US fields strongest team of gasbag Olympians ever

By A.J. Liebling
Meta-Content Generator

Instead of wasting time watching teen-agers slide around bumpy slopes or dough-faced Canucks throw rocks down ice-covered alleyzzzz . . . .[Wake up! – Ed.], why not join the real excitement as the United States fields its strongest team ever at the Gasbag Olympics held this year in that mecca of world-class pontificators, Chevy Chase, Maryland?

Bret Stephens, headed straight downhill

Only the Spy gives you the dopes [Surely, the inside dope? – Ed.] on the most-watched events.  Let's start off with a perennial crowd pleaser, the Straight Downhill Pundit.  This year the favorite for the Gold Zeppelin has to be the New York Times's brilliant rookie downhill racer, Bret Stephens.  He was brought in by the powers that be at the Times to provide “balance,” which means the ruminations of a privileged white reactionary male who usually manages to avoid the most paranoid ethnic and racial slurs.

And Stephens didn't disappoint, heading downhill at lightning speed by defending Woody Allen from charges of sexual abuse of what what would have been his stepdaughter had he married the girl's mother.  Stephens raced past other defenders of white men behaving badly by pointing out that unlike Larry Nassar, Allen had not been accused of abusing 285 women.  Instead, Stephens pointed out that Allen had been accused of only one gruesome felony.  Like Leopold and Loeb.

Showing his tremendous talent for crashing into every tree on his epochal downhill run, Stephens claimed that the prosecutor had exonerated the aged creep.  When Tommy Vietor pointed out on Twitter that the prosecutor had in fact said there was probable cause to charge Allen, Stephens stepped on the gas and said he could no longer abide Twitter.  And who can blame him?  It's no fun to not have the last word.

But the Karolyi Institute of gold-medal gasbags that is the New York Times op-ed page has fielded other strong medal contenders.  In the 20,000-Word Marathon of Ignorance, both white male favorites hale from the Times:  David “the Old Perfesser” Brooks and Ross Douthat.  Both have inveighed endlessly on matters utterly outside their comprehension, such as a woman's right to control her own body.  The Old Perfesser showed true gasbag Olympic form by purporting to tell Democrats that the way to win elections was to abandon their pro-choice platform, on the grounds that women in only 20 states or so would lose their access to safe, legal abortions.

Of course Monsignor Douthat has been railing against abortion rights since his altar boy days and has recently extended his maledictions to pornography on the entirely irrefutable ground that he doesn't like it.  Look for this team of ignoramuses to finish one-two.

Turning to the women on the Times team, the leading contender for the coveted Hillary Clinton Triple Pretzel has to be once again Maureen Dowd, who has taken the gold in this event in every Gasbag Olympics since 1992.  Tying every social ill to Hillary Clinton's decision not to divorce her horndog husband when Dowd told her to is a grueling technical challenge that no one has mistressed [Surely, mastered? – Ed.] like well-known marriage authority Dowd.

But lest you think that American's medal hopes rest solely on the Times editorial page, fear not!  In the Mansplaining Biathlon (combining patronizing women with sulking when such conduct is pointed out on set), MSNBC's two seasoned wrecks [Surely, vets? – Ed.], Joe Scarborough and Chris Matthews, are expected to do extremely well, which means for the ladies out there that they will win.  Got it, gals?

The U.S. is also fielding a strong team in the 180 degree Republican backflip, in which former hacks and coatholders in the Reagan and Bush Administrations now claim to be shocked, shocked to discover that the Republican Party is nothing but a deplorable basket of grifters, wife beaters, and hatemongers.  Both the U.S. men (Steve Schmidt, David Frum, and Hot Air Force General Billy Kristol) and women (Nicole Wallace, Jennifer Rubin and Ana Navarro) are expected to be formidable, as long as no one looks at what they actually said and did from 2000 to 2012.

Piers Morgan goes for the brown [Surely, gold? – Ed.]

With such a strong U.S. team, can any other country expect to strike gold at the Gasbag Olympics?  Fortunately, the poor sad United Kingdom is expected to win in the the prestigious Anglo-Anal Tongue Wrestling event, due to Piers Morgan's epic performance on President U Bum's, um, bum, captured by the BBC here.

Just remember, in the Gasbag Olympics, it's never just about winning the medal, it's also about winning a seven-figure book deal and/or anchor slot.  So light the flaming gasbag and let the games begin!

Play to Wynn the Game of Casino Regulation

By Maria Boroaroma
Financial Columnist

What with all the healthy correcting going in the stock market (and everyone I know on Wall Street who makes a living selling stocks says it's a great buying opportunity!), you might have missed the slight hiccup in the fortunes of the Wynn Corporation, until yesterday helmed by Nora Ephron's BFF, Steve “the Ladies' Man” Wynn.

Mr. Wynn, whom I hear is one of the most charismatic and brilliant executives the world has ever known (according to his investor relations department), decided to step down as President and CEO of the Wynn Corporation, which owns and runs casinos in legendary gaming meccas like Las Vegas, Macau, and soon Everett, Massachusetts.

His decision follows revelations of what he termed “ridiculous” claims that he had sexually harassed multiple waitresses, masseuses, housekeepers and other no fun types who labor in his empire, claims that at least on one occasion he settled for a mere $7,500,000 out of his own pocket.

I mean, who among us hasn't had to settle ridiculous meritless litigation for $7.5 million?  It could happen to anyone!

Steve Wynn, shown here with his yoga instructor,
forcefully denies mistreating his employees

Insiders I spoke to privately said that Mr. Wynn's decision to step down at the youthful age of 78 was intended to avoid any problems with pesky casino regulators, especially those in Massachusetts, which, unlike Nevada, is not a wholly-owned subsidiary of the gambling industry.  Sources close to Mr. Wynn (but not too close I hope if you catch my drift!) say that his resignation should put to rest any concerns regulators may have about his influence over the casino now rising from the Everett wasteland.

And why shouldn't it?  After all, it's not as if he has any remaining influence over the corporation that bears his name.  According to Wynn's proxy materials, Steve Wynn owns a mere 11.8% of Wynn stock.  That's hardly enough to worry about, even though numerous different securities laws define an “affiliate” as someone who owns at least 10% of the voting securities of the company deemed to be under his control.

In case you might be worried that Wynn, even in retirement, might be able to exert significant influence over all matters requiring shareholder approval, the Company's annual report on Form 10-K should set your mind at ease:

As of December 31, 2016, Mr. Wynn and Elaine P. Wynn owned 12,000,000 shares and 9,611,927 shares, respectively, or in the aggregate approximately 21.2%, of our outstanding common stock. As a result, Mr. Wynn and Elaine P. Wynn, to the extent they vote their shares in a similar manner, may be able to exert significant influence over all matters requiring our stockholders' approval, including the approval of significant corporate transactions.

(It may be fair to note that recent events have perhaps lowered the chances that the former Mr. and Mrs. will see eye-to-eye on matters related to corporate governance, or anything else.)

And if the Massachusetts casino regulators have little to worry about, Wynn investors have even less.  It's not as if the company's stockholders depend on the Ladies' Man for creating significant long-term value.   As its proxy says:

Mr. Wynn is the founder, creator and name behind our brand. We believe that he brings extraordinary talent to our Company that is unrivaled in our industry. The Compensation Committee believes that Mr. Wynn’s contributions to our longstanding, consistent achievement over the last decade have been, and continue to be, instrumental in creating significant long-term value for our stockholders. These factors were key in the determination of Mr. Wynn’s compensation during fiscal 2016.

And that's why he trousered a mere $28,156,985 in 2016.

The good news for Wynn investors is that the company should be able to find equally lucrative ways to spend $28 mil in 2018.  My sources tell me that notwithstanding the reputation the Commonwealth enjoys for probity and honesty in all matters relating to its governance, you can buy or at least rent a goodly number of Massachusetts legislators for that kind of jack.  Those sources say that if you don't believe them, they've got a collapsed parking garage at UMass Boston to sell you, for a lot less than $28,156,985.

Meta-fact checking The New York Times: Both Sides Now

By A.J. Liebling
Meta-Content Generator

So the serial sex offender/traitor/bigot in the twilight of his Presidency embarrassed himself in front of the nation on Tuesday, according to the fact-checkers of The New York Times.  But, in the great tradition of “objective” journalism, the various Democrats who responded to the torrent of bullshit and bigotry must be fact-checked as well and their inaccuracies pointed out to the world.

Right?  Right.  So The Times duly published a long analysis of five different Democratic responses and concluded in aggregate that “Democrats mislead and leave out context about trade, health care and taxes in criticizing President Trump’s State of the Union speech.”

Let's fact check the fact checker and find out what Democratic whoppers merited that conclusion.  First in the barrel, our Congressman Joe Kennedy.  We thought he sounded a little tentative but unlike President U Bum, what he said made sense.  That wasn't good enough for the meticulous Times newsies.

What did that moron graduate of Harvard College and Stanford Law School screw up?  First, he said that “Top C.E.O.s making 300 times the average worker is not right.” After admitting that Kennedy had correctly referred to a study correctly reaching that conclusion, the Times then proceeded to offer what they called “context.”

First they pointed out that in updated data, the gap had shrunk to a measly 271 times.  Smarten up, Joe!  Then the Times turned to a comparison of cash compensation only.  Why?  Who the f*** knows?  No CEO gives a toss about cash compensation excluding his (and 99% of the time it's his) sweet options, restricted stock, and other finagles, except to make sure that he's got enough cash to pay taxes on his haul.  Amazingly, when all the good stuff is taken out, the 271 times shrinks.  That would also be the case if you excluded the ransom CEO's make from Tuesday to Friday, and would be just as meaningful.

Having reduced Kennedy to rubble, the fact checkers then turned their big guns to a Virginia state rep who gave a speech in Spanish.  And what did this Demo kingpin louse up?  She said: “He also wanted to destroy protections for people with pre-existing health conditions, and to punish the people in advanced age with a cruel tax just because they’re this age.”

After acknowledging that President U Bum has in fact worked to undermine protection for those sick bastards (which might therefore make the claim accurate to those ignoramuses not smart enough to work for the the Times), the fact-checker then said the claim was inaccurate because the Grifter-in-Chief has said falsely he wants to protect those individuals.

So the claim that I am the starting quarterback for the New England Patriots in the Super Bowl may be false but anyone so saying should provide the context that I said I plan to start and feel real good about my team.

As for the claim that the Grifter-in-Chief's plans would make old people pay a ton more for health care, the Times conceded that was true too, but it wasn't a tax because the money would not go to the government.  It would be trousered by health insurers, which makes all the difference to old people who can't afford their premiums thanks to President U Bum.  Maybe Ms. Guzman meant tax in the metaphorical sense of an extra financial burden.  Maybe the Times fact checkers could take this one up with Michi Kakutani.

Next up: Bernie Sanders.  He can be a little hyperbolic, so what whoppers were caught by the Times?   How about this one? “Last year, he [U Bum] supported legislation that would have thrown up to 32 million people off of the health care they had while, at the same time, substantially raising premiums for older Americans.”

First, the Times admitted that the 32,000,000 figure was, um, accurate.  (Is there a pattern developing here?)  Then, however, the Times rubbished Sanders because some of that multitude would be people dropping insurance due to repeal of the individual mandate.  Leaving aside the importance of that mandate to a universal private insurance system, the reason that people don't buy insurance we suspect is because they can't afford it.  Apparently, that's OK to President U Bum and the Times.

Fourth, Donna Edwards.  She's not even a Democrat, according to the Times.  But let's she how she did.  She said: “As President Trump said tonight, this is an administration whose proudest accomplishment is the Republican tax scam. Which is more than a scam really — it’s a heist that benefits some of the richest people who have ever lived.”

And this was wrong, why? Because she didn't mention that some poor people will get a measly temporary tax cut.  But she never claimed otherwise – she claimed that the plan overall is a scam.  Tiny temporary tax cuts for working families are part of the scam.

Both Sides Now

The last prevaricator in the Times' gunsights was California Rep. Maxine Waters, a well-known bad-ass.  She must have let something fly, right?  Hope you're sitting down for this one: “He’s isolating us with his inept trade policies, withdrawing the United States from trade agreements without negotiating viable alternatives.”

And that was off the mark because – ?  According to the Times, that was a whopper because the United States had not ratified the Trans-Pacific Partnership before the Grifter-in-Chief withdrew from it.

And who said the United States was withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership?  Well, if you click on the handy link in the fact-check piece itself you get to this report in a well-regarded Eastern newspaper:

Although the Trans-Pacific Partnership had not been approved by Congress, Mr. Trump’s decision to withdraw not only doomed former President Barack Obama’s signature trade achievement, but also carried broad geopolitical implications in a fast-growing region. 

The New York Times, January 27, 2018. Ffs.

So let's see.  Five accurate speeches, none in need of correction, with the possible exception of changing 300 times to 271 times greater.  Why did the Times publish this ridiculous niggling drivel?  It can only be a case of, in the words of Joni Mitchell, Both Sides Now.  If the Times fact-checks a serial liar, it damn well better find something, anything, to question in the speeches of his opponents.  It's the same principle that led the Times to balance its pre-election reports of the Tangerine-Faced Grifter's numerous lies and felonies with equally hard-hitting coverage of Hillary Clinton's private email server.  And that turned out pretty well.

To paraphrase the great Joni Mitchell, “So many things we could have done but the Times got in our way.”

This just in: peace in our time

From Ida Tarbell
Spy Washington Bureau

Pulling back from the brink of all-out war, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer today accepted assurances from Senate Leader Mitch McConnell that Sen. Schumer predicted would bring “peace in our time” to Capitol Hill.

Chuck Schumer, shown at his moment of triumph

For days the nation had been transfixed on watching the Patriots pull another championship out of their helmets [Surely, the ominous news from Washington? – Ed.], increasingly fearful over the prospect of a government shutdown that could destroy everything from admission to National Parks before fracking begins to concealing overruns on future weapons that will never work.

Summoned to the Leader's office for last-minute negotiations, and pressured by allies who could not stomach the idea that they might have to work consecutive weekends, Schumer emerged, weary but triumphant, clutching a pizza box that he said contained binding commitments from the Leader that would avoid “the outbreak of further hostilities that could threaten the peace and harmony of the Senate Gym.”

A few bitter-enders, apparently eager to send their aunts and uncles back into the legislative trenches, complained that the so-called agreement was little more than a sell-out of the legitimate aspirations of the 890,000 young men and women who had had their tenuous legal immigration status snatched away by the Supreme Leader in yet another savage act of cruelty and bigotry.

The extreme left-wing pro-war organ The New Yorker complained that “This afternoon, the prospects for the Dreamers look worse: the immediate crisis of the shutdown has passed, the President no longer seems a plausible ally, and their status has not been secured.”

But such captiousness was by far the minority opinion, with almost all the wisest leading figures in Washington celebrating the last-minute peace agreement. Senator Blanche du Bois (R – Fort Sumter) rhapsodized, “if we can solve the question of the Dreamers without conflict, it could be a turning point in relations between the Democrats and the Supreme Leader.”

Schumer has told his incredulous caucus that he “believes the Leader” when he says he has no further demands to terrorize non-citizen residents of the United States.  He said that the Leader had spoken to him “with great earnestness.”

Referring to the Supreme Leader's rants demanding $60,000,000,000 for a 28-foot-tall see-through border wall running along the Mexican border from the Pacific to the Rio Grande,  a 50% cut in immigration quotas, and preventing reunification of American citizens with their immigrant families, Schumer would only say, “I have read the Tweets of the Supreme Leader and appreciate his references to the efforts I have made to save the peace.”

Only a few illegals dissented from the general relief

This afternoon, the Senate, after hearing Schumer's announcement that he had reached an historic agreement with the Leader, erupted in cheers.  Exulted Sen. Susan Collins: “Thank God for Senator Schumer and our Leader!”

Echoed Sen. Jeff Flake (R – Situation Wanted): “It is inconceivable that we should be plunged into war over a quarrel between faraway people of whom we know nothing.”

The pro-war party was left near speechless, reduced to sputtering that the so-called “assurances” from the Leader were a mere scrap of paper that made no commitment to protecting the Dreamers from life in the shadows or prison in contemplation of deportation to countries they never knew, all at the whim of the Supreme Leader's dreaded ICE squads.  They noted that the assurances did not bind the Supreme Leader or his thug-like “Representatives.”

Some like California Senator Kamala Harris were near tears.  She told a few bored reporters milling about the corridors that the agreement was “sordid, squalid, sub-human, and suicidal.”

Senator Kirsten Gillebrand spoke of her final discussions with a small group of despairing Dreamers huddled in her office: “They wished to register their protest against a decision in which they had no part.”

With the dreaded specter of political war put off for a full three weeks, Schumer and his embattled allies are placing great weight on an agreement with the Leader that says no more than the two sides will “continue our efforts to remove possible sources of difference” that might vex the peace of Washington.

A Spy exclusive: Top-secret guidance re shithole inquiries

Editors' Note:  Apparently some whiny foreign countries are protesting being called “shitholes” by the President of the United States. When did we start being so PC we couldn't call shitholes “shitholes?”  That's the question, at least if you're bilious white man Tucker Carlson.  Some real journalists have asked what any remaining U.S. diplomats are supposed to say if called in by the governments of such “shitholes.”  Only the Spy has obtained from its sources within the Burning Clown Car [Surely, West Wing? – Ed.] the carefully crafted diplomatic talking points approved by POTUS himself. 

FROM: SECSTATE WASH DC TO: ALLPOSTS SUBJECT: GUIDANCE RE RESPONSE TO SHITHOLES CLASS: TS NOFORN/NOSTEVE/NOFLOTUS/OKFOX/  DRAFTEDBY: HHICKS EOP/COMM FOLLOWING TALKING POINTS HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY ALL USGOV AGENCIES INCLUDING POTUS AND JARED FOR USE RE ALL MTGS WITH FOREIGN GOVOFFS RE POTUS RECENT COMMENTS RE SHITHOLES. 1.  POTUS DENIES USING WORD SHITHOLE.  OR SHITHOUSE.  OR SHIT CITY.  OR SHIT STORM.  REPORTS TO CONTRARY ARE FAKE NEWS AND/OR TREASON AND/OR HILLARY'S FAULT 2.  USG PLACES GREAT WEIGHT ON MAINTAINING GOOD RELATIONSHIP WITH [INSERT NAME OF SHITHOLE COUNTRY] 3.  POTUS SAYS SOME OF THE BEST WAITERS BUSBOYS AND GROUNDSKEEPERS  AT MAR-A-LAGO COME FROM [INSERT NAME OF SHITHOLE COUNTRY] 4.  POTUS EXTENDS LARGE STRONG MASCULINE HAND OF FRIENDSHIP TO [INSERT NAME OF SHITHOLE COUNTRY] 5.  POTUS INVITES HEAD OF GOV TO GOLF WITH HIM AT WORLD CLASS TRUMP GOLF COURSE OF POTUS'S CHOOSING AS GESTURE OF GOOD WILL BUT REGRETS UNABLE TO WAIVE GREENS FEES AND CART RENTAL. 6.  IN EXTENDING GOLF INVITATIONS EMBOFFS SHOULD EMPHASIZE POTUS IS A GREAT GOLFER AMONG THE BEST.  RUMORS THAT POTUS DOES NOT COUNT MULLIGANS OR KICKS BALL ONTO FAIRWAY FAKE NEWS 7.  IF HEAD OF STATE IS MALE OFFER ASSISTANCE OF POTUS IN OBTAINING TOP CLASS PORN STARS WITH BIG BEAUTIFUL JUGS TO JOIN FOURSOME BUT DENY POTUS HAS EVER PAID BLACKMAIL TO SUCH PORN STARS 8.  FOR UK ONLY: POTUS REGRETS UNABLE TO ATTEND WEDDING OF PRINCE TO BLACK GIRL BECAUSE HE IS VERY BUSY THAT WEEKEND IN IMPORTANT NEGOTIATIONS AT GOLF CLUB WITH FOREIGN HEAD OF STATE AND HOT PORN STARS WHO ARE NOT FLAT CHESTED LIKE YOUR BLACK GIRL AND TELLS PRINCE NOT TO BEG LIKE LITTLE BITCH 9.  FOR REAL COUNTRIES IN EUROPE LIKE NORMAY, OMAY, OR ARRYLAY: OF COURSE POTUS WASN'T REFERRING TO YOU 10.  FOR RUSSIAN FEDERATION:  EYES ONLY TO V PUTIN: COMPARED TO STORMY DANIELS THOSE BROADS YOU SENT TO MY ROOM LOOKED LIKE MEN - DON 11.  SECDEF AND SECSTATE DID NOT DRAFT TALKING POINTS 1-10 AND WILL DENY KNOWLEDGE THEY EXIST 12.  REMIND ALL FOREIGN OFFICIALS THAT EXXON GASOLINE CONTAINS INGREDIENTS THAT HELP KEEP YOUR ENGINE RUNNING LONGER. TILLERSON (IF CABLE SENT BEFORE 0000Z 01152018)

A Connoisseur's Guide to White Men, courtesy of David Brooks

By A.J. Liebling
Meta-Content Generator

Another year and we're still talking about white male bloviators for The New York Times.  It's good to know that some things, unlike the American constitutional order, never change.

Today the Old Perfesser himself, David Brooks, takes on a searching examination of two kinds of white men: good and bad.  More specifically, the good kind of U Bum critic (himself) and the bad (Michael Wolff, who apparently wrote a book based on his reporting inside the White House of Grift).

What distinguishes the white bread from the chaff?  After slogging through the mansplaining, we haven't a clue:

 . . .the anti-Trump movement, of which I’m a proud member, seems to be getting dumber. It seems to be settling into a smug, fairy tale version of reality that filters out discordant information. More anti-Trumpers seem to be telling themselves a “Madness of King George” narrative: Trump is a semiliterate madman surrounded by sycophants who are morally, intellectually and psychologically inferior to people like us.

Not sure what facts he can adduce that undercut this conclusion, but OK.   It takes a couple more paragraphs for him to come to what passes for his point:  Michael Wolff bad!

We anti-Trumpers have our lowbrowism, too, mostly on late-night TV. But anti-Trump lowbrowism burst into full bloom with the Wolff book.

Let the World's Greatest Authority, David Brooks,
explain it all to you

It's bad enough that Stephen Colbert tears the Groper-in-Chief a new one every night, but now we have a journalist who wrote a book based upon a year of reporting that demonstrates the reality of the narrative the Old Perfesser was so contemptuous of.  What did Wolff do that was so terrible?  Did he make a bunch of stuff up?  Good white man David Brooks alleges he did but unlike Wolff he doesn't present any facts to buttress his case.  As we once said about Col. McCormack, Brooks cites no authority, being it.

We've read a bit here and there about Wolff's supposed disregard for the facts, and thus far as we understand exactly one person has disputed one quote attributed to him.  Whether we should believe Mr. Loose Lips remains to be seen.  And the lawyer for Wolff's publisher notes that U Bum's latest fulminating mouthpiece, not-80's-porn-star Charles Harder, cites no factual errors in his 11-page screed. 

Just in case the any particularly dim Times reader fails to get his point about the difference between good and bad white men, Brooks concludes with:

There’s a hierarchy of excellence in every sphere. There’s a huge difference between William F. Buckley and Sean Hannity, between the reporters at this newspaper and a rumor-spreader. 

William F. Buckley?  Who he?   And what was his excellence?  To learn about His Excellency, you need go no further than the exact same op-ed page, where  another Times columnist, not-a-white-man Michelle Goldberg, writing about the Likud dream of permanently disenfranchising the indigenous Palestinian population, said:

Israel’s apologists will be left mimicking the argument that William F. Buckley once made about the Jim Crow South. In 1957, he asked rhetorically whether the white South was entitled to prevail “politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically.” The “sobering answer,” he concluded, was yes, given the white community’s superior civilization.

That must have sounded more excellent to David Brooks than it does to us.  In fact, we seem to recall that Excellent Bill opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 based on the "superior civilization" that brought us George Wallace then and Roy Moore now.

Now that Michelle Goldberg has reminded us what a loathsome racist William F. Buckley was, we'd be inclined to put him and lying sack of s**t Sean Hannity on the same rung of the hierarchy of excellence.  And what about David Brooks?

Let's just say he's in a class by himself.

Our Darkest Hour

By Isaiah Thomas
Board of Editors

Around these parts we're bundling up and heading out to the movies to watch a stirring tale of resistance against overwhelming odds.  No, not the one with the light sabers; the one with Winston Churchill chomping on his cigar and inveighing against Nah-zis.

The Churchill film (Darkest Hour) recounts with reasonable accuracy the struggle of Winston Churchill and the British people in the dark days of late May 1940, when it appeared that the entire British Expeditionary Force might be trapped and captured by the Wehrmacht in northern Belgium, leaving Britain without any meaningful land defense against a potential German invasion.

Not pictured here: President U Bum surveys
damage in Puerto Rico

With the BEF fighting for its life toward the Dunkirk beaches, Churchill had to face a revolt in his own cabinet, led by Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax, né Murray Feigenbaum [Louise, please check – Copy Desk].  Halifax, unnerved by the collapse of the French Army and the scale of the defeat on the Continent, urged Churchill's War Cabinet to take up an offer by a stooge of Italian Fascist strongman Benito Mussolini to mediate a negotiated peace with Nazi Germany.

The odds against Britain were staggering and the forces arrayed against her were immense.  Yet Churchill refused to countenance a loser's peace and rallied his country to fight Hitler to the end.

Anyone surveying the wreckage of American institutions wrought since the last election and the installation of President U Bum could scarcely come to a conclusion other than that Churchill and the British were in better shape in May 1940 than we are now, even as we know that Britain's wartime ordeal had by then hardly begun.

Yet the British possessed strengths that the fragmented American Resistance could only hope for.  Churchill led what was truly a United Kingdom, if the contemporaneous accounts of British morale are to be believed.  The Brits understood what they were up against and mobilized all their resources to fight back.  They had a fleet.  They had an air force.   They had quasi-independent allies like Canada and Australia who fought by her side.  By June, they had an army.  And they had Franklin Roosevelt, a canny supporter held back only by the isolationism and stupidity of his own people.

Sound familiar?

Not pictured here: mass media protecting
corrupt President by smearing law enforcement

And although our adversary is every bit as destructive and dangerous as the one faced by Britain, we have by comparison so much less to fight it with.  Britain's enemy was on the Continent, with no obvious way to get across the Channel.  By contrast, our enemy is not only at the gates, it has occupied Washington, D.C. and both political branches.  It has besieged and possibly taken the Supreme Court and is slowly but surely subverting the remainder of the Article III judiciary.

While the British people were not fully informed of every scrap of grim news, in general they were getting a reasonable approximation of reality from mass media who pretty much saw the world as it was.  Although the BBC in the thirties had shamefully served the cause of appeasement by among other things barring Churchill from its airwaves, by 1940 it was out of the disinformation business.  The English-language services of the Nazi Deutsche Rundfunk were widely ridiculed.  Even Joseph Goebbels lacked the balls to pass off Lord Haw-Haw as “fair and balanced.”

When Winston Churchill, having told Parliament to prepare for “hard and heavy tidings,” vowed to fight on to final victory, no matter the odds, he was not greeted by an opposition party who questioned his nationality or sought to deflect attention from the crisis at hand by smearing Britain's law-enforcement and counter-espionage agencies.  Instead, they joined Churchill to fight what they understood correctly to be the common menace.

And Churchill, whatever his faults, did not regard His Majesty's Government as a source of financing for his private financial interests or free advertising for his busto golf clubs.  Nor was he subject to nobbling by foreign adversaries through bribery, blackmail, or flattery.

But, like Churchill's Britain, the American Resistance is not without resources.  It has access to generally accurate information.  It has financial means and some legal protection.  What it lacks thus far is the one indispensable requirement for victory that the British possessed in May 1940: the quickening realization of the people, in Mollie Panter-Downes's words, that they are fighting for their lives.

Happy New Year.