(Author’s Note: Publication of the link to the article and brief quoted passages are provided with the permission of The New Criterion.)

In the campaign season of 2016, an essay appeared out of the blue entitled The Flight 93 Election exploring, in considerable depth, the very real dangers for our Nation should Hillary Clinton be elected President. Word of this epochal essay spread like wildfire and it became – not the cliché but the real thing- an overnight sensation. It was introduced to the wider world when Rush Limbaugh read every word of it on his radio show. How much impact it had on the eventual outcome of the election we will never know, but I would speculate that it almost certainly had a measurable effect. Like many in those pivotal days – we had no idea just how pivotal they were at the time- I devoured the article which simply corroborated my conviction that the style of the title was not at all overdone but described the importance of that decision precisely. The author was identified at the time of its release as Publius Decius Mus, the essay may be accessed here. His real identity was Michael Anton.

This very same scholar and highly accomplished analyst has now published another masterful essay in which he reviews the increasingly disturbing, chilling, and, in some cases, frightening developments wrenching our society these days , defined broadly as the last five-six years since approximately, and this is my marker, not the author’s, the most famous escalator ride in history. The theme is the large catalog of savage attacks on, to use Victor Davis Hanson’s phrase, the very pillars of Western Civilization.

I will try to couch my feelings about both the excellence of this piece of scholarship and the severity of its alarms for our future in somewhat muted tones, but, to put it as mildly as I know how to use the King’s English, every single American citizen with a sentient mind should read this essay, at least once but, more beneficially, twice, as I did. It may be accessed here; as noted, the publishers have most graciously granted me permission to provide this link and it is my hope that it will be spread far and wide so many will have the benefit of the depth of analysis it offers of the problems we face. They are so much more serious than the usual jokes and memes about the blithering fools who occupy our highest two offices presently and I hope to briefly review the major areas of Anton’s concerns – issues which are unprecedented in American history and, in some cases, all recorded history.

The author opens his discussion with these pithy observations on the current state of the “Republic” (about which more later) and its seemingly inevitable decline:

When I have thought about this, I have been in some part inclined to the opinion that present arrangements are unstable and may be approaching their end. Yet in thinking it through further, I am forced to admit that our times are marked by so many unprecedented trends and events that making predictions seems foolhardy.

He then turns to a familiar theme:

Are We Rome?

Noting that there seem to be many similarities between the fall of Rome and our present rapidly deteriorating situation, and examining the two examples extensively, he indicates that America, because of the confluence of so many unprecedented developments, is almost certainly headed for at least a slow, steady decline, if not imminent fall. One conclusion which jumped off the page to me was this one, which we seem to hear more and more often of late:

Yet in all important respects, our country is no longer a republic, much less a democracy, but rather a kind of hybrid corporate-administrative oligarchy.

There follows an analysis of the “cycle of regimes” theory which holds that “[j]ust as Rome was born, grew, matured, peaked, declined and eventually fell, so will-and must- America.” Under this theory, every regime-monarchy, autocracy, or democracy- falls when it becomes “overbearing and odious.” This phrase really hit home with me because our present system has clearly become overbearing and to call many of those in National “leadership” positions just “odious” would be to commit an act of kindness.

Unprecedented Immigration Policy Never Seen Before In World History.

We – that is, those of us of a certain level of “maturity”- were raised to regard the “Melting Pot” as one of those bedrock foundational principles which make the USA exceptional and to believe that E Pluribus Unum was not just some slogan on the currency. However, the author reminds us that Aristotle cautioned, in his Politics, that “dissimilation of stock is conducive to factional conflict”, and notes that we pride ourselves on our “exceptional track record of assimilating peoples from all over the world.” After reviewing the changes wrought by the devastating 1965 Immigration Act and the denunciation of the very idea of assimilation by our Ruling Elite as “racist” (is there a single thing left in our society which is not racist?) we have seen another development unprecedented in world history:

Be that as it may, no nation in recorded history has ever willingly opened its doors to millions of immigrants only to insist that they must never adapt to the traditional ways of their new country…

Other examples follow, such as the size of the tidal wave of humanity coming to America now estimated to be in the range of 100,000,000 – One Hundred Million!- since 1965. As he notes, no native-born population of any country has ever cheered its own dispossession. Ever.

Unsayable: The “Great Replacement” is Happening.

Not only is it happening- it is accelerating under the “Biden” administration. We are seeing another unprecedented move by a nation as described by the author:

No majority stock in any nation has ever deliberately sought its own replacement…

A headline today announced, as if it were believable enough to be taken seriously, that the administration has issued a massive number of show cause orders directing illegal immigrants all over the country to appear in court to prove why they should not be deported back to Mexico/Guatemala/Honduras/Somalia/Uzbekistan. I represent, in good faith, that this was not a headline in the Babylon Bee.

Anton also notes that while examples can be found of a new elite rising and then replacing an older one,

But of a ruling class coming to despise its own (broadly speaking) ethnic group and seeking ways to rob their fellow co-ethnics of power, standing, and influence? I can’t think of any other such cases.

Ugliness is Everywhere. Decreed From On High?

Anton then turns his analytical acumen to the qualities which make our current class of elites markedly different from tyrants of old, who have always despoiled their countries for personal gain. Today’s “Anointed”, to use Dr. Sowell’s word, are drien by a “malice … atypical to the native despot”, continuing:

To force degeneracy on the whole of society, with the explicit intent of bringing the rest us to our knees, literally and figuratively—that, I think, has never happened before.

The author then views the landscape of ugliness the ruling class have “created”, noting that throughout history autocrats wanted to leave behind “beauty, the arts, and great works.” Now, since about the middle of the last century, everything has turned brutally ugly, including “not just the buildings, but the art, the literature, the music, almost everything.”

What follows at this point was a discussion which must have taken a serious measure of courage to write, and of The New Criterion to publish, as it is a depiction of not one, but two, areas which The Anointed have decreed to be off-limits in so-called “polite company” (an ever dwindling group in our coarse society). He actually discusses-out loud- the ugliness of the people and the inexplicable choice of George Floyd as something approaching Sainthood.

As to the ugliness of the people, he notes that “[t]he point seems to be humiliation, forcing us little people to say ‘the thing which is not.’” and further illustrates the “malice” of today’s ruling elite thusly:

That trick is also as old as the hills, but the deliberate promotion of ugliness seems to be a new way to play it.

Anton’s dissection of the George Floyd phenomenon surely should rank as one of the most honest, forthright, unsparing and truthful discussions of this madness to be found anywhere and it alone makes the entire essay worth close attention and study.

At this point, I should note that by publishing this passage, in particular, and the essay, in general, The New Criterion has once again exemplified its credo:

“At The New Criterion we will always call things by their real names.”

Before having the sheer temerity to sketch out the many reasons George Floyd was no Saint, he begins this discussion as follows:

But in terms of what we choose to elevate, nothing illustrates the perversity of present America more than the deification of George Floyd.

He concludes:

But has any people ever chosen such an undeserving object of worship?

The Tragic State of Education Today.

If forced to sum up this entire depressing section of the essay (as I am due to the conditions of the gracious permission of the publication to publish the link to the entire article) in a few passages, it would be these:

There’s ample historical precedent for widespread illiteracy. But for teaching one’s own citizens self-hatred, degeneracy, and despondency—without teaching them to read and write?

Besieged by Barbarians.

The next section, entitled “Barbarians at the Gate”, discusses the destruction being wrought upon our society by crime and the sacking of our cities at the instigation of our “overlords” and also by modern technology, which he describes as “anti-human”, designed to “remake [Man’s] very soul.” He further discusses the never-before-seen “passionate hatred” of the “cultural locusts” who will leave no statue standing and no name unchanged.

Conclusion: Uncertain.

His -very tentative- prognosis is that we will be “somewhere between imminent collapse and drawn-out decline” and ends with this vivid, if not disquieting, finale:

Whatever the case, couple all this unprecedentedness with all this incompetence, and going long on Wokemerica seems a sucker bet. But, to end where we began, the very unprecedentedness of our situation means that all bets are off.

I have racked my brain-the few surviving parts of it- to try to find words adequate to the task of urging every American to read this essay thoroughly and and imbibe its lessons as completely as possible. It – my brain- only responded: reading this essay should be the duty, not the option, of every citizen who cares about our Beloved Nation and hopes to help, in some way, no matter how small, reverse its long decline. I hope this review will whet your appetite and prompt you to do just that.

God Bless America!

And our Governor-the absolute best!- now refers to the “Brandon Administration”!

Adm Jim10 min agoEdit postPin on home pageExclude from Top

It’s everywhere! This weekend, attending my (approximately) 50th performance of the Blue Angels, the entire crowd in one of the beach side restaurants spontaneously broke into it, as did the group on the trolley leaving the show yesterday. T-shirts, jackets everywhere- even saw a car with large words on the windshield: “Lesko Brandon.” Only the dullest liberal does not realize what they are really expressing about how they feel about the demented relic (as polite as I can make it) occupying the White House—why does the name Rep. Eric Stalwell come to mind?

Maybe there is hope for the Republic after all. Pray so, as it’s all we’ve got!

God Bless America!

 Babbitt”, with the following words:

I am haunted by the murder of Ashli Babbitt, an unarmed Air Force veteran who was almost certainly one of the very few citizens in America history to be executed for trespassing- even in the “hallowed” halls of our National Capitol, already soiled and profaned by the corruption which sluices through its spaces like the sewage it is.

In the intervening months, there have been a number of developments which have been even more haunting and, to say the very least, troubling, not least of which the shooter finally came out from under the protective shroud which had been placed over him by the “leadership” in Congress, i.e., Her Royal Highness Speaker Pelosi, and the Capitol Police, to appear on national television in an attempt, abortive in my humble opinion, to defend his action in fatally shooting at point blank range a small, 110 pound, unarmed, 14 year female veteran of the United States Air Force.

After Lt. Michael Byrd made his appearance, which to me as a former trial lawyer seemed to be a lawyer’s nightmare in view of some of the critical admissions he made, a variety of opinions were expressed as to whether his use of excessive force – the most excessive force imaginable, one must also observe – was or could be justified. Based on my prior writing, to which I refer by reference, as I thought then, and feel even more strongly now, that there were no justifications whatsoever for this police officer to kill a person who was, at most, a trespasser.

However, what prompts me to record these additional observations was an appearance on the October 19, 2021 show, Tucker Carlson Tonight, by Congressman Troy Nehls of Texas. This gentleman was present in the House Chamber at the time Ashli Babbitt was shot and was a County Sheriff in Texas for 8 years and in law enforcement in various capacities for 30 years. As he noted in the interview, he has had extensive experience with use of force issues— he said he had Deputy Sheriffs who had shot and killed people and Deputies who had been shot themselves. Importantly, from the standpoint of the January 6 “First Amendment protest” (not his words nor mine, but those used by the DC Medical Examiner in his report finding that Ashli Babbitt died as a result of “homicide”) he was one of the five Republican designees appointed by Leader McCarthy to be on the purely objective, non-partisan, “only the facts, Ma’am” Jan 6 Committee which was scotched by Speaker Pelosi when it started showing signs of actually being those things. He said after that appointment, pursuant to the role he expected to play on the committee, he spent untold hours going through documents pertaining to the Jan 6 protest. He said one of his first impressions was that it should have never happened, in the first place, as the Capitol Police had all the intelligence it needed to know that extra security forces would be needed for what clearly should have been expected. Then, he said he had talked to law enforcement officers all over the country and every single one of them thought there was no justification whatsoever for the excessive use of force used by Lt. Byrd in shooting Ashli Babbitt. He then followed with this forceful and emphatic statement:

“It was murder.”

As a cautionary note, in view of the strong opinions held by those on all sides of this issue, I have made a good-faith effort to quote Rep. Nehls as closely as possible but have been unable to locate an actual transcript of his remarks on the show. However, for those who wish to check it out, the entire interview is accessible on foxnation.com, a subscription service, under the “Primetime” tab.

For another viewpoint it is helpful to consult the observations of Prof. Jonathan Turley of George Washington University in an article entitled “Justified Shooting or Fair Game?”, which can be accessed here. In doing so, it should be noted that Prof. Turley, while fairly consistently a neutral and very learned commentator, is certainly no member of the right or supporter of President Trump, which makes his comments all the more valuable on this issue. Critically reviewing the actions of the shooter, he said:

Byrd described how he was “trapped” with other officers as “the chants got louder” with what “sounded like hundreds of people outside of that door.” He said he yelled for all of the protesters to stop: “I tried to wait as long as I could. I hoped and prayed no one tried to enter through those doors. But their failure to comply required me to take the appropriate action to save the lives of members of Congress and myself and my fellow officers.”

Byrd could just as well have hit the officers behind Babbitt, who was shot while struggling to squeeze through the window.

Of all of the lines from Byrd, this one stands out: “I could not fully see her hands or what was in the backpack or what the intentions are.” So, Byrd admitted he did not see a weapon or an immediate threat from Babbitt beyond her trying to enter through the window. Nevertheless, Byrd boasted, “I know that day I saved countless lives.” He ignored that Babbitt was the one person killed during the riot. (Two protesters died of natural causes and a third from an amphetamine overdose; one police officer died the next day from natural causes, and four officers have committed suicide since then.) No other officers facing similar threats shot anyone in any other part of the Capitol, even those who were attacked by rioters armed with clubs or other objects.

Then, he examines the logical implications which could —should— follow from the mindset which excused Lt. Byrd from any criminal charge whatsoever, implications, as Prof. Turley, observes, have been steadfastly avoided in most “enlightened” circles:

Legal experts and the media have avoided the obvious implications of the two reviewsin the Babbitt shooting. Under this standard, hundreds of rioters could have been gunned down on Jan. 6 — and officers in cities such as Seattle or Portland, Ore., could have killed hundreds of violent protesters who tried to burn courthouses, took over city halls or occupied police stations during last summer’s widespread rioting. In all of those protests, a small number of activists from both political extremes showed up prepared for violence and pushed others to riot. According to the DOJ’s Byrd review, officers in those cities would not have been required to see a weapon in order to use lethal force in defending buildings.

In his conclusion, Prof. Turley illustrates the fairness of his examination of this killing by noting his revulsion of the January 6 protest but also his dismay at this bizarre outcome in refusing to charge Lt. Byrd:

In the Babbitt shooting, the different treatment seems driven more by the identity of the person shot than the shooter. Babbitt is considered by many to be fair game because she was labeled an “insurrectionist.” To describe her shooting as unjustified would be to invite accusations of supporting sedition or insurrection. Thus, it is not enough to condemn her actions (as most of us have done); you must not question her killing.

Like many, I condemned the Jan. 6 riot (along with those who fueled the unhinged anger that led to the violence) as the desecration of our Capitol and our constitutional process. But that doesn’t mean rioting should be treated as a license for the use oflethal force, particularly against unarmed suspects. The “job” of officers, to which Byrd referred, often demands a courage and restraint that few of us could muster. As shown by every other officer that day, it is a job that is often defined by abstinence from rather than application of lethal force. It was the rest of the force who refrained from using lethal force, despite being attacked, that were the extraordinary embodiments of the principles governing their profession.

In an attempt to be “fair and balanced” I did a search for analyses defending Lt. Byrd’s action in killing Ashli Babbitt and one of the most extensively researched articles I found appeared at lawfareblog.com under the title “Evaluating the Police Shooting of Ashli Babbitt”; it can be accessed here.

The authors, who represent themselves to have extensive law enforcement experience in use of force issues, lay out a very thorough analysis of the main test which is to be used in determining the propriety of use of lethal force as laid out in the leading Supreme Court cases of Graham v. Connor and Tennessee v. Garner:

Drawing from common law, the policing community has defined a threat as “imminent” when someone has the ability, opportunity and intention to cause the specific harm at issue (here, death or serious physical injury). “Ability” refers to the person’s capacity to cause the identified harm and requires asking whether the person is physically capable, at the time, of inflicting the harm. For example, a person holding a knife can use it as a weapon, so the individual has the ability to cause serious injuries or death. “Opportunity” refers to the subject’s proximity to a potential target and requires asking whether anyone is vulnerable, at the time, to the specific harm. For example, a person with a knife who is standing immediately next to an officer has both the ability and the opportunity to attack the officer with it, while an individual with a knife who is 50 feet away has the ability, but not the opportunity, to do so. “Intent” refers to the person’s apparent desire to cause the identified harm and requires asking whether the person wants, at the time, to cause the harm. For example, a person who is physically close to an officer while cutting cucumbers with a knife in the kitchen might have the ability and opportunity, but not the intention, to cause death or serious physical injury.

They then conclude:

So, considering these three factors, could a reasonable officer in Byrd’s position have believed that Babbitt had the ability, opportunity, and intention to kill or seriously injure someone? Based on the limited information currently available, we have serious reservations about whether that question can be answered in the affirmative, especially with regard to “ability” and “opportunity.”

That conclusion fits like a glove (shades of OJ) with the view of many who have devoted time and work to trying to make sense of the action of the Department of [In]Justice deciding to let the killer skate. However, the authors then proceed to a quite creative argument claiming that, in this particular instance, the Courts should not follow settled law but apply some kind of ready-made exception designed for this case and this case only. For the complete treatment of this “new” law, I refer you to the full article, but here is their conclusion:

The invasion of the U.S. Capitol by a mob of insurrectionists—hundreds of whom have been criminally charged—shocked the nation and the world. Although we must wait for the results of a comprehensive investigation before coming to any definitive conclusions, the Capitol Police may have been handicapped by failures in intelligence-gathering, in risk assessment, in planning, and in implementation. There is no doubt that many—too many—Capitol officers went “to hell and back,” as Officer Michael Farone described in his testimony.

The politics of the situation have, unfortunately, colored the public response. And they have done so in an unusual way. With some notable exceptions, Republicans have downplayed the severity of the threat, and Democrats have defended the police actions. That is particularly true with regard to the shooting of Ashli Babbitt.

In this post, we attempted to bring a balanced perspective to the shooting, applying the now-familiar constitutional standard that regulates the use of deadly force. The limited public information that exists raises serious questions about the propriety of Byrd’s decision to shoot, especially with regard to the assessment that Babbitt was an imminent threat. To belabor the obvious, though, we cannot definitively analyze a situation without the relevant facts, and there is a frustrating shortage of facts. But there are enough facts to conclude that even if Byrd violated Babbitt’s Fourth Amendment rights, it is highly unlikely that he could be ethically charged with, let alone convicted of, a crime.

Those conclusions, tentative as they are, assume that courts will apply the legal rules that usually apply to police shootings. Given the unique context present here, though, we would not be surprised if that turned out not to be the case.

As alluded to in the title of this post, Tucker Carlson announced yesterday his series on Fox Nation will commence a three-part series Monday, November 1, 2021, “Patriot Purge”, which will attempt a detailed dissection of what actually happened on January 6, as opposed to the official narrative – which, as many of us know, simply cannot be questioned under any circumstances— and the mere announcement of its airing in the future has caused many on the left, in the media and perhaps more than others, in the weird world of the Never Trumpers like Liz Cheney, to have the vapors. Julie Kelly, investigative reporter with American Greatness.com, who has become the most effective and knowledgeable reporter on the January 6 protest and its aftermath, just published a piece illustrating this hysteria in “The Freak-Out Over Tucker’s January 6 Documentary Begins”, here. Her article contains some truly hilarious examples of prominent people going ballistic over a series they cannot possibly have any conceivable notion of what is in it and, while I commend the entire piece to your review, here is just one of them:

Philip Bump, a national correspondent for the Washington Post, immediately banged out a 1,200-word diatribe about a film he has never watched. Carlson made the movie, Bump concluded, to “prove he’s not a white nationalist,” whatever that’s supposed to mean.

Bump ironically condemns the unseen documentary as an “angry muddle” while making his own angry muddle against Carlson, Fox News, January 6 protesters and a few people highlighted in the trailer, including Revolver’s Darren Beattie, the man who blew the lid off possible FBI involvement in the chaos.

“Carlson wants to elevate the idea—the surreal idea, the deranged idea—that the riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6 was fomented in whole or in part by the government so that it could crack down on the political right,” Bump sneered.

I can only note that in my humble opinion, sneering is what the members of the far-left, of which the Washington Post is the official press outlet, do the best and which seems to be their answer to most issues confronting the Nation today.

Wrapping up, I have just viewed a one hour video interview of Julie Kelly by D’Nesh D’Souza covering many of the issues raised by the January 6 protest, the shooting of Ashli Babbitt and the abhorrent way the government is treating the defendants, some of whom did not even physically enter the building that day. It can be accessed here, and I cannot recommend it too highly for those who really want the full story-at least until Monday!

God Bless America!

Too beautiful not to share.

This is absolutely beautiful. #NeverForget September 11, 2001. pic.twitter.com/2wr16T8Lxm

— PragerU (@prageru) September 10, 2021

Who does that? Who leaves animals behind to starve to death in locked cages at Bagram Air Field? To what depth of inhuman, subhuman, amoral depravity and cruelty have we finally descended to have done this to helpless (locked! in cages!) animals who were also very special American allies—they were the War Dogs of Afghanistan!

I am writing this as a cry from the heart— like so many of us, I have had dogs as pets (Mark, my Boxer; Fritz, my Doberman and others) and I have been sickened to the very core of my being that those entrusted with the faithful execution of our Laws and defense of our Constitution have abandoned everything there — including their fellow Americans, American friends and allies and those who helped us unconditionally with total dedication, day in and day out— our War Dogs.

Conan, the Belgian Malinois who took part in the Syria raid that killed ISIS leader Baghdadi.

My cry for help is this: I am pleading for any information of all resources which may be known by friends and colleagues to identify sites, locations, mailing addresses, P.O. Boxes, or any other modes of contact, to which we may send material support to anyone who can get to these poor animals, who gave their heart and soul to the defense of America, only to be cast aside like so much unused military equipment. Sadly, there is a disgraceful precedent for this kind of cruelty as it occurred once before in the 1975 collapse in Vietnam, when approximately 4,000 dogs were abandoned.

There is the old idea about choosing the “hill” which one is “ready to die on.” Lt. Col. Stuart Scheller gave us a most powerful lesson on how that is done in throwing his Silver Cluster on the table with a demand for accountability.

With due acknowledgement of the realities of the limitations of age and the constraints that cursed condition imposes, this is my hill, and I am ready to send whatever meager funds I can send in support of this noble (truly!) cause. I am also ready to get on the next flight out of Pensacola to catch whatever War Dog Express is headed for that Stone Age hell hole to recover our real American allies.

Please, if you know of resources dedicated to this purpose, publish it so the world will know about it.

Whoever did this cannot be a true American.

Americans should never do this to animals.

We are Americans!

We should never leave our comrades on the field.

Never!

IMPEACH THIS DROOLING IDIOT! NOW!

According to Town Hall:

The Pentagon had little to say Tuesday about the news that the Biden administration had failed in its humiliating attempt to grovel before the Taliban in order to extend the August 31st deadline for withdrawal and instead doubled down on its plans to be out of the country by the deadline that is just one week away. That plan, now, has also been approved by President Biden.

There are no words I can use in (whatever is left of) “polite company” to fully express my feeling of pure revulsion and sickened disgust at the craven cowards we have “leading” us right now in Washington followed closely by how I feel for those who voted this drooling imbecile into office. 

However, one short story might help illustrate how I feel– last night, we watched the fantastic movie “We Were Soldiers” and when the Colonel made his speech and told his troops that the one thing they could count on was that he would never -never- leave a single man on the field_—_”No man left behind!”  I cried. That is how broken hearted I am right now. 

God Help Us. 

Yesterday, our beloved Blue Angels performed at the Chicago Air Show. They took Chicago Police Officer Ella French’s badge along with them in their demonstration. She truly flew with Angels above Chicago.. what a beautiful tribute by one of the finest symbols of the American Military in existence today.

The sound of freedom in honor of one of our fallen protectors. Perfect.

God Bless America and may Officer French Rest In Peace.

A Father Stands and Delivers in behalf of his, and all, Children!

At a time when we are all wondering, with enormous justification, whether there are any true American heroes left (easy answer: don’t even bother to look in the entire Biden “Administration” of sheer, sniveling cowardice), a Colorado Springs father went to the podium to make one of the clearest pleas you will ever hear against the introduction of Critical Race Theory into the school his children attend. As you will see, he is well qualified to speak to the topic of “oppression” in today’s America:

Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ @realchrisrufoThis Colorado Springs father denounces critical race theory and says that “racism in America would be dead today if not for certain people and institutions keeping it on life support”—including public education. Following his testimony, the school board voted 3-2 to ban CRT.

I was unable to determine this gentleman’s name; if anyone finds it, I sure would appreciate it if you would furnish it to us.

Stand and deliver for the future of America!