Author: Crowhill Report

We’re already supplying Ukraine with weaponry. We’re deploying drones to get intel on Russian forces, and I’m pretty sure we’re sharing that intel with Ukraine. The leaked documents say (so I’m told) that some (not many) U.S. military forces are already on the ground in Ukraine. The moron in the White House has declared unending support for Ukraine’s efforts.

This is sounding like Vietnam.

How many days without shaving make a beard? And how many incremental steps towards full-on conflict make a war?

Is Ukraine worth it? Is Taiwan worth it? Do we have the ability to fight two conflicts? And should we?

Maybe yes, maybe no, but it sure would be nice if our so-called leaders were debating this. It seems that we’re getting dragged into two wars by a corrupt, bumbling hair sniffer who doesn’t know where he is, while Congress snipes about stupid partisan issues.

Here’s a definition of fascism: “a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition”

Let’s take this piece by piece.

“a political philosophy, movement, or regime” — qualifies.

“that exalts nation” — no, not really. Biden is not America first.

“and often race above the individual” — qualifies. Biden is straight-forwardly racist.

“that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader” — mostly qualifies. The power of the presidency acting through executive order has been growing for decades, and it’s worse now than it’s ever been.

“severe economic and social regimentation” — qualifies. An example would be the Biden administration issuing regulations to force us to switch to electric cars.

“forcible suppression of opposition” — qualifies. The Biden administration was (despite their denials) behind the raid on Trump’s residence. Biden has weaponized the DOJ against conservatives.

This is one of my favorite Easter songs.

I’ve seen news reports that Clarence Thomas has a billionaire friend who has been taking him on luxury trips. The implication is that this compromises Thomas’ ability to be an impartial judge.

It might. I don’t know. I won’t prejudge that issue.

But I will make a prediction. I’ll bet that this is quite common — that many of the justices do the same thing, but the media is harping on Thomas because they don’t like him.

I’m not in any way trying to excuse or belittle corruption. I believe we need new anti-corruption measures to investigate everyone with political power.

At the same time, there’s a recognizable pattern to these sorts of stories. It will eventually come out that justices on both sides do this.

Conserving for the sake of conserving is a bad idea.

I was just reading a thread complaining that social issues tend to go like this. Liberals propose Crazy Idea #1. Conservatives oppose it. Liberals propose Crazy Idea #2, which goes even further. Conservatives say, “can’t we just do Crazy Idea #1?”

That does tend to happen too often, but conservatives also have forward-looking ideas. (Think of Newt Gingrich.) They just frame those ideas in the context of the tried and true.

Which raises the question, what is a better term for people who are called conservative?

Too many “conservative” labels and terms are backwards looking. “Originalist.” “Constitutionalist.” “Founding Fathers.”

Conservatism needs a re-branding and a new vision that respects the past, but looks forward.

I’m not saying conservatives don’t do those things, but that the brand doesn’t promote that perspective. Also, a more forward-looking feel might attract more young people.