Saturday, October 16, 2021
HomePatriot DispatchesIn Which Charles "C.W." Cooke Enlists in the War On Men -...

In Which Charles “C.W.” Cooke Enlists in the War On Men – *UPDATED*

    *Update below

Young Guns

Remember the “Young Guns”? Yes, indeed – Eric Cantor and that group who were going to ride in and save the day for “limited government”? That worked out well, didn’t it? Well, there’s another posse riding around stirring up dust and giving us the what for on prescriptions for our well-being and future happiness. It consists of people like Erick Erickson, Ben Domenech, some really hip talking faces over at Fox News, and of course the nimble dudes at National Review. They are male and female, but their common thread is they are thirty-to-forty-somethings who just can’t wait to bring conservatism into the 21st Century. We told on the up-and coming Ben Domenech (he’s been on Gutfeld, as has Charlie Cooke, and Fox News Sunday lately) here. To these types, extremism in the defense of liberty is a vice.

Cooke’s latest output is a nod to Hillary Clinton and all the progressives who are doing the stealth gun confiscation thing by setting up straw men (in this case domineering spouses or dating partners) as reasons why we probably need to vastly expand the BATF and further politicize the Department of Justice.

“Buried amid the hyperbole and nonsense that stains Hillary Clinton’s newest gun-control plan are a couple of rather good ideas. The first: To expand the definition of “domestic abuse” so that guilty men do not fall through the cracks. “While federal law generally prohibits domestic abusers from purchasing or possessing guns,” Clinton notes correctly, “this protection does not apply to people in dating relationships or convicted stalkers.”

“Expand the definition of domestic abuse.” Why yes, Charlie, Hilly’s right as rain, isn’t she? Let’s see from, we could expand the definition of domestic abuse to include when a man tells his wife her chicken casserole was a bit too undercooked, or if he gives her a dirty look when she overdraws the checking account. Let’s just progressively expand our horizon of definitions, till we eliminate a fairly large segment of the population from consideration by the Gun Gods of the Federal Government. You were probably just all gaga when the feminazis decided to “expand the definition of sexual assault” on college campuses, weren’t you? Did you wet yourself when the Supreme Court “expanded the definition” of marriage?

The second item wherein Cooke thinks Hillary’s got the ticket is this:

The United States, Clinton submits, should make it clear that people who are “involuntarily committed to outpatient treatment . . . are prohibited from buying guns.”

Speaking of expanded definitions, what, we wonder, is the scope of being “involuntarily committed to ‘outpatient’ treatment”? Back in the time when definitions weren’t “expanded”, being committed meant, well, being committed. You went to the looney bin. So since we’re playing fast and loose with the possibilities these days, does ‘committed to outpatient treatment’ include a judge ordering a fellow to go to ….counseling? Perhaps for making rude comments about his wife’s spaghetti? Perhaps a guy who takes his gal out on a really crappy date needs to be….an outpatient? Here’s the deal, Cooke, something you and your fellows, in your finite wisdom, haven’t learned yet: When you open the doors for the Statists…THEY WALK THROUGH THEM.

Provided. Provided, says Charles as he cozies up to these really good initiatives on Hilly’s part, (which of course come straight out of the LeftWing think tank command centers) that the right to due process be honored ……sufficiently:


“Provided that they were accompanied by sufficient due-process protections, I could get on board with both of these proposals.”


Well, of course! Some reasonable facsimile of “due process” can always be cooked up to satisfy the skeptics! Why, we have been treated to the process of federal judges all over the country, including the Highly Mighty Supreme Nine (well five, at least) producing reasonable facsimile’s of “law”, so kangaroo courts should really be no problem. Wonder what would ‘suffice’ for Cooke? A Panel of feminazis at Dartmouth convened to adjudicate microaggressions? That’s trending nowadays, you know, in the great crusade against “sexual assault” and other social offenses whose definitions are currently being expanded on college campuses.

To be sure, Cooke goes on down in the piece to establish his bona fides as a stout proponent of gun rights, such as when he goes to great pains to reassure us that he knows semi-automatic rifles aren’t ‘assault weapons’, and that ‘ha ha ha, Hilly, there is no such thing as a gun show loophole.’ Terrific. Wonder how many people read that far down in the article, or if it really even matters in the quest to be oh-so-fair-and-balanced these days. The damage was done when Cooke accepted the Left’s premise at the outset that there is some kind of scourge of way-too-manly men out there committing acts of domestic violence, and that there is probably something mentally deficient in them that makes them want to get guns and kill people, and thus we must, in the spirit of collegiality like that shown by our elected representatives after the Gabby Giffords incident, come together and…….pass more gun laws.

Fellow patriots, please be attuned to what is going on in the culture wars. While we relics are occasionally thrown a bone of  righteous indignation, as in the Kim Davis story or when a rogue governor or legislature or county sheriff says ‘federal input isn’t welcome in my jurisdiction,’ the trend, as exemplified by the Young Guns, whether inside the beltway or inside the New Age Media Complex is to… trendy. And the trend is to accept premises, be they anecdotal incidents, heartbreaking tales of personal injury or just “We have to transition into the 21st Century, because, like, globally, and stuff”.  There are a lot of Young ….uns….. out there calling themselves “conservative” in order to secure an audience, draw a paycheck and socialize with their peers.  But, gosh, aren’t they just so much more hip than those Lefties out there in the trenches?





These types have been on the scene for some time now, but it seems the “Trump” phenomenon has brought them more and more….out of the closet, shall we say. Their disdain for ordinary people, the simple, the simplistic and the everyday Joe and Josephine Six Pack is becoming more and more apparent. Oh, there are raw meat issues where they can on occasion call up a good sermon, as in the pro-life area, or tax policy, or “oh gosh we ALL just want to keep our doctors ’cause we like them”, don’t we?” But when the rubber meets the road, do you ever, ever get a sense that these self-described conservative gospel spreaders believe the wording of the Constitution is set in stone and not to be trifled with? That the reserved and delegated and separated powers are to be maintained no matter how many anecdotes are cited wherein a guy gets honked off because his potatoes are too soggy or he hasn’t gotten an admiring glance lately and goes on a mass-murdering spree? That the words “health” (mental or otherwise), education, Child care, “families”, “marriage”, “bike trails”, “the “environment” and so many more are actually NOT found in the Constitution?

No, you don’t. What you come away with after following the output of these people for a while is that their sense of ‘entitlement”, of being the trend setters and opinion leaders and Guardians of the 21st Century Galaxy is every bit a part of their makeup and their modus operandi as is that which is exhibited by their New Left counterparts. It is the Ruling Class ethos that Codevilla wrote about. And that is an equal opportunity safe zone for both the Neo-liberal and the Newly- minted conservative headliners to operate out of these days.

What is the difference (no hair-splitting allowed) between a “conservative” politico constantly harping on the need for Washington to “do something” about this, that or the other social ill (an ill invariably proposed by the Left ), what is the difference between that person and a Statist? If the State, in it’s wisdom, is to see to every hook and crook and nook and nuance of our lives, then the State must have absolute power, absolute authority. That is Statism. And no, a Congress passing laws in pursuit of just such a madman’s errand doesn’t make it a Constituional Republic. It makes it a sham of a Constitutional Republic, and not a federal system with delegated, reserved and separated powers, with a sovereign people as was originally intended. Sorry, is original intent a no-no in this, the New Era, the 21st Century?  Don’t even think of mentioning strict constructionism.

The Young Guns – Doing the work the Left doesn’t have to do anymore.

Obama and aides
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<“Can you believe this? Our work here is done!”>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

*UPDATE* – 10/9/2015:
If you need more food for thought on the thought process of the Charlie Cooke variety, his effort today at NRO should be a stomach full.

“If the polls are to be believed, this reluctance is in part the product of a lack of trust in the federal government; in part the result of a belief that gun laws don’t actually work; and in part the result of harsh demarcation lines that have been draw in the broader culture wars. If the White House wants to overcome the intransigence, it will have to spend some capital.”

The reluctance he speaks of is on the part of a significant number of Americans to sign on to the gun control push and the indications Obama is planning “executive action” in that direction. The mindbending part is that Cooke, the Englishman and Oxford grad (and this is why multiculturalism ain’t all it’s cracked up to be, folks) attributes low poll numbers for support of gun control NOT on Americans’ belief and reverence for the Second Amendment, or their desire to protect themselves, but “Gosh darn it, they just don’t trust the government enough, and they haven’t yet been convinced that gun control will work. Gosh darn it.”
And then he coyly suggests Obama spend some political capital to overcome the dratted “intransigence”. Why, sure! That’s it! If we could get some tradeoffs and get some really good assurances that this whole “turn over your guns , it’s the right thing to do” campaign would save, gee, even one or two lives out of our population of 320 million, we probably wouldn’t be so doggone intransigent! Yeah….that’s it.

Once more for emphasis folks: This isn’t the New York Times, Huffington Post, or Salon, or Mother Jones. This is old Bill Buckley’s creation. We just hope that this kind of “conservatism” is not shared by all those “intransigents” out there, and that patriotism and enlightened self-interest is actually behind that intransigence, and that they keep right on not trusting their government.
Read more at:


Poor. No advanced degrees. Unorganized. Feeble. Disjointed. Random. Past it. .... Intrigued, Interested, Patriotic and Lucky.


Leave a Reply


  1. Great job, Bob. But the stuff about Hills may be moot, since Obama again is threatening to EO in his version of “gun control” IF! IF! “congress doesn’t act.”

    I tweeted out HRC saying she would EO in gun control if elected and was lambasted by a conservative woman who asked me if I had taken American History because, well, “she can’t do that. How dare you tweet that stuff. We have a Constitution for heaven’s sake.”

    The woman has obviously been living in a cave for 7 years.

  1. Great job, Bob. But the stuff about Hills may be moot, since Obama again is threatening to EO in his version of “gun control” IF! IF! “congress doesn’t act.”

    I tweeted out HRC saying she would EO in gun control if elected and was lambasted by a conservative woman who asked me if I had taken American History because, well, “she can’t do that. How dare you tweet that stuff. We have a Constitution for heaven’s sake.”

    The woman has obviously been living in a cave for 7 years.

Must Read