January 31, 2017

Armed forces rule, lawyers drool

Time to re-visit two posts from a year ago, with the battle between rogue members of the judiciary trying to stump the Trump, and the Supreme Court nomination being announced.

First, a reminder that the Supreme Court cannot enforce its decisions, not even with the US Marshals.

Black students in Little Rock, AR found that out the hard way in 1957 when the Governor called out the National Guard (state militia) to block them from entering the white school buildings, even though the Supreme Court had unanimously ruled years earlier that segregation was unconstitutional. The only thing that integrated them was the US Army, who Eisenhower sent in to trump the state-level militia.

Click that link and look at the pictures -- you have never seen the uniformed and armed soldiers, with their military vehicles, occupying the Central High School campus, nor escorting the black students into the buildings while holding M-16s. That would give you the wrong impression about what ultimately backs up policy, so the media and schools have swept them under the rug and pushed a narrative about the decisions rendered by some bunch of judges.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court pick is not that big of a deal for major issues, which will either be enforced or non-enforced according to the Executive branch's orders.

Second, a reminder with pictures of the teams of uniformed men with guns who got the illegals out of the country back in the 1950s during Operation Wetback. The Supreme Court did not try to get in their way, but then how could they have?

The upshot: Trump holds all the cards here, not just as the Commander-in-chief of the military, but as one who went out of his way to enlist the "generals' generals" on his side before, during, and after the election.

Even if a blue-state governor got the funny idea to call out the National Guard to oppose Trump, they'll get a bitter reminder that Guardsmen are under dual state and federal control. If the National Guard in California had to choose between President Trump and anti-American Governor Moonbeam, which side do you think they'd obey?

There is major trolling potential for the administration, if they did have to send in troops to enforce the law, to point to Eisenhower desegregating the schools in the Deep South. Not to make the accusation that "Democrats are the real racists," but to cause the Left to melt down when deporting illegal immigrants is likened to desegregating public schools. "Y'know, the law is the law, and ultimately the laws get enforced by law enforcement."

Is there any major counter-weight on the other side? No. They have zero support within the police departments, border patrols, or any branch of the military, when it's such a black-and-white choice to make.

We will know there is something to worry about when the Left tries to infiltrate the Army and organize the rank-and-file from within, as they did during the Vietnam War. Michael Albert once said that the Blackstone Rangers, a yuge black street gang, even tried to infiltrate the Chicago Police Department to organize the rank-and-file cops. I couldn't find where he said that, or other confirmation -- but it was the Sixties, so just maybe.

As for now, the Left are going out of their way to alienate all normal people, especially anyone who wears a uniform or carries a weapon as part of their job.

It's unclear to me whether they will prove capable of trying to organize the rank-and-file from within the armed forces. Back during the Vietnam era, there was no partisanship, and the Leftists had no trouble violently revolting against the Democrat Johnson administration that had won in a landslide in 1964 against uber-Conservative Goldwater. And the "all in it together" mindset let them get over their prejudices against anyone who joined the Army, the better to relate to them and get them onto the anti-war side.

Today's climate is the opposite, with partisan polarization like we've never seen in our lifetimes. The military and police will be lumped in with the Trump administration and the evil Republican Party. They won't try to meet the cops or soldiers half-way, gain their trust, and so on, to try to woo them away from the Trump agenda, and leave Trump standing without strong military support.

Today's Leftists are so puritanically partisan that merely thinking about relating to a cop, man-to-man, would be an unforgivable stain on their moral scorecard. Fraternizing with the enemy. And infiltrating a tailgate gathering outside a sports stadium, packed with Trump voters to woo away from their hero, would be sharing a meal with the ritually unclean.

The Left appear to be so hell-bent on antagonizing their nemesis that we won't just see the "dogs and firehoses" of the Vietnam era -- we could see deportations back to the home countries of the agitators, as we had during and after WWI. How many of these Soros-funded protest organizers do you think are non-citizens?

We could see President Trump using the Alien Enemies Act to deport these foreign rabble-rousers, in the tradition of Woodrow Wilson -- or even imprison all residents from that hostile nation, in the tradition of FDR and Harry Truman.

Another major difference with the Sixties, and like the Teens -- today's anti-government protests are so corrupted by foreigners agitating against our own country's nationalism, which looks cynical and pro-whatever country they're from. With the Vietnam protesters, they were arguing over which Americans were right about what American values were. "Peace is patriotic," etc.

Now it looks more and more like a group of foreign scouts trying to open up our defenses so that their countrymen back home can march in and take us over.

I don't think that's going to play in Peoria.


  1. Random Dude on the Internet1/31/17, 7:54 AM

    A big driver towards the immigration restriction of the 1920s was that the public was getting tired of dealing with Italian anarchists aka left wing terror. The left feels that if they commit enough crimes that they will cow the public but at least in America it seems like the opposite is true. The more Soros funded rallies there will be, the anger will continue to grow, especially when they see illegal immigrants running around with the Mexican flag and carrying "FUCK TRUMP" banners.

    The more riots that happen the more the public with side with Trump. The left should have learned this lesson with Nixon but their inane narrative about being on the right side of history means that we will keep having left wing rioting and violence while the Democrats suffer one electoral humiliation after the other. The armed forces will most definitely side with Trump as will a well armed populace who grits their teeth anytime they see a blue haired HAES activist screaming about oppression. The left keeps talking about wanting to fight but it's a fight that they will lose badly in.

  2. Well, Ag, you made me feel better about my donation to the highway patrol yesterday, that telemarketing operation we all know and love.
    Hadn't given in years, but something made me not hang up immediately and then came the spiel about how so many have been gunned down lately...
    It's all true. These guys are on the side of angels and they're ours. Going all in with the sociopathic elements of society by the Left has been something.

  3. Since any kind of Western nationalism is seen as no different from "Nazism" today, the media will have no problem portraying the foreign protestors as the "good guys." The media already openly calls for the submission of America to invaders.

    The media is there to sell leftism, degeneracy, and anti-nationalism. They see themselves as moral arbiters, not conveyors of information. If Trump wants to make lasting changes in America, he has to go after the media the way Putin did.

  4. "The left feels that if they commit enough crimes that they will cow the public but at least in America it seems like the opposite is true."

    Michael Albert (Leftist organizer) talks about the key part of rallies, potential violence, etc., is "raising the social costs" to the other side for not giving into the demands. If disruptive protests do that, good; if not, bad.

    That may have been true for some forms of confrontational Sixties activism, after which the elites would say "Our streets are in turmoil, and we can no longer in good conscience support the war, which is rending the fabric of our society."

    Today's climate is separate, though: the elites are already bitterly against Trump, nationalism, and populism. Protesters already have most of the elites on their side -- and have for two years now.

    Today's protesters do not need to convince the elites that, e.g., incumbent Johnson cannot be allowed to run for re-election. They need to convince the common people that their hero is not worth following.

    And of course we see how tone-deaf and clueless they are relating to common people. They don't even know that that's who they have to convince as "the other side".

    Their idea of raising social costs to the other side is stopping daily functioning of society, blocking highways and rush hour traffic, etc.

    Doesn't raise costs to anyone but themselves -- the little guy calling for them to be knocked in the head by law enforcement or the military.

  5. Lady Gaga is a closet Republican, only bashing Trump to protect her brand among her ultra-liberal fan base? So says a source to Blind Gossip:


    Nothing about Trumpism rises or falls based on any celebrity's public or private views. Still, a funny twist. Her main political concern is gays, and Trump as a "New York values" guy has stayed neutral or protective of them.

    Here's her one decent song, whose video admits that she wants to Make Manhattan Fifties Again:


    Looking cute, cooking meals, ironing clothes, living in an ethnically homogeneous community -- the horror!

  6. The thing I worry about is that the Left HAS converged the state spy/secret police.

    Comey's July 5th protection of Hillary confirmed the FBI is firmly in the pocket of the Leftist powers-that-be. And the CIA since the election has been openly lying and helping the D's legitimize Trump and claim that Russia "hacked" our election, and that therefore Trump should launch an attack on Russia (or something). The ATFE helped Holder run Fast & Furious to trump up (that pun never gets old) some anti-gun hysteria, while Snowden revealed the NSA and its affiliates were quite happy to give Obama and co. open access to the emails of every American, warrant or no.

    Why is this worrisome, when we have the army and the local cops? It's worrisome because, historically, the military has almost never been a bulwark against coups. Some militaries have installed their own generals as coups, but if they're not actively taking over, militaries just fall into line behind whoever's in charge, legitmiate or no.

    As Bruce Willis said in "The Siege", the Army is a broadsword, not a scalpel.

    But secret police organizations are the fulcrum around which coups work. Either they stop the coups or allow them to get it in. The spooks end up controlling most leaders anyway through blackmail and threats of coups.

    So the alphabet secret police agencies being aligned against Trump and pro-Leftist is very worrisome. I am sure some of the darkest conversations in Washington these days is between alphabet secret police representatives and the most corrupt members of the D's and R's, wanting to see if there is an opening to sweep in and take down Trump.

    There is some hope, however. The Left has made a massive, and thus far unsuccessful, push in the last 10 years to "federalize" the local police departments, using trumped-up (heh) hoax crimes as a pretext. This tells me the Left is nervous it doesn't have the manpower in the alpahabet secret police agencies to pull off a coup, and want more bodies on their side. Which means the alphabets are probably much more reticent to try a coup than, say, the KGB was during the Soviet Era (note, too, that the most powerful figure to emerge from the Soviet collapse was not a general, but a KGB dude, Putin).

    Pray for Trump, but I'm sure he's well aware of this, especially from his generals, who aren't fools at judging what their men are and are not capable of.

  7. The FBI is good, just not Comey, who has been covering for the Clintons for over 10 years (Marc Rich pardon).

    The CIA are shit, but if they could have done something to stop Trump, they would've done so already. Instead, everything they tried failed. They're not going to try again when he's actually President and in control of the military.

    He warned the CIA, in their own building, that the next architect who designs that room isn't going to allow any COLUMNS. "Do you understand that?" making clear it was a double-entendre (fifth column). We're not gonna have any more columns.

    Trump could nuke the CIA and everybody would cheer.

    William McKinley, Trump's previous incarnation, was killed by a bitter anchor baby, not a political rival. If/when an attempt on his life is made, odds are good it will be a bitter immigrant or anchor baby.

    In fact, that would-be assassin at Las Vegas during the election was a foreigner, from the UK.

  8. Sarah Silverman thinks the military will just join their lunatic side. She does not seem to understand Trump's friendliness with the Pentagon whatsoever.
    After last night's shenanigans, I really do think 2020 is going to be more like 1972. Good God.

  9. Likewise, the more peaceful nature of the 60s protests is a reflection of the more egalitarian early Baby Boomers. Peter Turchin has explicitly stated how tame the late 60s were compared to the 1910s and '20s. in part, this may be generational differences - egalitarian Boomers, vs. the status-striving generation born at the end of the 19th century, who were less afraid of violence or burning their communities down.


You MUST enter a nickname with the "Name/URL" option if you're not signed in. We can't follow who is saying what if everyone is "Anonymous."