Trump Triumphs.jpg

What a night! What a GREAT day to be alive. I never know what to say on occasions such as these. Even though I wanted Trump to win and anticipate his win, I nonetheless find myself rather surprised. Some thoughts:

  • Crypto shitlords were out there and came out in force.  Based on the conversations that I personally took part in and conversations that overheard from time to time, it was clear to me that there were more people who understood the gravity of this election and had no intention of voting for a globalist, corporatist shill like Clinton over a nationalist maverick like Trump. However, much of Shitlord Nation felt cowed into silence by the bullying and the inquisitorial e-tactics of the #I’mWithHer crowd.
  • The Left is horrible at meme warfare.  This is clearly the New Right/Alt-Right’s forte. Perceiving the enthusiasm gap between (sometimes rabid) Trump supporters and (largely tepid) Clinton supporters, and also perceiving the success that the Right has had with such non-sequitur memes as Pepe and the hook-nosed Shylock, the Left seized upon Trump’s offhand comment about Clinton’s being a “nasty woman” in a failed attempt to meme the desirability of their patently shitty candidate and the inevitability of a Clinton victory into being. The fact that they had to derive such a subpar meme from the distracted musings of their archnemesis should have told them that they were doomed for failure. Nevertheless, a fawning and sycophantic press trapped in an echo chamber gave this meme far more attention than it actually merited. Which leads us to…
  • The Media is not in the business of reporting news, it is in the business of creating news and manufacturing faux consensus.  Rather than accurately identifying the nature of the zeitgeist, they tried to create an entirely new reality based on misrepresentation, aspersion casting and wishful thinking.
  •  The Media lies incessantly.  The MSM lied up until the last. They lied about Trump being a rapist, they lied about Clinton being the best candidate, they lied about Clinton being preferred over Sanders, they lied about Trump supporters being bigots, they lied about Clinton leading Trump even as he was polling ahead of her, they lied about the depths of Clinton’s corruption. Make no doubt about it. This election heralds the end of the MSM as we know it.
  • Third party bids are for faggots.  After this election, no one will ever take third parties in America seriously again. Trump won decisively even with asshole Gary Johnson playing spoiler. Third parties are typically infested with bitter nincompoops and faggots who think themselves righteous because they don’t like the “regressive Left” and think of the nation state as an unfortunate relic of the past while bowing to the gods of free trade, perpetual growth and marijuanas. Read: lolbertarians.
  • New Hampshire was a weird bellwether.  While viewing the election coverage, I couldn’t help but notice that NH was undeclared but seemed to be leaning red for much of the race. I found this interesting, as Clinton won the NH primary handily back in 2008 and Obama won the state both in 2008 and 2012. I realized that if a state that reliably left and thoroughly cucked was leaning red, that portended not so great things for Clinton. In fact, I thought to myself that this close call situation effectively meant that Trump was guaranteed the win. Of course, I was right.

I think that this win is great for the nation. In spite of all of the histrionics of the Left I think that the final analysis will show that this win served to temper some worse and far more destructive impulses that were in the groundswell while keeping a hard right reset/correction at bay for slightly longer. I know that the road ahead is still uncertain and rough, and that Trump detractors will seek ways to make his presidency a failure. While I refrain from placing my faith in man and while I know that hope is not a plan, I still hope for a great four years. I’m fairly certain that we’ll have it.


The Suicidal Pursuit of Equality

This was inevitable, I suppose: “Lawsuit challenges constitutionality of male-only draft registration.” Petitioner Elizabeth Kyle, 18, through her mother Allison Kyle, filed a federal complaint protesting the injustice of women not having the right to register for the Selective Service; thereby limiting their freedom to become state property and potential cannon fodder.

“With both males and females available for such roles today, the two sexes are now similarly situated for draft registration purposes and there is no legitimate reason for the government to discriminate against the female class, so equal protection applies,” the complaint states. “Further, with both males and females available for such combat roles, there is no reasonable basis for infringing the associational interests of the female class by preventing them from registering.”

These are the kind of outcomes one can reasonably expect when adults allow teenagers, in their infinite wisdom and foresight, to play at civic engagement. It’s also the kind of outcome one can expect when en entire culture becomes so demoralized that it is unable to explain to its youth that there are biological differences between the sexes and why, in some cases, biology might militate for disparate treatment of the sexes before the law.

“If the two sexes can fight and die together, they can register together; if not, then no one should have to register,” the complaint states.

Good point poorly made. It appears that Kyle is attempting to challenge the validity of the Selective Service as an institution, which is a worthy goal in itself. What she doesn’t realize, however, is that she’s just a pawn and that her gambit is likelier to backfire, resulting in the expansion of the Selective Service rather than its abolition. This has to be feminism at its most brain dead. This demonstrates that feminism fundamentally has no interest in liberation, but rather has as its goal indoctrination along with the complete primacy of the state.

This lawsuit is incredibly stupid for several reasons. The petitioner is clearly in over her head, using terms of art that she doesn’t fully comprehend. She doesn’t realize that a lawsuit claiming sex discrimination by government would be subject to intermediate scrutiny rather than rational basis review before the Court, which would actually bolster her case, as it is a more stringent standard of review that would place a heavier burden upon to government to prove the legitimacy of the litigated policy. Minutiae, I know, but it’s just my inner peevish lawyer talking.

Nevertheless, to the extent that the state should even have the power to compel citizens to register for a draft before being able to partake in civic life, the prohibition is in fact “substantially related” to furthering an “important government objective:” to secure national sovereignty in the event of war by supplying the military with individuals that are the most physically and mentally capable of dealing with the rigors of conflict. However, with the feminization & degradation of the corps nearly complete (women serving on front lines, homosexuals serving openly, transgenders serving openly), it seems as though intermediate scrutiny (at least as it relates to the military) may be done for. Actually, it may be done for as a standard of review in sex discrimination cases across the board within the next few years as progressives continue to advance the notions that there’s “no real difference” between men and women and that men can be women and women can be men.

Secondly, the petitioner suffers no harm that can’t be remedied by going down to her local recruitment office and signing up to join the military. She can easily “opt in” to military service.

Thirdly, who the hell believes that personal liberty includes the liberty to be conscripted into war?

There is a chance that this case will end up being thrown out on procedural grounds. A court could potentially rule that women exempt from draft registration don’t have standing to sue because they don’t actually suffer any harm as a result (draft registration is usually considered a burden, not a benefit).

As it should be. But who knows how this will be determined these days, with the Supreme Junta making law up as it goes along and consigning logic and reason to the dustbin.

Along with intermediate scrutiny, this nation will be done for too should any serious conflict erupt, as we watch the military’s ranks filled by weak and unqualified women, degenerate male cucks, and delusional transgenders all in the name of “equality.” Decline, obsolescence, and irrelevancy is our future.

New HUD Housing Guidance

This move will come as no surprise to anyone who’s been paying attention to the country’s gradual leftward (and totalitarian) drift over the last few years. The Supreme Junta’s recent decision in Texas v. Inclusive Communities no doubt made possible the (re)release of the Integration Kraken.

Obama administration to unveil major new rules targeting segregation across U.S.

The crux of it:

[O]n Wednesday, the Obama administration will announce long-awaited rules designed to repair the law’s unfulfilled promise and promote the kind of racially integrated neighborhoods that have long eluded deeply segregated cities like Chicago and Baltimore.

Superficially, a worthy goal, the “promotion of racially integrated neighborhoods.” Ghettos suck, and ghettos are largely poor and monoracial. So the logic follows: integrate the ghettos (or in the alternative, make exit an option for ghetto denizens), and interrupt the cycle of poverty and degeneracy. Simple enough.

Scratch the surface of this argument though, and you’ll find some serious questions.

First up: ghettos weren’t always ghettos. They became ghettos over time. So, the questions become: (1) what causes previously non-ghetto locales to degenerate into ghettos? (2) What’s to stop newly integrated areas from degenerating into ghettos in due time? Do the ghettos create the people? Or do the people create the ghettos? If the answer to this question is the former, then perhaps pro-integration arguments have some merit. If the answer to this question is the latter, then it would call into question the wisdom of another federally mandated push towards integration. It would also call into question what the true purpose of such a push could be, if not to subvert, destabilize, and destroy recipient neighborhoods by unleashing within them the forces of ghettoization.

Secondly: federally mandated integration didn’t work the last time it was tried. Though it’s difficult for American Leftists to accept that history didn’t begin in 2008, here’s the history: forced integration in the public school setting (busing) was a spectacular failure, accelerating the creation of ghettos through “white flight” and intensifying racial strife. So why should it be presumed that it will be any more successful in the housing context, when we already know that people tend to relocate in response to even the most minor of demographic shifts? No matter how aggressively the diversity & multi-cult agenda is pushed, the consensus remains clear: diversity is overrated. Those who have the option of exit will exercise that option, and will spend down to their last penny to escape diversity. Those without the option will be left to their own meager devices, and to those who view them as prey.

Thirdly, segregation has been misidentified as “the problem.” While de jure segregation should not exist, de facto segregation is not necessarily a bad thing. Indeed, people have been shown to favor segregation and will self segregate if given a chance.  In group preference defies social engineering. Segregation doesn’t matter so long as the majority of the residents of a community are capable of bringing value/capital to that community and fostering growth within the community. Those communities incapable of doing either will always view segregation as an evil, realizing as they do that their success is directly pegged to the success of certain types of people tending to be residents within more productive communities. Which is why the residents of Baltimore will always decry segregation while the residents of Silver Springs will always be largely indifferent to its “ills.” The problem is not segregation itself, but the suckiness of segregated communities wherein certain types of people tend to predominate.

Fourthly: is it discriminatory that market forces keep people out of neighborhoods in which they realistically cannot afford to live? Should it be the government’s job to ensure that Section 8 vouchers can be used to obtain housing in Super Zips?

Lastly, and most importantly: what will the directionality of this integration look like? If segregation is “bad,” then it must necessarily be bad wherever it is found, in both majority-majority locales and majority-minority locales and all must be subject to integration. Flows from decrepit majority-minority communities to tony majority-majority ones will be a given, as the recipient communities practically sell themselves. However, the integration of decrepit majority-minority neighborhoods will prove substantially more problematic. It’s difficult to see how this aspect of integration will be managed, short of heavy subsidization/incentivization or outright force.

The new rules, a top demand of civil-rights groups, will require cities and towns all over the country to scrutinize their housing patterns for racial bias and to publicly report, every three to five years, the results. Communities will also have to set goals, which will be tracked over time, for how they will further reduce segregation.

Will Baltimore be held to the same stringent standards as Bethesda? You tell me.

Officials insist that they want to work with and not punish communities where segregation exists. But the new reports will make it harder to conceal when communities consistently flout the law. And in the most flagrant cases, HUD holds out the possibility of withholding a portion of the billions of dollars of federal funding it hands out each year.

My prediction: communities wealthy enough to do so will reject federal funding and become independently funded-and racially exclusive-townships, hastening racial Balkanization. Helloooooooo, partition!

It will be interesting to see how this plays out over the next few years.

Juridical Newspeak

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
State is Federal

Yesterday’s King v. Burwell decision should disabuse everyone of the notion that this nation is still a Constitutional Republic. It should put to rest any illusions that the Supreme Court exists as a co-equal check upon the powers of the legislative and executive branches, designed to safeguard the liberties of the body politic. It is a diseased, politicized, subservient, and subordinate branch, determined to effectuate its agenda through judicial fiat. Certain justices have no concern for determining the constitutionality of questions before the Court; rather, they are determined to circumvent the democratic process and think nothing of imposing their will autocratically.

The constitutional question placed before the Court was this:

Whether the Internal Revenue Service may permissibly promulgate regulations to extend tax-credit subsidies to coverage purchased through exchanges established by the federal government under Section 1321 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

For those unfamiliar, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA, Obamacare if you’re nasty) is a health care mandate requiring that all Americans obtain health insurance of some form or another, or be slapped with a penalty for failure to comply. The statute was hurriedly and clandestinely drafted, then forced through the legislature with most of its provisions kept secret. It was also poorly drafted, which opened the statute up to several constitutional challenges. It was challenged five years ago on the grounds that the penalty provision of the statute was unconstitutional as Congress could not use its power to penalize Americans for failure to purchase a good, and that statute constituted a misapplication of the Congress’ Commerce power.

The Supreme Court saved the statute from itself 5-4 in 2012, ruling that the penalty provision was indeed a tax and thus constitutional (even though Obama and many others associated with the administration regularly and explicitly denied that the provision constituted a “tax”). The Court however abjured that Congress’ Commerce powers had any application to the constitutionality of the mandate.

King v. Burwell presented a different objection to the mandate, namely that health insurance purchased through the federal exchanges set up once state governments refused to set up parallel exchanges were ineligible for tax credits because they were not established in exchanges “established by the State,” as per the legislation. The petitioners were correct, as the plain meaning of the statute, on its face, is that the states would be responsible for establishing health insurance exchanges and the IRS would then provide tax credits. There was no provision in the statute permitting credits to be issued for federally purchased plans. This was by design: Congress intended for the states to be equal partners in the scheme. A plain meaning interpretation of the statute would have invalidated the statute and sent it back to Congress for reconsideration and redrafting. This is as it should be, in a functional, tripartite government in which the constituent parts act as checks upon each others’ powers.

But we do not have a functional, tripartite, coequal government structure any longer. Realistically speaking, we have not had one since the New Deal. So now we have three branches effectively functioning as one, colluding to baptize each other’s worst and most unconstitutional actions for the sake of expediency. We have an executive that assumes the power of the legislature, a legislature that relies on the judiciary to save it from its own incompetence, and a judiciary that is more than willing to abrogate the Constitution to bring to life its big government, federalized vision of America through the extraconstitutional recognition of unconstitutional acts.

The most remarkable aspect of the Burwell case is the Court’s willingness to ignore the complete lack of ambiguity in the statute’s language. “Exchanges established by the State” means precisely what it says: health insurance exchanges set up and managed by the states, at the state level. There is no need to look any further than at the words in the sentence. Rather, the majority in the decision offers up a tortured rationale about contextual meaning and Congressional intent, completely ignoring the fact that the first rule of statutory interpretation is that the Court must give effect to the “plain meaning of a statute.” If the statute says “state exchange purchases receive tax credits,” but federal exchange purchases are being granted tax credits, then the tax credit program should fail, be struck down as unconstitutional, and the law redrafted, as the statute makes no provision for credits to be granted to federal exchange purchases. However, the Court would like us to believe that “state” can mean “federal”…if it thinks that’s generally what Congress meant and if it’s a convenient way to save the law. Notwithstanding the fact that the meaning of “state” is clear to everyone who’s willing to be intellectually honest. Words mean what those in power say they mean. Where have we seen this theme before?

This decision means that the Court thinks words can mean whatever it wants it to mean in the moment. It also means that the Court sees no meaningful distinction between the state and the federal. I’m not sure which bodes worse.

So we must ask ourselves: what are the Court’s limiting principles? If unambiguous words can be taken to mean the opposite of their plain meaning, what is to stop the Court from interpreting any statute litigated before it in any way it likes? The Court has liberated itself from textual limits, so what exists to keep it honest? What will stop the justices from determining issues along blatantly partisan lines, looking over and under the basic words of statutes to justify their fugazi adjudications? This clearly telegraphs the Orwellian reality of our times: the government can ascribe any meaning to any concept and any word that it deems acceptable and/or necessary, logic and truth be damned. It also telegraphs that we can’t rely on law to save us from tyranny. The Supreme Court is no bulwark against government overreach, it is an accomplice in the government’s crimes. It aids and abets at every opportunity.

When meaning becomes malleable, protections become meaningless.

Welcome to the United States of Oceania. These are doubleplusgood times.