they are correct, but this will not be like the first with maneuvering armies and battles lost and won, this will be a partisan war on both sides.

It’s the worst prospect in the world for the end of the United States, but avoiding reality does no good at all.

Solzhenitsyn’s Warning

This, from Lewis M. Andrews writing in The Federalist, is, to my mind anyway, very good.

The novelist Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, physicist Andrei Sakharov, mathematician Igor Shafarevich, historian Vadim Borisov, and art publisher Evgeny Barabanov—these and other Russian thinkers once admired for their daring criticism of the old Soviet Union are now mostly forgotten. But were they writing in our time, what would they make of American conservativism’s tendency to treat resurgent socialism as a problem of economic literacy, best cured with cautionary references to Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, and the former USSR?

A look back at the Russian dissidents’ literary legacy suggests a disturbing answer. The growth of socialism, they had come to see, was not essentially an economic phenomenon. A people’s willingness to accept increasingly paternalistic government, argued Igor Shafarevich in his influential essay “Socialism in Our Past and Future,” stems as much from religious skepticism, a dislike of family, the desire to evade personal responsibility, and a rejection of monogamy—in short, from the adolescent fantasy of an impulse-driven life—as it does from any objection to wealth inequality.

Having studied collectivist societies from ancient Mesopotamia and the Inca empire up through the first communal experiments in the Middle Ages and the rise of nineteenth-century Marxism, Shafarevich joined with other writers to warn that socialism is less an economic theory than a symptom of advanced moral decay, especially among self-styled intellectuals. It is, he wrote, not a form of government but an ideology of hatred for traditional values, “a hatred which cannot be explained on economic or political grounds.”

Considering so many contemporary trends, from the decline of church attendance to the avoidance of marriage and childrearing, a surviving Russian dissident would be forced conclude that modern America is indeed fertile soil for the growth of socialism. They would be especially alarmed that even many Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish clergy, in their misguided desire to appeal to the young, have aligned themselves with leftist causes whose leaders clearly despise traditional values.

There’s a lot of truth in that. In fact, it is a good reminder. Back in 2013, while filling in for me at Christmas, Jessica wrote about his 1978 Harvard Commencement address. That article is here, and a few highlights follow.

He saw a society in which:

Destructive and irresponsible freedom has been granted boundless space. Society appears to have little defense against the abyss of human decadence, such as, for example, the misuse of liberty for moral violence against young people, motion pictures full of pornography, crime, and horror. It is considered to be part of freedom and theoretically counterbalanced by the young people’s right not to look or not to accept. Life organized legalistically has thus shown its inability to defend itself against the corrosion of evil. 

And

Everything beyond physical well-being and accumulation of material goods, all other human requirements and characteristics of a subtler and higher nature, were left outside the area of attention of state and social systems, as if human life did not have any superior sense. That provided access for evil, of which in our day there is a free and constant flow. Mere freedom does not in the least solve all the problems of human life and it even adds a number of new ones. 

That could have been written by almost any conservative in the last week. Solzhenitsyn wrote it in 1978. A shame no one paid much attention.

But the past is prologue, and now so what should we do? The author notes that Solzhenitsyn wrote:

 

Fighting socialism, as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn wrote in his essay “The Smatterers,” “doesn’t mean going around preaching the truth at the top of your voice.” It “doesn’t even mean muttering what you think in an undertone.” It simply means not allowing polite passivity to imply consent. In other words, “don’t say or let stand what you don’t really think.”

Their stated reason may be to prevent some aggrieved faction from ever again feeling judged or “unsafe.” But is it not just as likely that the leftist’s real opposition to the bemused smile, the blank stare, the cocked eyebrow, or some other gesture of disapproval comes from an intuitive fear of transformational self-reflection?

As Shafarevich, Solzhenitsyn, and the other Russian dissidents well understood, it is a people’s willingness to defend their moral and spiritual beliefs, however modestly, that ultimately sustains political and economic freedom. In their own time, it helped bring down an entire socialist empire without ever firing a shot.

In short, a house divided against itself cannot stand, it is just as true for an individual as it is for a country. There’s a sneaky little quiet voice in almost every leftist, that tells him just how wrong he is. It is our job to find ways to get them to listen to that voice.

Too small? Or a Leadership Deficit.

The Week asks the question, is the Royal Navy too small to deal with the Iranian threat.

The Royal Navy is too small to counter the potential threat from Iran, the defence minister has admitted.

Tobias Ellwood told The Times: “The threats we’re facing are changing in front of us, the world is getting more complex. If we are wanting to continue to play this influential role on the international stage it will require further funding for our armed forces, not least the Royal Navy. Our Royal Navy is too small to manage our interests across the globe.”

The Guardian says the British government is facing accusations it had “failed to sufficiently guard its shipping in the Gulf.”

The Independent says the crisis has “roiled UK politics” ahead of a “potentially contentious week” in which Boris Johnson is likely to take over as prime minister from Theresa May.

Well, OK, even Sir Humphrey at PinstripedLine sort of concurs.

The first thing to take away is not to sit there and feel despondency that the RN ‘only’ has one frigate in the region. Other than the US, no other nation has warships permanently based in the Gulf region. To act as if the RN has failed for doing something that practically no one else can do is a uniquely British characteristic.

The harsh reality is that had the tanker had flown the flag of convenience of any other state, then it is likely that said country would not have had an escort anywhere near the Gulf on the day of the incident. The RN may ‘only’ have one vessel permanently based in the region, but that’s one more than most other navies. Perspective matters here.

The RN force in the Gulf has remained relatively static for decades in its structure and size. Back in the 80s it averaged 3-4 escorts supported by a tanker and store ship. Humphreys instinct is that the reason for this slightly larger force was to provide mutually complementary air defence capabilities in a time when RN vessels had more specialised roles (e.g. the so-called 42/22 combo) and needed to work together to deliver the effect. This period also saw a reliance on the use of Mombasa as the main support base, meaning a long passage off station, reducing the number of vessels in the Gulf.

By contrast more modern vessels not only have more effective and mutually complementary weapon systems (compare a Type 23 to an Exocet Leander for example), but they are also able to rely on facilities more locally for support (e.g. Bahrain).

The actual force numbers have remained remarkably constant for decades now – with an average of 1-2 escorts in the Gulf region on an enduring basis. The real change has been the move to a permanently based frigate in the region, rather than overlapping deployments, which has increased ship availability, but reduced the number of RN hulls transiting into, and out of, the region. The overall effect delivered is broadly similar but delivered in a different way.

Suggestions that defence cuts have left the RN without enough ships in the Gulf then are wide of the mark. The RN escort force in the region has been consistent in its size and capability for decades, regardless of wider defence cuts – the RN choosing to prioritise the region over other areas to ensure a continuous presence. Perhaps a bigger challenge than force size is the problem of distances for the force.

Later on, he says this:

What matters now is the safe release of the crew and the continued safety of the Royal Navy crew in the region. Let us keep this foremost in our minds as they once again sail difficult waters and conduct challenging operations to keep this nation safe where the tactical actions of (often very young and very junior) personnel will have strategic consequences. There is no doubt though that once again our nation’s finest people will rise to the challenge admirably.

Well yeah, that is perhaps important, but somehow I doubt that Drake or Nelson would be excited by this dry bureaucratese. I find myself agreeing with CBD over at Ace’s, it ain’t the number of ships, it’s the men (and women) commanding them.

It’s not the size of the Royal Navy, it’s the size of Britain’s balls that’s the problem.

Is the Royal Navy too small to deal with Iranian threat?

Tobias Ellwood told The Times: “The threats we’re facing are changing in front of us, the world is getting more complex. If we are wanting to continue to play this influential role on the international stage it will require further funding for our armed forces, not least the Royal Navy. Our Royal Navy is too small to manage our interests across the globe.”

The issue isn’t the size and reach of the Royal Navy; it has been shrinking for years. The issue is that the United Kingdom has been emasculated by its elites, who would rather kowtow to the maniacal SJWs and cultivate voting blocs within immigrant populations than defend the culture and history of their country. The result is a country without a core; one that is unwilling to defend itself even in response to a direct and obvious provocation from a country that is reeling from sanctions and is lashing out at the world.

I have no doubt whatsoever of that being true. It’s true here as well. but not as badly. The elites/ globalists or whatever you wish to call them, want us all to be what Malvina Reynolds described so well back in 1962:

Little boxes on the hillside,
Little boxes made of ticky tacky,1
Little boxes on the hillside,
Little boxes all the same.
There’s a green one and a pink one
And a blue one and a yellow one,
And they’re all made out of ticky tacky
And they all look just the same.

And the people in the houses
All went to the university,
Where they were put in boxes
And they came out all the same,
And there’s doctors and lawyers,
And business executives,
And they’re all made out of ticky tacky
And they all look just the same.

Well, those people aren’t going to make Britain great again. The Brits, like the Americans, built the joint against great odds. And none of the people she described in the song are going to use Nelson’s Telescope, let along go against the standing orders to win the battle that would win Britain supremacy for a century. This is the navy that once executed an admiral for not engaging aggressively enough but now sold to middle management who only know how to tick the boxes.

But that’s not strictly a naval problem, it is the base problem with HMG, which has sold itself to the EU, and their gray dull, masters only want subservience. It a formula for losing and losers. England Expects Better. They deserve it too.

And there is the real task that Boris (and Trump) have each undertaken. And it needs the stamp “ACTION THIS DAY

%d bloggers like this: