Sunday, February 19, 2017


     Before resuming our reporting on the rampant leftist sedition at large in the land, SR takes a brief detour into the alien realm of fashion media to expose the latest extreme lunacy of the political correctness that pervades today's American culture.

     The always interesting Breitbart website recently reported on a remarkable example of the so-called "cultural appropriation" concept, which condemns any use or adoption of the fashion, customs, or arts of foreign cultures by so-called White Western Society.  It is not clear whether the reverse (foreign cultures adopting our music, art, etc.) is equally nefarious.

     According to Breitbart, a prominent American fashion model named Karlie Kloss recently posed in Geisha-style Japanese kimonos for an extensive photoshoot in Vogue magazine's so called "diversity" issue.  The spread featured the fashionably kimonoed Kloss posing in a variety of settings intended to present striking cultural images of Japan (as a knowledgeable Japan-hand of longstanding, SR can only say that the presentation is a bit gauche, as one would expect of the superficial millennials at Vogue, but certainly harmless, and complimentary, if anything).

                                                                                                  Vogue Magazine
                           Oh, the Horror! A Caucasian Model Poses in Kimono!

     Almost instantly, the lunatic legions of the social media pounced on Ms. Kloss for her crime of "cultural appropriation." Typical of the clueless commentary was the following penetrating query:  "Did Vogue not get the 'culture is not a costume' memo that's been going around for the past few...decades?"  SR is surprised that such a "memo" ever existed or circulated, and expects the reader is as well; but in the twisted realm of the politically correct cognoscenti, anything is possible.

     The brainless commentary also condemned Ms. Kloss and Vogue -- both of whom undoubtedly deserve condemnation for many other stupidities and venalities, but not for this one -- for so-called racial "whitewashing."  This is an ironic and foolish charge indeed, for Japanese women place the highest aesthetic value on the whiteness of their complexions.  Nothing could be "whiter" than an authentic, original Japanese beauty in geisha splendor.  If anything,  a Western model would be less white than an authentic Japanese geisha.  So-called "cultural appropriation" is a purely mythical canard of the left, but this kind of cultural stupidity is a depressing reality, perpetrated by the PC and social justice morons on a daily basis.

     Ms. Kloss's attackers also questioned why Vogue could not have found a Japanese model for the photoshoot.  This criticism might have been valid if we were talking about the use of a non-Japanese actress to portray a Japanese woman in a movie about Japan -- as was actually done with the casting of a famous Chinese actress (Zhang Ziyi) to portray a Japanese Geisha in Memoirs of a Geisha

     But that's not what occurred here.  Rather than usurping the part of a genuine Japanese geisha, Ms. Kloss was employed to highlight the beauty and piquancy of cross-cultural diversity by artfully posing a beautiful Western woman in  the classical Japanese garment.  Rather than cultural appropriation, the intent of the photoshoot was cultural tribute.  But needless to say, this nuance was lost on the mindless minions of the politically correct.

     But the most depressing aspect of this absurd imbroglio was that Ms. Kloss felt compelled to issue the inevitable press-agent-drafted apology -- when she should have bridled with the justifiable fury of an outraged fashion diva.  She abjectly posted the following illogical nonsense on her Twitter account:  "These images appropriate a culture that is not my own and I am truly sorry for participating in a shoot that was not culturally sensitive.  My goal is, and always will be, to empower and inspire women."

     No, Karlie, you silly Airhead.  Neither you nor Vogue could  "appropriate" the ancient and magnificent Japanese culture in the wildest dreams of your illusory significance.  No apology was necessary, Dahlink, as Zsa Zsa might have said.  If anything, Japanese viewers would only have been mildly amused at Vogue's ham-handed, but gameful, attempt to capture an aesthetic that lies far beyond their superficial comprehension.  But they were certainly not offended.  On the contrary, as shown by the reaction of Japanese Twitter users, the Japanese enjoyed the spread and considered it a nice tribute to their culture.


     Karen Carpenter charming the Japanese in her gift kimono, Tokyo 1974

     To place this absurd episode in sensible perspective, we need only flash back to the comparatively sane era of the 1970's.

     In 1974, popular music was still beautiful and harmonic, as exemplified by the gorgeous vocals of Karen Carpenter and the internationally beloved recordings of the Carpenters.  Nowhere were the Carpenters more popular than in Japan, and in the summer of 1974, the talented sibling duo (Karen and her brother Richard) arrived for a record-setting concert tour in Tokyo amidst media and popular fanfare reminiscent of the Beatles' arrival in the U.S. a decade earlier.

     As part of the extensive publicity campaign surrounding the Carpenters' arrival, their hosts presented both Richard and Karen with beautiful and extremely valuable kimonos. Both of the sibling superstars posed happily in the outfits for the Japanese press, and the Japanese were delighted with how charming Karen looked in a gorgeous kimono especially suited to a young lady in the spring-like glow of youth.  They were even more delighted when, near the conclusion of the Carpenters' concert in Tokyo's iconic Budokan, Karen sang portions of the hit song, Sing, in flawless Japanese, in a charming "duet" with a chorus of star-struck Japanese children.

     Needless to say, the notions of "cultural appropriation" or of "whitefacing" Japanese culture never remotely occurred to the Japanese, the Carpenters, or to anyone who observed the Carpenters' congenial engagement with the Japanese people.  So successful was the Carpenters' 1974 tour that their popularity in Japan reached spectacular heights that, remarkably, endure to this day.

     So all the neurotic social critics should take a deep breath; stay calm; and take a look back at how the good-natured embrace of another nation's culture, dress, and customs can be mutually enjoyable and rewarding.  Far from causing insult or embarrassment, a Western woman wearing a kimono with the right attitude and elan can form a lasting bond of mutual affection and appreciation.  That was how the Carpenters and Japan approached each other in 1974, to the enduring reward of both sides.


Friday, February 3, 2017


     A trusted friend and colleague referred me to the article discussed below, suggesting it was particularly worthy of refutation.  See "President Trump's immigration order tests the nation's principles," Boston Globe (Jan. 30, 2017).  Although I was tempted to dismiss it as but another screed from the left attacking the President's recent executive orders on immigration – discussed here before in a preceding post – the fallacies in the piece were so blatant and wrong-headed that SR could not let it pass silently.  That the arguments were made by a former Admiral made the piece even more unsettling.  The article's author, James Stavridis, is currently Dean of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and was reportedly considered as a possible running mate for Hillary Clinton.

     When an article on the grimly serious issue of keeping alien terrorists out of the country begins with a slobbering reference to a maudlin Barbra Streisand movie, as this one does, one is instantly placed on alert that melodramatic superficiality is likely to follow.  And when the cinematic quote purporting to impress the reader with its piercing insight is "People are their principles," any doubt on that score is quickly removed. What does such quixotic navel-gazing  have to do with the harsh business of securing our borders against alien terrorist infiltration?

     Stavridis continues his lecture by generously condescending to "giv[e] the benefit of the doubt to President Trump" and "hoping" that Mr. Trump's "intentions are to keep us safe."  When a failed vice-presidential prospect for a failed presidential candidate presumes to pass supercilious judgment on the most basic bona fides of the newly elected President, it is quickly apparent that the author is confused about just who is the new Commander-in-Chief – and why.

     Stavridis then proceeds to criticize the President's recent executive orders on immigration and refugees with a level of incomprehension and illogic that would be amusing  were the subject not so serious.

 Some of the "creative thinkers" and budding capitalists the left would import in droves

     Perhaps the most patently ill-informed of many such contentions in the piece is this:  "I do not understand the arbitrary selection of some Muslim-majority nations but not others to face the consequences of this executive order, nor the rationale for a 90-day or 120-day time period."

     Had Stavridis (or his assistant) taken 60 seconds for rudimentary internet research, he would know that the seven countries in question – Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen – had been previously singled out by the Obama administration  as "countries of concern" (re: terrorism) and subjected to various travel restrictions on that basis.  Far from being "arbitrary," the selection of those seven countries was prudent, security-focused, and supported by actions of the previous administration.  Had President Trump selected a larger or smaller number of countries, his political and media enemies would undoubtedly have pounced on him for over- or under-inclusiveness.  If Stavridis really does not "understand" these basic facts, he is either willfully uninformed or simply duplicitous.

     Stavridis' purported inability to "understand" the rationale for the 90-day time period for the suspension is equally disingenuous, or simply fraudulent .  Even this limited suspension period has elicited howls of horror and fraudulent indignation from the illegal alien community, the subversive left, and their media echo chamber.  Had the President established a substantially longer, or indefinite, period – as he is expressly authorized to do by law, see 8 USC sec. 1182(f), authorizing presidential suspension of entry "for such period as he shall deem necessary" – the congressional baying and gnashing of teeth would have been even more extravagant.  In short, the ferocious resistance from enemies of border control has made it politically impossible to impose the more lengthy suspension that events warrant;  yet when the President pragmatically adopts a compromise shorter period, carping critics like Stavridis pounce on him for doing so.  Heads we win, tails you lose.

      Other palpably erroneous or simply insupportable assertions follow.  Oblivious to a distinguished succession of Presidents who have banned alien entry on a wide variety of grounds including nationality, Stavridis self-righteously denounces restrictions on immigration from any "particular nation."  The Presidents who actually have to protect the country and its borders disagree.   As but one example, President Carter terminated immigration from Iran (a Shiite Muslim Islamic state) in 1979, in entirely justifiable reaction to that nation's seizure of American hostages. 

     Far more importantly, Congress has approved and re-approved the following statute, 18 USC sec. 1182(f), which expressly and broadly authorizes the President to exclude aliens of a particular nationality – or any particular class of aliens, including a class based on religion – in language which in itself conclusively supports the legality of President Trump's suspension orders:

          "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."   18 USC sec. 1182(f) [emphasis added].

    This provision, moreover, firmly negates Stavridis' contention that the President's actions are insupportable because they somehow violate various broad principles of international law respecting acceptance of refugees.  Even if one accepts the dubious contention that the President's orders run afoul of such standards, the President's constitutional and statutory authority to protect U.S. security and sovereignty reflected in section 1182 would override such objections.

     Stavridis also attacks the suspension orders on the purported grounds that they improperly discriminate on the basis of religion, asserting as follows:  "I am deeply disturbed by the general tone and thrust of the executive orders that, at least on initial read, seem to ban significant classes of people because of their religion, or prioritize one religion over another."  This assertion is so shot through with fallacy that one hardly knows where to begin.  But we will try.

     Stavridis first resorts to the dissembler's classic fall back qualifier, "at least on initial read."  The EO, which is not a lengthy document, was issued on January 27 and Stavridis' article is dated January 30.  He had ample time for a second, third, or fourth "read" if he intended to offer responsible commentary on the order.  He apparently was content to plow ahead with his article without carefully reading the readily available order.  But no matter how many times he read it, Stavridis would not find any language employing religion as a basis for the exclusion; rather, it was based on the nations  "of concern" previously identified by the Obama administration.

     In short, Stavridis falsely and irresponsibly attacked the orders for discriminating on the basis of religion.  They did not and do not.  Stavridis should know, for example, that Indonesia has far and away the world's largest Muslim population (with over 200 million Muslims), yet the suspension order does not apply to Indonesia.  Or to Pakistan, with its many millions of Muslims.  In any event, however, both the above-quoted 18 USC 1182(f) and the Constitution would permit exclusion of a class based on religion if it otherwise met the statutory criteria.  But President Trump declined to resort to that available option.

     But Stavridis' objection to the immigration orders because they "prioritize one religion over another" is probably the most egregious, and unconsciously ironic, of all his bogus contentions.

     Perhaps Stavridis has forgotten, or never cared to learn, that the Obama administration's perversely pro-Islamic immigration and refugee policies have discriminated grossly and demonstrably against Christians.  Christians fleeing religious persecution reportedly make up about 16-23% of the refugees, but only 2.5% of those being allowed to come into the United States.  More particularly, only some 0.46% of over 11,000 Syrian refugees admitted by the Obama regime were Christians, while over 98% were Sunni Muslims. 

     So one is forced to ask:  where was Stavridis' touching concern for religious discrimination in immigration when it was perpetrated against Christians by the Obama administration?  Nowhere in sight, apparently.  It is therefore evident that his professed concern that the orders "prioritize[ed] one religion over another" is bogus.  In fact, however, the U.S. would be quite justified in granting priority to Christian refugees as a remedial measure to rectify the systemic discrimination and disparate impact its immigration and refugee policies have had on oppressed Christian refugees.

      Stavridis plods on to offer the following extraordinary statement, apparently intended to strengthen his case that the new President should let in legions more, not less, Islamic refugees:  "Do we really want to be the nation that watches Germany (with one fourth of our population) take in more than a million refugees, in accordance with international law, while we say no and close our borders to those in need?"

      One can only wonder if the author is really serious in making this outlandish argument, or is he utterly delusional?  Germany's disastrous admission of over a million refugees has virtually destroyed much of the German culture, let alone the safety and security of its cities.  Who can forget the grotesque and shocking spectacle of the New Years Eve riots of rape and pillage in Cologne last year?  Even the hapless Angela Merkel has been forced to admit that, "In part, the refugee flow was even used to smuggle terrorists."  Yet Stavridis argues that the United States should somehow be shamed into emulating Germany's disdastrous refugee policy.   Indeed, he implies that it would be fitting if we took in four million refugees, since, as he pointedly stresses, our population is four times larger than Germany's.  In short, the author's reasoning leads to consequences that prove its fallacy.

     Lastly, Stavridis makes the risible argument that the U.S. will greatly benefit from admitting hordes of additional Mid-East refugees because "the vast majority are risk-taking, determined, creative thinkers who will over time gives us a high return on investment."  This is out-and-out nonsense.  Stavridis cites no evidence for his absurd claim, nor could he, because it is wildly false.  How or where he has discovered all these "creative thinkers" and budding capitalists among the belligerent refugee vagabonds remains a mystery to the rest of us.  There is simply no basis in fact for this delusional but dangerous fantasy.  On the contrary, about 90% of Mid-east refugees entering the U.S. go on food stamps, and nearly 70% receive government cash assistance (i.e., welfare).     As the hapless Europeans have learned to their great cost , the great majority of the migrating Mid-Eastern refugees are fighting-age males with little prospect for productive employment.

     But enough.  Stavridis' assault on the President's admirable first-step in restoring our shredded borders is long on delusional canards and short on hard realities.  The hard reality is that accepting his invitation to follow Germany's and Europe's recklessly porous refugee policy would needlessly replicate the cultural disaster that has reduced too many European cities to menacing danger zones.  Thankfully, President Trump's election has halted America's descent in that direction.

Tuesday, January 31, 2017


     The dangerous defiance of the lawless left continues to subvert the efforts of the Trump Administration to restore a semblance of sanity to America's immigration policy. 

     A pinch-faced Obama holdover at the Justice Department, one Sally Yates, has exploited and betrayed her temporary trust as Acting Attorney General (pending the Democrat-delayed confirmation of Jeff Sessions as permanent AG) to gain 15 minutes of infamy through an act of pure dereliction of duty and defiance of law.

     President Trump, unlike so many elected officials of both parties, has kept his campaign promises by signing a series of executive orders putting into effect various policies and programs that could be effectuated without legislation.  Among the most prominent of these was to suspend entry of aliens from seven terrorist-harboring nations pending the thorough vetting of their backgrounds that the Obama administration declined to perform.

     The constitutionality and legality of the suspension/vetting order has been thoroughly demonstrated elsewhere by a variety of legal experts.  More to the point here, the order's legal and constitutional validity was vetted and approved by the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), the elite Justice Department office specifically charged with the responsibility of reviewing Executive Branch orders, policies, programs, and proposed legislation for legality and constitutionality.  The author of Splashing Rocks served as Senior Counsel at OLC in one stretch of his legal career, and so is especially knowledgeable of the points that follow.
          Dismissed DOJ Caretaker Yates:  Subversive Face of the Lawless Left

     Ms. Yates was not content merely to defy the President and abandon her duties in refusing to defend the immigration order.  With the typical melodramatics and self-aggrandizement of the leftist hack that she is, Yates issued an outrageously political letter applauding herself for "stand[ing] for what is right" and "seek[ing] justice" -- in a blatantly partisan declaration that the President was doing the opposite.

     Yates actions and statements were dishonest, lawless, and profoundly irresponsible.  She richly deserved to be among the first Obama holdover cadres to receive an emphatic "You're fired!" from the  President.  But there is a significant additional twist to this episode which sharply underscores the utter lawlessness and hypocrisy of the political lawyers of the Democrat Left.

     Just before the various controversies over the immigration order came to a head, critics on the left were suggesting that it would be irresponsible for President Trump to issue executive orders that were vetted only by White House Counsel without any clearance by the above-described OLC.  For example, Democrat/Liberal Walter Dellinger, who headed the OLC during the Clinton administration, recently asserted that it is "essential that any order issued by the President be reviewed for lawfulness by the career lawyers at the Office of Legal Counsel. That is not a task that can be left to White House staff if we are going to be a nation of laws."

     In the case of the suspension/vetting order, the Trump Administration did exactly what Mr. Dellinger recommended:  the order was vetted and cleared by OLC for legality and constitutionality.  Yet Acting AG Yates -- who is an Obama political holdover whose position is merely that of a "caretaker" -- chose to disregard the OLC clearance and refused to defend the order on inarticulate justice policy grounds and because she was "not convinced" that it was lawful.  But to paraphrase Walter Dellinger, "that is not a task to be left to" a politically appointed and motivated caretaker/hack like Sally Yates "if we are going to be a nation of laws."

     First, if Yates was "not convinced" by the OLC opinion, she should have been.  She is simply unqualified to second guess OLC on a constitutional law issue, let alone where OLC's opinion rested on such well-established legal and historical precedent. 

     As I can personally attest, OLC is an extremely selective office that hires only the most highly qualified attorneys.  Virtually all OLC attorneys graduated near the top of their class from one of the nation's most elite law schools and then proceeded to a clerkship on a U.S. Court of Appeals.  It is a prestigious proving ground for Supreme Court Justices, including William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, and Samuel Alito.

     Yates got her law degree from barely mid-rank University of Georgia Law School, had no judicial clerkship, and has no apparent standing as a legal scholar.  She would have been lucky to be granted an interview at OLC, let alone to be hired there.  She was in her role as the Acting AG only as a ministerial "caretaker" until Jeff Sessions would be confirmed as Attorney General.  Yet this politically appointed caretaker had the audacity to make the radical and extraordinary step of dismissing OLC's opinion (not to mention prior DOJ approvals of comparable suspension orders by the Carter and Obama administrations) and trashing the President's order because this second-rate lawyer was "not convinced" it was constitutional.

     The purported policy and "justice" grounds on which Yates declined to defend the order are even more outrageous and insupportable.  Whatever authority an Acting Attorney General might have to question a presidential action on strictly legal grounds, she has no standing to second-guess the policy behind a presidential order -- let alone one involving the President's authority over national security, foreign affairs, and border control.  An executive order is law.  For an acting Attorney General to decline to defend or enforce it is not only a dereliction of duty, but a lawless and irresponsible act bordering on treachery.

     Yet it is not entirely surprising that a Democrat Attorney General, acting or otherwise, would arbitrarily reject a valid OLC legal opinion for partisan political reasons and personal aggrandizement.  This is merely the latest manifestation of the Democratic Left's scornful disregard for the rule of law when it interferes with their political designs.

     Early in the first Obama administration, Congress was considering enactment of a bill (the DC Voting Rights Act, or DCVRA) that would authorize the District of Columbia to have a seat in the House of Representatives.  The Constitution, however, expressly and repeatedly states that only States may be represented in the House (and the Senate).  Consequently, a constitutional amendment is required to give DC a voting Representative in Congress.  Therefore, in attempting to authorize such a DC Representative through simple legislation, the DCVRA was patently unconstitutional.

     OLC had previously issued a formal opinion during the latter Bush Administration that an earlier version of the DCVRA was patently unconstitutional (it was drafted by yours truly).  Confident that the Obama Justice Department would not let the mere Constitution stand in the way, however, radical proponents of DC representation reintroduced the bill promptly after Obama's election.  To its great credit, however, the Obama appointees at OLC upheld the prior opinion that the DCVRA was unconstitutional.  Acting Assistant AG for OLC David Barron, now a Court of Appeals Judge, appears to have been responsible for the ruling.  OLC had little honest choice, however, since the bill's unconstitutionality was so glaringly apparent that a contrary opinion would have seriously undercut OLC's hard-earned reputation of rigorous, nonpartisan integrity in issuing its legal opinions.

    Foreshadowing Ms. Yates' more recent lawlessness, Obama's radical leftist Attorney General, Eric Holder, showed as little deference to OLC's constitutional expertise as he typically did to the Constitution itself.  Holder not only rejected the OLC opinion, he completely circumvented longstanding DOJ practice and precedent in order to assure that there would be no Department questioning of the patently unconstitutional DCVRA. 

     To Holder, securing a House seat for the solidly Democratic and overwhelmingly black District of Columbia was far more important than obeying the unmistakable constitutional requirement that only States could be represented in Congress.  So he dispensed with the usual Department opinion on whether the bill was constitutional, and instead redirected the bill to an attorney of his choice in the Solicitor General's office, and altered the issue to whether the bill was defensible, whether or not it was constitutional in fact. 

     Needless to say, Holder obtained the desired "clearance," and the unconstitutional DCVRA proceeded to Congress with the Obama Administration's fraudulent imprimatur.  To this day, the OLC opinion that Holder rejected has been kept secret and withheld from disclosure in defiance of both congressional and FOIA requests.  Obviously, Holder did not want an opinion that demonstrated the duplicity of his actions to see the light of day.  Fortunately, this unconstitutional atrocity was sidetracked and killed by procedural obstacles unrelated to its constitutionality.  Thanks to Mr. Trump's election, it is unlikely to see the light of day again -- unless it is resurrected like some legislative vampire by another anti-constitutional Democratic administration we can all hope will never arise.

     Nonetheless, the pattern of politicized lawlessness established by the likes of Sally Yates and Eric Holder should be a warning to all who support the efforts of the Trump Administration to restore a standard of responsible law enforcement in the wake of the disastrous legal carnage of the Obama regime.  Both Yates and Holder wrongfully rejected clearly correct OLC opinions in order to further the partisan goals and campaigns of the Democratic Left.  These lawless Democrat radicals -- especially the lawless radical lawyers -- will stop at nothing, least of all the constraints of the Constitution and the rule of law, in their fanatical efforts to subvert the President's efforts to make America great, secure, and safe again.


Monday, January 23, 2017


     The last few days have witnessed a petty and partisan media campaign to denigrate and belittle the enthusiastic crowds that attended President Trump's inauguration festivities.  Wielding various forms of photographic and statistical "evidence," the media banshees went to great lengths to demonstrate that Obama's first inauguration drew larger crowds than Trump's -- a question of no real interest to the public.

     Then, when President Trump's supporters understandably pushed back with counter-evidence (one obvious point is that Obama's crowds were artificially inflated by the hordes of Democrat federal workers who live in the DC area), the MSM pounced on them for pursuing such a petty issue -- the very issue the media snipers raised in the first place!

     But before this controversy gives way to matters of greater moment, Splashing Rocks will now get to the heart and truth of the matter -- which has heretofore escaped the focus of the MSM.

     The debate has mistakenly focused on the size of the crowds who were actually able to attend the ceremonies and parade.  But in light of the extreme government obstruction of access to these events, the proper measure is how many people came into town attempting to attend the events. 

                 The Long and Winding Line to the Trump Inaugural . . .

     The fact is that the already large and enthusiastic crowds attending the Trump inauguration events would have been far larger if many thousands (like me) had not been prevented from gaining access to those events by a perverse array of government barriers.

     SR can testify firsthand to all this, because I was among the frustrated citizens who were stalled in miles of security lines and shunted from barrier to barrier and fence to fence in their vain efforts to gain timely access to the inaugural events. 

                     . . . stretched endlessly on near L'Enfant Plaza

     To its great credit, though, the pro-Trump crowd retained its high spirits and enthusiasm despite all this.  But many thousands, like SR, went home early rather than spend more hours in the "long and winding lines" that the government's exaggerated (or deliberately designed?) security measures necessitated.

     SR came into town on Metro's Orange Line, hoping to decamp at one of the stations relatively convenient to the events -- Federal Triangle, Smithsonian, or Navy Memorial.  But no, all of those stations were closed for security reasons -- what proved to be the universal justification for the wall of obstruction that enmeshed the entire sector of the National Mall and Pennsylvania Avenue.

     Instead, would-be attendees were shunted to the L'Enfant Plaza station, three full blocks south of the Mall and still further from the Capital West Lawn inauguration site. 

     There, they emerged to see an enormous line of people, some  three or four abreast, the end of which was nowhere in sight, or anywhere near it. Requests for assistance in finding where one could get into the line were met with befuddled shrugs.  No one really knew where the line ended, and for good reason:  the line was not straight, but labyrinthian, like some kind of sadistic corn maze that turned first one way, and then another, only to turn again on itself.  And each segment in the seemingly endless turns was long -- very long. 

    After an interminable period with only slight forward movement, SR joined a young couple next to him in leaving the line to follow a tip they'd received of a shorter or faster-moving line closer to the Smithsonian Institute.  But here one merely moved from the Scylla of long lines to the Charybdis of cement barriers and meshed security fences.  The cement barriers running east-west adjacent to the Mall seemed endless.  Further, in order to move north toward the Smithsonian and the Mall, the barriers forced one to detour for several blocks South before turning back north.

     In short, the federal government had erected a dystopian labyrinth of lines, barriers, and fences that made it nearly impossible for all but the early arrivals to reach even the outer aprons of the Mall.  By the time SR was able to reach the far west edge of the Mall -- from which the West Lawn ceremonial platform was not even visible -- the ceremony was over.  All that remained was a replay of the lovely teenage soprano, Jackie Evancho, beautifully singing the National Anthem on the jumbotron.

     SR's attempt to get even remotely near the parade route on Pennsylvania Avenue were equally, if not more, frustrating.  All attempts to cut through to a point anywhere near the parade were met with more cement barriers, fences, or stern guards directing one to the end of another line that, again, was nowhere in sight.

     Along with thousands like him, SR gave up and headed back to the Metro.  The platform at L'Enfant Plaza station was full of early departees who had simply tired of waiting in endless security lines and being shunted from barrier to barrier and "pillar to post."  It had become evident that the federal and DC governments were more interested in providing "safe spaces" for leftist demonstrators than in enabling patriotic citizens to actually attend President Trump's inaugural events.

     All of this was obviously lost on the clueless national media "reporters" who purported to cover the inaugural events.  Not a single TV reporter was anywhere in sight on the south side of the Mall where these interminable lines formed and crawled.  So the national media outlets were simply ignorant of the reality that so many thousands attempting to attend the events were prevented from gaining timely access by the massive government security block-out.

     Consequently, once again the MSM's reporting was wrong and biased against President Trump and his supporters.  Insofar as it failed to recognize how excessive government barriers prevented so many thousands (like SR) from actually reaching the inaugural events in time, the MSM's portrayal of Saturday's crowds was seriously misleading.


Thursday, January 19, 2017


     As the date for Donald Trump's inauguration approaches, the spiteful and subversive activities of the Democratic Left have reached a tipping point of destructive extremism. 

     Further, what were once dismissed as the extreme positions of the Democratic Party's radical fringe have now become its core tenets.  Consequently, it is no longer valid for a person to maintain his or her affiliation with the Democrats while purporting to disavow such core party policies as open borders, anti-white bias, anti-police hostility, gender-neutral bathrooms, and bellicose subversion of the incoming elected President and his administration.

     In short, if you are still a Democrat in January, 2017, you own the policies and behaviors outlined below. 

     The toxic character and attitude of today's Democratic Left (i.e., the Democratic Party core) is exemplified by two of many episodes reflecting the Democrats' malicious resentment of Mr.Trump and his supporters as they prepare for the inauguration festivities.

        Jackie Evancho:  Innocent Teenage Target of Democrat Vitriol

     Since the vast majority of celebrity entertainers are vocally affiliated with the Democratic Left, very few prominent singers or other performers have agreed to perform at Mr. Trump's inaugural celebration.  The fact that so many leftist entertainers have spitefully flaunted this celebrity boycott of what has traditionally been a nonpartisan national celebration in itself demonstrates their vindictive attitude.

     But the embittered Democrats are not content with their leftist celebrities' turning their back on the inauguration.  No, they must amplify their spite by directing their mean-spirited malice against a guileless teenage girl who agreed to sing the National Anthem at Mr. Trump's inauguration.

     Jackie Evancho is a remarkably talented classical singer with amazing vocal range.  She has achieved great recording success on the classical and pop charts at only 16 years of age.  Having previously performed at Mr. Obama's inauguration, she was delighted to accept the invitation to do the same at Mr. Trump's.  Instantly, the legion of mean-spirited "progressives" who lurk on the social media like demented vultures pounced on the innocent songstress.  Since Ms. Evancho has no apparent political connections or motives, they resorted to making scurrilous -- and false -- attacks on her standing and prestige as a performer, implying or openly sneering that the inauguration organizers had been forced to resort to a C-list singer. 

     The belittling comments were false, but it is not hard to imagine the young lady's bewilderment at the unprovoked malice directed against her by so many angry adults.  But that is what leftist Democrats do:  Threaten and insult teenage girls who only want to sing for their country.

     It gets worse.  A group of leftist anti-Trump terrorists has been caught on videotape plotting to use noxious butyric acid to ruin an inaugural ball to be held by Trump supporters in the National Press Club.  The vicious plot was taped by the admirable Project Veritas group at a meeting held by the leftists at a notorious Democrat-related DC pizzeria.  The criminal plot has since been reported to the FBI and the DC police, but it is unclear what enforcement action will be taken.  But, again, this is precisely the kind of vicious subversion that is engendered by the Democrats' radical rejection of the legitimacy of Mr. Trump's election and presidency.

             Rep. John Lewis:  the angry, embittered face of the Left-Wing Democrats

     While the mainstream media have been falsely and reflexively labeling the insurgent French and German conservative-nationalist parties (Germany's AfD and France's Front National) as the "extreme right," they refuse to acknowledge the reality that the U.S. Democratic Party is now a party of the extreme left.  This can be demonstrated beyond dispute by listing some notable examples of the extremist policy positions that are now at the core of the Democrat agenda -- to the extent that no serious contender for a major party nomination or leadership position could disavow or deny them.  These are now positions that you own if you remain a true Democrat:

     *  The radical anti-white/black-biased doctrines of the fraudulent Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement and similar black entitlement groups.  When a major Democrat presidential candidate timidly sought to soften the BLM slogan by saying "All lives matter," he was shouted down and forced to recant. The Democrats also embrace the offensive and bogus canard of so-called "White Privilege" -- in a country where comprehensive government preferences for blacks have been law, policy, and practice for roughly 50 years.

     *  Endorsement, facilitation, and support of illegal immigration, in a country already swamped by a tidal wave of both legal and illegal immigration.  This is typified by the lawless "Sanctuary City" policies of such Democrat-dominated cities as San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, and many others. The Democratic Party is fervently dedicated to the eradication and subordination of the historical European-based American majority by legions of immigrants who will vote Democratic precisely because of these policies.

     *  Aggressive enforcement of the most extreme policies and doctrines of the so-called LGBT movement. The Democratic Party not only approves and glorifies same-sex marriage (SSM); it ferociously condemns anyone who disapproves or refuses to participate in its normalization.  Beyond SSM, the Democrats fanatically support the bizarre agenda of the transgender movement, including the obliteration of sexual segregation in bathrooms, showers, and dressing rooms.  The Democrats want legal enforcement of the absurd notion that a person's sex or gender is whatever he or she declares it to be.

     *  The Democrats and their leaders embrace the anti-police rallying cry of the BLM movement -- namely, that the police are at fault whenever they use necessary violence to resist or suppress the criminal aggressions of black and other minority juveniles.  In case after case, Obama and other leading Democrats have endorsed the false narrative of the BLM and other radicals in taking the side of violent perps (like Michael Brown in the Ferguson incident) who attack police and then become heroes of the Left after they are justifiably shot in self-defense.

     *  Perhaps worst of all, Democrats are aggressively seeking to undermine the very legitimacy of Mr. Trump's election and his presidency before it even begins.  Democrat fanatics like Rep. John Lewis have expressly attacked Mr. Trump's presidency as illegitimate, and nearly 60 House Democrats (about one-third of the entire caucus) have joined him in boycotting the inauguration on those grounds.  Meanwhile, fellow Democrat radical Congresswoman Maxine Waters has ludicrously called for the impeachment of Mr. Trump before he assumes office.  This is precisely the kind of wild-eyed, deranged political fanaticism that has engendered the kind of butyric acid-throwing terrorism that presently threatens the presidential inaugural -- which until this year has been an occasion of national unity and at least temporary reconciliation.  In all this, the Democrats are playing a very dangerous game, potentially pushing the harsh divide that already prevails in America to the brink of civil disturbance -- or worse.

     It is hard fact today that the Democrats have failed miserably to win broad support at the ballot box.  Their loss in the presidential election was merely the apex of a movement which has resulted in their minority status in the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House, the governorships, and the state legislatures.  Their deranged resistance to the inauguration of a President whose electoral victory was an emphatic 304-227 reflects the raging, frustrated fury of an embittered party that, by moving relentlessly and recklessly to the left, has richly earned the title of "America's Extreme Left Democratic Party."



Tuesday, January 10, 2017


     While Islamic terrorism rages violently at home and abroad, the two most prominent pseudo-Republicans in the U.S. Senate are busy directing their sputtering wrath against a fellow target of such terrorism:  the Russian Republic.

     Senators John McCain (Arizona) and Lindsey Graham (S.C.) have joined embittered Democrat allies in cultivating the canard that purported Russian "hacking" of various Democratic-operated computer systems somehow tilted the presidential election in favor of Donald Trump -- and thus undermined U.S. democracy. 

     It is hard to say whether McCain and Graham are having more fun recklessly attacking Russia or rashly seeking to undermine the legitimacy of Mr. Trump's 304-227 electoral vote presidency before it begins.  Both of them are horribly failed presidential candidates: McCain having surrendered almost without a struggle in the general election against Obama in 2008, and Graham having experienced defeat of ignominious proportions in his disastrous campaign in the 2016 GOP primaries.  It would be unfair, however, to suggest that their apparent determination to undermine Mr. Trump's incipient presidency by playing the Russia Card is motivated in any way by political jealousy and resentment.  Unfair, but not necessarily wrong.

     Whatever the motivation, these embittered cranks have indulged in Russophobic rants the likes of which have not been seen since the Red Hysteria at the height of the Cold War.

Unlike Russia's world champion lady figure skater, angry senators do not make a pretty picture to post on Splashing Rocks.  Courtesy YouTube.                   

     At recent senate hearings, for example, McCain inveighed that "every American should be alarmed" by Russia's purported meddling in the presidential election and that Russia's activities constituted "an unprecedented attack on our democracy."

     But SR is not at all "alarmed" by the fact that Russia engages in cyber-aided intelligence activities in the U.S., just as the U.S. and its allies do the same, and more, in other countries. 

     Here, for instance, is a quote from the same Washington Post that purports to be so "alarmed" by Russia's reputed cyber-spying on the feebly protected Democratic-operated computer systems during the past election period:  "U.S. intelligence services carried out 231 offensive cyber-operations in 2011, the leading edge of a clandestine campaign that embraces the Internet as a theater of spying, sabotage and war, according to top-secret documents obtained by The Washington Post."  (WP, Aug. 30, 2013). The story went on to state that Russia was among the "top priority targets" of these "offensive cyberoptions [that] can be an important element in deterring certain adversaries.”

     If the U.S. has been aggressively engaging in such widespread offensive Cyber-operations against Russia and other countries, it is hardly "alarming" or "unprecedented" that Russia engages in similar operations here.  Indeed, as documented elsewhere, Democrats in the past have sought the then Soviet Union's help in their futile campaigns against Ronald Reagan.

     Yet the enraged Sen. McCain has gone so far as to charge that Russia's purported cyber activities constituted "an act of war," with the logical implication that a proportional bellicose response would be demanded.  What particular responsive "act of war" McCain recommends is not clear. 

     In any case, it ill behooves John McCain to rage against Russia's purported distortion of a U.S. presidential election outcome when McCain's own preemptive unilateral disengagement effectively conceded the 2008 presidential election to the divisive anti-constitutional candidacy of Barack Hussein Obama. 

     As a prime example, McCain perversely refused to raise, let alone press, the critically relevant issue of Obama's contemptible affiliation with Jeremiah Wright, the rabidly afro-racist preacher who was Obama's spiritual guru.  In effect, McCain deprived millions of ingenuous American voters of information that would have been crucial to an informed, moral, and intelligent vote.  McCain again diverted voters from the truth when he sought to suppress a campaign audience's entirely justifiable concerns about Obama's fitness for the presidency with this incredibly feckless campaign statement:  “But I have to tell you, I have to tell you, he is a decent person, and a person that you do not have to be scared as President of the United States.”  That was false; as events have proven, voters had every reason to fear the divisive, anti-constitutional Obama presidency.  In short, McCain was withholding truthful information about the dangerous, radical leftist candidate he was supposedly opposing.

     In contrast, the supposedly subversive actions attributed to Russia (and WikiLeaks) during the 2016 campaign, if true, actually enhanced the voters' knowledge of the Democratic candidate and her party.

     Although McCain's Russophobic fulminations are disturbing enough, his sidekick, Sen. Graham, has gone to even greater extremes in his anti-Russian rants -- to the point of impugning the political integrity and patriotism of any Republican who disagrees with him on the issue, while leveling ever more bellicose charges against Russia.

     In a recent appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press," for example, Graham engaged in the following diatribe aimed at supporters of the President-elect: “To my Republican friends who are gleeful, you’re making a huge mistake. . . . Most Republicans are condemning what Russia did and to those who are gleeful it [sic]you’re a political hack. You’re not a Republican and you’re not a patriot.” He then continued his insulting rant by aligning himself squarely with the Democrat position on this issue ("When one party is compromised all of us are compromised," which is literally false) and calling for "bipartisan" anti-Russian sanctions -- all of which falls squarely in line with the Democrat objective of elevating the importance of the Russian activities with a view to delegitimizing Trump's victory, and his presidency.

     But Graham lurched even further into geopolitical lunacy with his incendiary remarks at a hearing held to showcase the angry duo's determination to engage in brinksmanship which neither of them will have to back up with action.  Flaunting his willingness to go far beyond Obama's diplomatic expulsion measures against Russia for the alleged hacking, Graham stated (emphasis added):

          "So, ladies and gentlemen, it is time now not to throw pebbles, but to throw rocks. I wish we were not here. If it were up to me, we would all live in peace, but Putin is up to no good, and he needs to be stopped."
     Graham did not specify what he meant by "throwing rocks," but his plain implication was that we could no longer "live in peace" with Russia because Putin "needs to be stopped."

     These are extreme and needlessly bellicose statements, out of all proportion to the purported Russian activities to which they are directed.  Fortunately, both President-elect Trump and President Putin are more rational and level-headed than Sen. Graham, and neither is likely accept his invitation to a new round of escalation and brinksmanship reminiscent of the Cold War.
     Nonetheless, it is worth considering the reckless and utterly imprudent nature of Graham's impetuous rant.

     Someone should remind Graham that a genuine conflict with Russia would not be conducted by "throwing rocks."  Although Russia's conventional forces are inferior to ours, Russia's nuclear capacity is reportedly at almost exact parity with the U.S. in terms of nuclear weapons deployed on Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles:  each country is believed to have about 1,640, although the details are obviously classified.  In other words, Russia remains an extremely dangerous global nuclear power, not to mention a formidable conventional arms power as well in the European theater.

     Given these realities, why would any responsible U.S. leader wish to cultivate hostile and confrontational relations with Russia except under the most severe provocation?  Although the purported Russian "hacking" of computer information carelessly maintained by various Democratic entities and persons would be objectionable, and would warrant appropriately measured response, it is far from the menacing "act of war" so glibly invoked by McCain and Graham.  As asserted in the above-quoted Washington Post report, U.S. intelligence services have likewise pursued "a clandestine campaign that embraces the Internet as a theater of spying, sabotage and war."  Under these circumstances, it seems hardly prudent for the U.S. to suddenly treat the inherently devious and subversive acts of espionage, cyber intelligence, and propaganda engaged in by the U.S. and other nations as incendiary acts of war.

     Instead, it would probably be best if everyone took a deep breath and recognized the distinction between the Marxist-Leninist, atheistic, and world revolutionary Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; versus the emphatically Christian, heavily privatized, profit-loving and capitalistic, and Slavic-oriented Russian Republic.  Russia and President Putin have more interest in propping up their economy, suppressing Chechnyan and other Islamic terrorism, and securing their interests along their western border than in any kind of direct confrontation with the United States.  Not to mention maintaining the most graceful and talented array of lady figure skaters in the civilized world.

     In short, there are apt to be more areas of contained competition -- and even mutual interest -- between the U.S. and Russia than areas of irreducible conflict.

     President-elect Trump is prudent and reasonable in stating that it is foolish to denigrate and undermine good relations with Russia, as Senators McCain and Graham seem determined to do.  The U.S. faces more than enough imminent threats on its own borders and in the realm of global Islamic terrorism for it to seek confrontation and brinkmanship with Russia.


Friday, January 6, 2017


            Splashing Rocks has repeatedly exposed the mainstream media's persistent and perverse suppression of news and information revealing the widespread instances of black-on-white crime.  See here and here and here.  But this week in Chicago, four vicious black miscreants descended to a level of depravity that stands out even in the infuriating annals of afro-racist crime that has plagued the nation throughout the Obama years.

    We will not rehash the disgusting details of the self-recorded Chicago atrocity.  Suffice to say, it entailed prolonged subjugation of a mentally disabled young man (18 years old) to the most painful and humiliating abuse, accompanied by anti-white and anti-Trump insults and taunting.

            Had it been left to the likes of NBC, CNN, MSNBC, ABC and their ilk, this grotesque episode of afro-racist hate crime would have been relegated to the dead-letter file which is the destination of hundreds of similar stories.  But we fortunately live in a time when those fraudulent media outlets – now known scornfully as the MSM – are no longer able to suppress news and information they deem politically disadvantageous to their leftist/Democratic cause.

     Hundreds of conservative on-line websites, blogs, and aggregators instantly picked up the deeply disturbing video of the crime that the Chicago perps, incredibly, were stupid enough to publish live on Facebook.  Indeed, the mind-boggling stupidity of these fools in publishing this video falls so far beyond the bounds of even minimal rationality as to defy belief.  One explanation might be that these deranged juveniles act on the basis of atavistic instinct rather than rational assessment.  In any case, it is very difficult to maintain a lawful and civilized society when such crass barbarism is as widespread as it is in Chicago and similar feral cities.
            But even after the full horror of this egregious hate crime had been exposed, MSM outlets like MSNBC and CNN were brazenly attempting to downplay and extenuate the episode.  For some reason – we can guess the answer – MSNBC and CNN rely almost entirely upon black commentators and panelists to respond predictably to race-tinged news stories like this one. 

            Drunk or Sober, Don Lemon is a disgrace to journalism -- and to decency

     CNN's "blackwashing" of the incident was particularly egregious and offensive.  In a black-dominated panel moderated by black anchorman Don Lemon, a black apologist named Symone Sanders (described as a "Democratic strategist") absurdly challenged the obvious conclusion that this self-documented orgy of anti-white torment was a hate crime.  With mind-numbing hypocrisy and audacity, Sanders scolded, " we cannot callously go about classifying things as a hate crime.”  The only "callousness" involved, of course, is Sanders so glibly contending that this patently obvious hate crime could be considered as anything less.
     But Sanders' outrageous extenuation of the Chicago outrage was soon exceeded by Don Lemon himself.  Adopting the standard leftist line that malicious crime should be considered as merely misguided youthful misbehavior when perpetrated by black juveniles, Lemon flatly stated, "I don't think it was evil."  To leave no doubt as to his moral incoherence, Lemon then repeated the same statement for emphasis, adding that it was merely a case of "young people" with "bad home training."  And on this occasion – unlike his boorish intoxication televised nationally on New Year's Eve – Lemon does not even have the excuse of being drunk out of his mind on shots of tequila.

            Lemon is so blinded by his afro-racist prejudices that he not only got his reasoning wrong, but his facts as well.  One of the depraved "Chicago Four" is a 24-year-old mother of two, and the other three are 18 – old enough to vote, make legal decisions, and serve in the armed forces.  And old enough to sink to depths of depravity that would never even occur to a genuinely youthful person. 
            There should be no doubt here:  Don Lemon's depraved and repeated insistence that this vile hate crime was not "evil" confirms beyond any dispute that he is unfit to serve as a television journalist, let alone as the anchor of a nationally broadcast news show.  Any network with a modicum of dignity and responsibility would fire him forthwith. -- even apart from his nationally broadcast tequila bender. But Lemon's blackness itself shields him from the accountability that should mandate his ignominious dismissal.

      Thankfully, the relentless reporting of the conservative on-line media made it impossible for the confused and disjointed Chicago Law enforcement authorities to minimize the revolting racist crimes that appalled all decent Americans.  Initially, clueless Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson sought to minimize the severity of the outrage with a series of inane extenuations.  “If you look at that video… it’s just stupidity,” Johnson bleated.  Not content with stupidity on a global scale, he then entered the rare realm of cosmic imbecility, when he croaked, “Kids make stupid decisions — I shouldn’t call them kids, they’re legally adults. But they’re young adults and they make stupid decisions."  Just like Chicago police superintendents make stupid statements.

     With a delusional blockhead like Johnson in charge of its police, it is small wonder that Chicago has a record-setting murder rate that dwarfs that of even urban war zones like Baltimore, Atlanta, New York, and Philadelphia.

     Fortunately, somewhere in the dark recesses of Chicago government there are some prosecutors and other officials with a modicum of sanity and sense of responsibility to the city's embattled populace.  As this blog is posted, each of the Chicago Four has been charged with hate crimes, felony aggravated kidnapping, aggravated unlawful restraint and aggravated battery with a deadly weapon.  Three of these lawless thugs also face charges of burglary, while one has been charged with possession of a stolen car.  And a sensible Chicago judge has ordered them all held without bail.

      It is excellent that the Chicago enforcement authorities appear to be prosecuting these barbarians with the full force of the criminal statutes.  But a crucial fact should not be forgotten:  Had it been up to the mainstream media, this disgraceful episode would likely have been relegated to a forgotten footnote, and the Chicago Four would have avoided the forceful prosecution that they now face.  Thanks to the glare of publicity engendered by conservative on-line truth-tellers, however, the Chicago authorities could not avoid the overwhelming evidence of an appalling racial hate crime that could not be blackwashed.

     Addendum.  Just when you thought that the MSM could not sink any lower in its malicious, anti-white misrepresentation of inter-racial crime in America, this happens:  A vile CBS radio outlet distorted its description of the above afro-racist hate crime in such a way as to indicate that it was an attack on a black victim perpetrated by white Trump supporters -- the complete opposite of what occurred.  The insidious leftist media continue to follow the legacy of  Joseph Goebbels, namely, that the Big Lie is the most effective way to distort reality in favor of the liar's viewpoint.