If You Think the GOP Is Screwed Up, Check Out the Democrats

 

You may feel terrible about being a member of the Republican Party because it’s the stupidest party in American politics until you remember that the Democrat Party exists – and no, the Libertarian Party is not actually a party; it’s the motley crew of pot-addled sophomores holding forth in the dorm suite common area at 2 a.m. of American politics. For all the failures, foibles, and follies of the inept GOP, the current Democrat Party is much, much worse off. I mean, just look at them. They’re treading water in a swamp of narcissistic mediocrity, abandoned by former allies like the working class, controlled by over-credentialed echo-chamber neurotics, and in thrall to a coalition of sexually confused neo-Marxist weirdos, losers, and mutations.

You really gotta hand it to them – we couldn’t imagine a party more inept than the Republicans, but the Democrats have managed to prove us wrong. They’re coming off a disastrous last few years where they installed a human eggplant as their party leader, a president whose growing senility was built on a solid foundation of a half-century of being an idiot. This guy wrecked the economy, threw open the borders, and managed to get a bunch of Americans killed by some of the few remaining Third World savages that he hadn’t already invited into our country. Then, after four years of nonstop babbling about “Our Democracy,” the donkey politburo pulled his card following a disastrous debate where the best thing you could say about his performance was that he didn’t soil himself, at least as far as we know.

They replaced him with Kamala Harris, a woman of towering unaccomplishment who was so dumb that they wouldn’t even let her talk to the fawning media until they basically had to, at which point she demonstrated why they wouldn’t let her speak to the media in the first place. She blew her most important decision, selecting her running mate, by channeling Harvey Korman and not picking Josh Shapiro. Instead, she invited Tim Walz to prance out onto the national stage, purportedly because he could attract men, proving once again that context is everything.

The Democrat Party has become utterly feminized, its leadership a collection of Chardonnay-swilling, SSRI-gobbling, urbanized pinko crones – and that’s just the ones who identify as male. The allegedly female ones – let’s not even get started with the party’s bizarre trans obsession – are mostly middle-aged, naggy Karens with sour apple doll faces and the conviction that Gaia has instilled in them the duty to ensure that the manager hears about how America is misbehaving. The exception is the phony likes of Jasmine Crockett, whose transformation from articulate, educated young lady to finger-wagging, ghetto-fabulous stereotype is just plain embarrassing. It says a lot – and nothing good – that harpies like these run the Democrat Party.

Democratic Party's lenin statue in seattle

 

Naturally, that repels anyone with descended testicles. The Democrats have now realized that they have a man problem, starting with the fact that they hate men – real men, the kind who like beer and guns and God and America. Like Hollywood is always trying to push glum, hefty shrews like Lena Dunham and Amy Schumer upon disgusted and appalled moviegoers, the Democrat Party seems obsessed with the idea of forcing flaccid phonies like Walz and Pete Buttigieg down our throats, thereby redefining manhood into something that has nothing to do with manhood. Just look at fey X influencer Harry Sisson; despite his fumbling online catfishing, he’s less a masculine role model than a sassy sidekick. They put David Hogg in as a DNC vice chair, at least for a little while, presumably to capture the loyalty of the key “males who yearn to be disarmed and neutered” demographic. As many men appeared at the polls to vote for “Shotgun Tim” Walz as Tim Walzes appeared for deployment. 

Stunningly, their femboy ploy has failed, and the Democrats remain utterly baffled by how to appeal to people with penises. Naturally, their bright idea is to throw money at the problem. They’re dunning the usual billionaires to pony up some cash to find themselves a comparable podcast voice to Joe Rogan and similar new media influencers, except you can’t buy authenticity. Cue visions of Steve Buscemi showing up to greet his fellow kids: “Young male-identifying persons, like you, I enjoy a hearty brew, video games, and sportsball.”

But it gets even better. According to the New York Times, the ace anthropologists of the Democrat Party have decided they need to perform an in-depth study of what makes men male and how to communicate with these backward primitives:

"The prospectus for one new $20 million effort, obtained by The Times, aims to reverse the erosion of Democrat support among young men, especially online. It is code-named SAM - short for 'Speaking with American Men: A Strategic Plan' - and promises investment to 'study the syntax, language and content that gains attention and virality in these spaces.' It recommends buying advertisements in video games, among other things."

They have tried this stuff before, with hilarious results. Say what you will about the Republican Party, but at least it’s not squandering its sweet, sweet cash on syntax studying – which is too bad because I totally would’ve taken its money and built that wine cellar I’ve been wanting. Oh well, I’ll give you the 411 for free, GOP: Don’t be sissies. 

Shhhh, do not share this valuable advice with the Democrats! 

Oh, go ahead. They won’t listen. In fact, their proposed solutions indicate that they don’t even understand the problem. They seek to find a lefty podcast superstar and “gain attention and virality” not to learn about what men actually want but to find better ways to tell men what to want. Here’s the challenge for the Democrats – they want to appeal to the people who their ideology has driven away without changing their ideology. They’re offering normals the same reeking dung as always, just polished up.

Have you ever heard a single Democrat explain which of their prized political positions they’re willing to compromise, much less abandon, in order to reach out to the people they’ve alienated? The voters they’ve lost didn’t wander away and head towards Trump because he’s shiny. They left because they don’t like the things the Democrats stand for. So, what do the Democrats propose to change to get them back? Are they going to moderate their jihad against babies? Are they going to keep naked dudes out of girls’ locker rooms? Are they going to start putting criminals in jail instead of back on the street? Will they quit trying to take our guns? Will they stop trying to steal our money to pay off the debts of blue-haired gender studies graduates? Will they cease their efforts to make us stop barbecuing and driving trucks in order to appease their angry weather goddess? Are they going to quit talking about how America sucks and how Americans are white nationalist racists of racism?

Of course not. Their offer is nothing. They’re not going to do any of these things because these are all sacred tenets in their secular pagan religion. To them, holding these stupid positions makes them good people. It’s what distinguishes them from the masses. To ask them to change is to ask them to give up their identity as well as the moral high ground, so their plan is to hector and pester more intensely so that normal people will submit. 

This brings us to the key difference between the current Republican Party and the current Democrat Party. It’s the difference between bottom-up and top-down evolution. The current Republican Party changed over the last 20 years in the direction that normal people wanted. The GOP base got sick of useless hacks like the Bushes and Mitt Romney, guys mostly concerned with gentlemanly managing decline and went with the guy who got the things they wanted done while owning the libs. But the Democrats did the exact opposite. The Democrat Party doesn’t want to be led by the voters; like all good communists, its leadership considers themselves the cadre who will lead the masses. The Democrats are finding out what happens when you give a revolution and nobody comes.

Fortunately for us, they can’t change direction anytime soon. They have dug themselves into a hole, and they’re still digging. We’ve seen it before. After their 1968 loss, the Democrats decided that the voters were wrong, and they should tack super-hard to the left. They were destroyed in 1972. After their 1980 loss, they decided the voters were wrong, and they should tack super-hard to the left. They were destroyed in 1984. After their 2024 loss, they will decide the voters are wrong and that they should tack super-hard to the left once again. They will convince themselves that it’s a great idea to nominate AOC or Buttigieg or some other spazzy clown who is extremely popular in Manhattan’s Upper West Side, Scat Francisco, and the Harvard faculty lounge (if there’s anything left of it when Trump gets finished with it) but who repels and disgusts normal people. They will get destroyed in 2028.

Advertisement

And you know what? Good. Because the only way a party as stupid as the current establishment Republican Party can win is if it’s competing against a party as stupid as the current Democrat Party.

DEI Enthusiasts Allowed the Free Palestine Movement to Get This Far

 

Recently, two Israeli diplomatic employees in Washington, Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim, were shot. Apparently, the killer, Elias Rodriguez, emptied his handgun and fired off 21 rounds, killed them almost instantly, and then ran into the museum where they were working and started to act as if he was a victim until he shouted out “Free Palestine.”

And what are we to make of this? I think what we’re seeing throughout the United States right now is a lowering of the bar of what’s acceptable in terms of violence.

We saw that Luigi Mangione became a cult hero to the Left because he, in a premeditated fashion, killed a UnitedHealthcare executive, shot him down in cold blood on the specious excuse that they were overcharging people. But he became a hero.

And we saw that Kilmar Abrego Garcia—who beat his spouse, threatened to kill her, apparently, she thought he was gonna kill her; and was an illegal alien and had, at one time, deportation orders; and was a member, pretty clearly, of an MS-13 gang; and was engaged in human trafficking; and was deported—became a cult hero to the Left.

We had an incident in Texas where a young teenager stabbed another one and then he became a victim. No need to go into the details.

We had the two assassination attempts. And I think, if you collated the social media content of those two killers, it was pretty much, to the Left, kind of reminiscent of the shooter of Rep. Steve Scalise and the wounding of others who was a Sen. Bernie Sanders—what am I getting at?

There has been a general lowering of the bar, as I said, of what’s acceptable violence. And we saw that with the Tesla excuses and contextualization when somebody ran somebody off the road or destroyed a charging station or firebombed a station—even the media reports of the tragic deaths.

I was reading today an NPR account. And after about six paragraphs, they get uneasy describing the murder. And they just have to, they just have to put something in. And they do. And they say, “And this was during a period of tensions,” because of the people getting killed in Gaza. In other words—just a little bit—how can we get in there to justify this in some ways or contextualize it?

So, that is one thing that’s happening. And that makes violence more permissible. The other is this endemic antisemitism.

Let’s be honest. It’s not some cowboy in Wyoming in 1950 that doesn’t like Jews. We’re talking about two nexuses that come together and promulgate antisemitism. The one is wealthy people in the universities—many of them DEI, but not all—who feel that it’s either en vogue or, as DEI people, they cannot be criticized as victims for victimizing others, meaning foreign students from the Middle East.

And in that cauldron, it becomes permissible to say, “Globalize the intifada,” “River to the sea,” the eliminationist rhetoric about Israel, storm a library, chase Jews into a library, damage the president’s office, rough up a Jewish kid on campus. It was all acceptable. There were no consequences. That’s why those three college presidents either were fired or had to resign.

So, what we’re seeing is that the unhinged come out of the woodwork because the general climate rewards that type of behavior.

So, Rodriguez thought, A) If I use violence, in this case, bring a gun into Washington, D.C., from my home in Chicago, and I have good, firm left-wing credentials—his father was asked to be a guest at the Trump speech by a left-wing congressman, [Jesus] Garcia from Illinois. So, he comes in and he knows that if he shoots and murders someone, there’s going to be a lot of people who will praise him or at least excuse what he did, No. 1.

And No. 2, he’s killing Jews. So, he knows on campus that one of the Harvard Review people roughed up a Jew and was given a $65,000 honorarium scholarship from one of the groups that sponsors Harvard Law School.

Bottom line: This is gonna continue until somebody says, “We’re not gonna put up with it anymore. You’re not gonna be a foreign student and come over to the United States on a student visa and spout hateful rhetoric and torment Jews and make it uncomfortable. And you’re not gonna be one of these elite students who crashes into the president’s office at Stanford or crashes into a building at Columbia and thinks there’s no consequences.”

And that’s why President Donald Trump is trying to shock treatment to the universities to say: You don’t know what you’re doing. You’re a global embarrassment, that you permitted and you have fueled antisemitism. And the Left’s atmosphere, anyway, is to condone violence when it’s used for revolutionary purposes.

Add it all up and we get two wonderful people murdered in D.C.

The Truth About South Africa’s Anti-American Agenda

 

. We’ve had another “ambush” in the White House. Ambush, remember, means an unexpected attack on someone from a secretive place. That was not an ambush. Cyril Ramaphosa, the president of South Africa, wanted that meeting with President Donald Trump. He requested it. And when he came in, he was prepared to refute Donald Trump.

In fact, if you look at the media before the meeting, they didn’t use the word “ambush.” They were giddy. They thought, “Wow, he’s going to give Trump a bill of goods.” What he didn’t think was that Trump was ready for the bill of goods and had his own bill of goods.

But here’s the real backstory to the whole thing. Why did he want to meet Trump? He wanted to meet Trump because he had a free trade agreement with the United States with no tariffs placed on South African agriculture—everything, metals, everything. And he was running a $9 billion surplus. And in addition to that, he was getting $500 million in foreign aid from the United States.

And in addition to that, his ambassador had just been fired or expelled by Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Why? Because in a performance art fashion, he made a video and said Donald Trump was a white supremacist. This is the ambassador, just before this visit, not too long earlier. And then said that he was part of a white victimhood movement. So, they kicked him out. Was he embarrassed? No. He had a hero’s welcome when he went back.

And then we have the larger context of South Africa. It usually votes at the United Nations against the United States. It’s signed onto the International Criminal Court’s farce that was going to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a war criminal. We had the video that was shown about the leader of the third-largest party in South Africa saying that they wanted to “kill the Boer, kill the farmer” to a big crowd.

And by the way, the year before—he said that in 2022—something called the South African Equality Court declared that “kill the Boer, kill the farmer” is not hate speech. I don’t know what hate speech is in South Africa if it’s not kill a designated minority.

And so, when you look at all of this, Donald Trump got sick of it. And he said, this country, we don’t have any problem with it. We don’t hate South Africa. But they’re not our friends. This is not Nelson Mandela. This is not the age of conciliation. This is not the South Africa with such promise 30 years ago. This is a racialist state. It’s one of the most violent countries in the world. And it’s one of the most anti-Western and anti-American.

And so, when Ramaphosa came to set Donald Trump straight, Donald Trump said: You know what? I don’t think you like us. So I’m not gonna give you $500 million in foreign aid. You know what? I don’t think you like us because you think I’m a white supremacist, so we’re not gonna give you free trade into our markets. We’re gonna charge 30% tariff. You know what, you know, your ambassador—all you guys come over here, you don’t like us, you think that the left-wing foundations, the left-wing media, the left-wing universities are running the country, the left-wing—but they’re not. They’re not. So, when you come over here and attack us and call us racist, maybe you shouldn’t come over here. You know, just have a little peace. Maybe all your foreign students, your green card holders, your visitor visa—maybe we should just have a little cooling off period.

And so, what Donald Trump was saying is that this is not the South Africa that we used to know. But it was running on the fumes of Mandelaism. At the United Nations, it’s hostile to the United States. It takes advantage of the free trade agreement to run up a $9 billion surplus. It gets $500 million in aid. And it shows no gratitude. It attacks us. It attacks us.

And then when we try to say that you have a law that is going to appropriate land without compensation, you deny that you’re doing it. That was the whole purpose of it. No compensation. You can say, “Well, it was for public domain,” but everybody knows that. So, everybody who confiscates land does it for the public, but they compensate people, except you.

And finally, you know, you want internet. You want internet like Ukraine has. You want internet like remote places in Asia and Africa have. And you want, therefore, Starlink. And you think that Elon Musk is a native son, so you’re going to invite him in and have Starlink. But you can’t even do that.

You say, “You can come in. We’ll give you the privilege to come into our market,” as if Elon Musk needs that. “But we’re gonna take a third of your company and your franchise here in South Africa. And it has to be staffed, partnered with people who are of a particular color, black people.”

And Elon Musk says, “I think I’ll pass on that nice invitation.” And then they get very angry. And now they’ll probably bend.

Final word, I think Ramaphosa will be—I don’t think Donald Trump will visit South Africa, but I guarantee you Ramaphosa will want another meeting, like Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy did.

And he will come in and he will say, “Please take away the 30% tariff. Please give us the $500 million handout in foreign aid. Please let all the South Africans, not just the 48 people—and who, by the way, whom he called cowards because they didn’t want to play the lottery whether they were gonna get killed or not—but let all of us come back in. Please. Please. Please. And we promise that we’ll not allow people to pack stadium, say, ‘Kill the Boer, kill the farmer,’ and say, ‘That’s not hate speech.’”

No-Fault Divorce: America’s Divorce Mill is Marxist-Leninist Democratic Party

When you ask most people, they will say it’s a mutual-consent process, or that it preserves privacy, or that it eliminates blame for the failure of the marriage.

Democratic Party’s lenin statue in seattle

Not many people will answer that it’s a lawsuit in which one party is suing the other party. And even fewer will know that it came from the Soviet Union.

Like previous divorce actions, no-fault divorce is still a lawsuit, which means that one party is invoking the state’s police powers against the other party. The main difference now is that the person filing for divorce no longer has to provide a reason for why they’re doing it. This type of lawsuit is unique; it’s the only type of legal action devoid of any ‘claim’ (complaint), and if the party being sued doesn’t know the complaint, then there’s no possibility of a defense.

As for the communist origins of no-fault divorce, a 1975 law review article by Donald M. Bolas entitled, “No Fault Divorce: Born in the Soviet Union?” explains how, after speaking with Russian lawyers, he stumbled upon how Soviet divorce law may have influenced our own laws.

Bolas explains that when the Bolsheviks took over in 1917, religious marriages were no longer recognized by the state. Marriage became a “state action” and divorce became merely an administrative process known as Russian Post Card Divorce. One spouse simply filled out the paperwork at city hall and the other party was then notified by mail that they were no longer married. Some people married twenty times. There was also a ‘free love’ bureau where people could sign up for partners.

The fact that this type of law increases the divorce rate is proven every day in the United States. Since the onset of no-fault divorce, the divorce rate doubled with one divorce granted for every two marriages that take place. In terms of sheer numbers, approximately a million divorces are finalized each year, translating into 3,000 divorces every day.

How coincidental that the U.S. divorce rate is among the highest in the world, vying only with Russia!

Another interesting fact about no-fault divorce is how strikingly similar its underlying thinking is to abortion law. In fact, laws dealing with both subjects were being drafted at the same meeting. This is how it all began.

History

In 1970, a national group of lawyers gathered for their annual meeting at the Colony Motor Hotel in Clayton, Missouri, just outside of St. Louis. At this meeting, two new ‘model’ laws were being drafted and debated. These laws would serve as ‘blueprints’ for state legislators around the country to enact as state laws. The purpose was to create more uniformity in state laws. One of these laws was called the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act (UMDA) and the other was the Uniform Abortion Act (then, in 1973, Roe v. Wade overturned all state abortion laws).

A common theme found in both of these debates was the word viability and this word would be operative in rationalizing both of these laws.

Advertisement – Continue Reading Below

In the case of abortion, the discussion revolved around the viability of the human life, meaning its potential for survival outside the mother. The divorce debate was similar: a marriage could be terminated “on the basis that it no longer is a viable institution,” according to the transcripts that have been preserved from these debates.

Using viability as the operative term would soften the discussion on divorce, or abortion, making these new laws more palatable to the public. This way of thinking would also help cover up the truth so we wouldn’t have to ‘look’ at the reality: that both are really destructive acts. One act destroys the product of the one-flesh union while the purpose of the other act is to destroy the one-flesh union itself.

During a pregnancy, we now are able to ‘see’ the reality of life due to technical advances. However, in the case of marriage, there isn’t any test. One person’s word suffices. Judges and lawyers don’t check for vital signs in the marriages, which assumes they are all dead on arrival.

The label given to this new type of divorce is something of a misnomer. The term ‘no-fault’ came into the vernacular with the introduction of ‘no-fault’ car insurance. The rationale behind no-fault car insurance was to move cases more quickly into ‘settlements.’

The same is true for no-fault divorce because now the emphasis is on moving cases into mediation where settlements are supposed to be reached, conveniently skipping the step of determining viability. Once a petition for divorce is filed, the marriage is essentially doomed, since no one checks for any pulse.

The term “no-fault” has served masterfully to cover up something that is far more sinister. The idea that the State is forcing people out of their marriages is hard to fathom but because every divorce petition is granted, and none are ever denied, then there are certainly a few viable marriages that meet an untimely death.

Conciliation/Reconciliation

Before the onset of no-fault divorce there was a burgeoning activity around the country called the Conciliation Court Movement with the focus on marital reconciliation. This movement began in 1939 when California enacted its Children’s Court of Conciliation Law in order to:

… protect the rights of children and to promote the public welfare by preserving and promoting family life and the institution of matrimony, and to provide means for the reconciliation of spouses and the amicable settlement of domestic and family controversies.

By 1970, Conciliation Courts were operating in Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon and Wisconsin, using a growing body of knowledge and techniques to help restore family life. But now, such lofty goals cannot be found anywhere in our statutes.

When no-fault divorce entered the picture, the emphasis in conciliation courts soon changed to ‘divorce with dignity.’ Settlement negotiations took place under the auspices of a mediator who assisted the courts in keeping the conveyor belt moving.

Is there another possibility? Can distressed spouses find ‘relief’ for their anguish? Could we create Marriage Support facilities that operate in the same way as the Pregnancy Support facilities that offer another answer than abortion? Marriage Support facilities could do the same thing by offering couples the help they need to stay together.

In many ways, the Church might be the perfect home for these facilities. Tribunal offices could incorporate the Conciliation Court model, summoning couples from the civil courts. At this time, spouses are typically directed to Catholic Charities, but this is not enough because the problem requires a blending of both legal and pastoral initiatives.

Also needed are skillful practitioners who are trained in multiple fields. Working with a dyadic relationship is much harder than working with one person individually. Not many practitioners can handle such a challenge without bringing their own biases into the work.

By all appearances we are a nation that wants to defend traditional marriage, as evidenced by the number of state constitutional amendments that have passed. The next step is to protect marriages from being destroyed in this country’s no-fault divorce mills.

Calm Down

 

Many of my fellow America First conservatives need to take a chill pill and calm the hell down. I get the frustration. I get the irritation. We’ve waited decades for justice. We’ve waited decades to use the power granted to us by the American people to reshape this country back into something like it was rather than the gross, formless blob of neo-commie failure it has become. But this Gramscian Rome wasn’t built in a day, and we’re not going to burn it down overnight, no matter how hard we fiddle. Start taking “Yes” for an answer, conservatives.

Let’s take some of the more common gripes, starting with the complaint that our Congress hasn’t passed anything. But, of course, Congress has passed several things. It passed the Laken Riley Act to keep Third World savages who are illegally here locked up. It just overturned the ridiculous California “no gas engines” law. So, the objection is not that the Republicans haven’t passed anything. It’s that the Republicans haven’t passed enough.

But there’s a structural fact that frustrated conservatives refuse to admit exists. This is why most of our actions must be taken via executive orders. Because of the Senate filibuster, we have to get 60 votes, but we have only 53 Senators. All the Democrats hang together, breaking the neck of our legislation. 

What is so amazingly difficult to understand about this? Do people not know what the filibuster is? Do they not care? Look, I get the anger. I’ve been a conservative longer than many of you people have been alive. I was a conservative in the 80s, faithfully reading America’s only right-wing outlet, National Review, before it became the Teen Vogue of conservatism. All the stuff we are trying to do today is stuff that we’ve been dreaming about for decades. But we’ve been lied to, spat upon, disregarded, persecuted, and generally treated like crap not only by the Democrats but our own Republican Party for as long as I can remember. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again – the Republican base is the abused spouse of American politics. We are naturally suspicious and looking for any reason to validate our gut instinct that we are about to get screwed over yet again.

That’s why we act like we do, but let’s not pretend it’s always rational. The fact of the filibuster is not an excuse for inaction; it’s the reason for it. Gravity is not an excuse why you can’t jump 50 feet high. The filibuster is a structural reality that we have to work around – unless we make the major decision to get rid of it. If you want to do that, make that argument. But don’t whine because Congress is not doing something it literally cannot do.

Yes, I know a lot of this is just emotional catharsis. I know it makes some of us feel better to complain incessantly about the failures of our Republican Party, and it doesn’t help that the Republican Party has given us sufficient material to complain incessantly for days without repeating ourselves. But that doesn’t change reality.

We should celebrate the Big Beautiful Bill, which can pass because of arcane Senate rules that get around the filibuster. But no. Cue the handwringing. Yes, it spends too much. Yes, it fails to cut many things that richly deserve cutting. No, it doesn’t include a bunch of things we want. Yes, it includes many things we don’t want, like the SALT increase. But you know what? It’s a compromise bill. With only a four- or five-vote majority in the House, all those blue-state Republicans have outsized leverage. You don’t have to like it, but you do have to recognize reality. They’ve got the power, and they’re using it to do what they think is best for their district and their reelection chances. This is called politics. That’s how it works. The idea that every politician must be a disinterested, economically rational person who happens to agree with every policy choice we prefer is silly. We can’t create a majority out of a minority. It’s better to have this bill passed than not to pass it, so we should pass it through the Senate if those chuckleheads can get their egos in check and get it done.

And then there’s the court. Liberal court judges are breaking the rules to keep Trump from governing. What are we doing about it? We are going through the appellate system and getting them overturned. Almost all of them will be. Is it frustrating? Yes. Shouldn’t we just ignore the court? Not if we want to avoid an entirely different fight that we might not win. We’re going to win doing what we’re doing. We should keep doing that.

And here’s another gripe. What did we want from the investigations of some of the key scandals of the last decade? We wanted to know the truth about Epstein, for example. We got good people to look at the evidence from the inside. I don’t know Kash Patel (people who say he’s squared away), but I do know Dan Bongino and trust him implicitly. These guys had a lot of credibility with our movement. Well, they looked at the facts about Epstein, and they’ve determined that he did kill himself, but some of us apparently didn’t get the answer we wanted.

I was under the impression that we wanted the truth. The whole thing about Epstein was exceedingly sketchy. Obviously, the Deep State has no default to our trust. But, when a guy like Dan Bongino takes a look at the relevant materials and tells us that there was no murder – it’s not unreasonable that a guy like him might not want to spend the rest of his miserable existence in an 8’ x 10’ concrete box – it’s weird to see people disappointed. We were looking for the truth, correct? What if the truth is this perv killed himself, aided by the entirely routine incompetence of government employees who failed to do their job, just like millions of other government employees fail to do their job every single day?

So, now Dan Bongino is “compromised?” Now, he’s a tool of the Deep State? Dan Bongino? Come on. There are only three real options. You could believe that somehow, he allowed himself to be corrupted. That’s ridiculous. You could believe the Deep State fooled him, but he is no amateur. The guy was a federal law enforcement officer and presumably knows what to look for. The final option is that he examined the relevant evidence and came to the conclusion that Epstein did kill himself. But the reaction of some people is disappointment, as if they wanted that perverted degenerate to have been killed within the web of some giant conspiracy. Of course, being familiar with and distinctly unimpressed by the kind of unaccomplished people who tend to control institutions, I tend not to believe in conspiracies because the alleged conspirators aren’t smart enough to pull them off.

In any case, it’s baffling that we would send one of our most trusted surrogates to wade into the swamp to find the truth and then get mad at him when the truth isn’t what we thought it was. I thought we wanted the truth, but some people want validation of what they already decided is true. Now, I think everything should be released, including any video of that creep offing himself.  We also need to see the non-perverted videos the FBI seized, as well as a full and complete list of his grody associates. But Dan Bongino has earned the benefit of the doubt through years of loyal service to the movement. It’s pretty crappy to start making accusations about him because the answers he has found are not the answers some people want.

Finally, there are complaints about prosecutions. I was a lawyer for 30 years. This stuff takes time. You want to do it once, and you want to do it right. Many people require accountability. In reality, we’re not going to be able to hold all of them to account. We don’t have the resources or the bandwidth; that’s another unpleasant reality we must accept. But for those we are going to hold to account, it takes time.

Trump’s been president for about four months. He’s got four years. I think Donald Trump has earned our trust over the last decade. I think we can give him the benefit of the doubt that what needs to get done is going to get done, even if it’s not right away.

That’s the bottom line. Do we trust Trump and our movement? Are we ready to accept that we’re not going to get everything we necessarily want? Are we prepared for answers that don’t fit our preconceived notions? 

Johnny Rotten Lydon observed that anger is an energy, but we can’t only run on anger. We must be ruthless. We must be cold. And for heaven’s sake, we must calm down.