“Otis Mathis was a D-student in high school, went to Wayne State University in a program for the academically unqualified, sued for his degree because he couldn’t pass a basic English test, became a community organizer, and eventually was unanimously elected President of the School Board . . .”
Month: July 2010
Perversity of the Euro-Left:
‘Sexual Liberation’ for Children
From the German magazine Spiegel:
It has since faded into obscurity, but the members of the 1968 movement and their successors were caught up in a strange obsession about childhood sexuality. It is a chapter of the movement’s history which is never mentioned in the more glowing accounts of the era. On this issue, the veterans of the late ’60s student movement seem to have succumbed to acute amnesia; an analysis of this aspect of the student revolution would certainly be worthwhile. . . .
Read the whole thing, but be warned it’s some sick stuff. Perhaps the most interesting aspect is that, because of feminism, German left-wing journals dropped their advocacy of “progressive sexuality” with little girls in the early ’70s, whereas the Marxist boy-buggerers kept publishing until 1994.
Someone linked this article in a comment thread yesterday. I suppose they found it at Pat Dollard’s site.
Related: Pedophiles using Wikipedia to promote their perversion. (Via Van Helsing at Moonbattery.)
Does Not Caring About The Country Correlate With Thuggery?
by Smitty
If patriotism means caring about your country, then what does this CNSNews story tell us?
Conservatives are more than twice as likely as liberals to express very strong patriotism, according to a new USA Today/Gallup poll in which 48 percent of conservatives said they were “extremely patriotic,” but only 19 percent of liberals made that claim.
The liberal response takes on a more sinister tone when you consider the setup for ransacking that occurred in Congress Friday. Uncoverage points to a Human Events story by Connie Hair that should have all of us writing our Congresscritters. In my case, to scream: “House Democrats ‘Deem’ Faux $1.1 Trillion Budget ‘as Passed’”.
Key points from the House Republican Budget staff on the House Democrats’ deeming resolution:
- This is not a budget. The measure fails to meet the most basic, commonly understood objectives of any budget. It does not set congressional priorities; it does not align overall spending, tax, deficit, and debt levels; and it does nothing to address the runaway spending of Federal entitlement programs.
- It is not a ‘congressional budget resolution.’ The measure does not satisfy even the most basic criteria of a budget resolution as set forth in the Congressional Budget Act.
- It creates a deception of spending ‘restraint.’ While claiming restraint in discretionary spending, the resolution increases non-emergency spending by $30 billion over 2010, and includes a number of gimmicks that give a green light to higher spending.
- It continues relying on the flawed and over-sold pay-as-you-go [pay-go] procedure. Pay-go – which Democrats have used mainly to raise taxes, and have ignored when it was inconvenient – does nothing to reduce deficits or restrain spending growth in existing law.
- Outsourcing fiscal responsibilities. The measure is another hand-off by the Democratic Majority of Congress’s power of the purse – this time relying on the Fiscal Commission created by the President to do Congress’s job.
The Human Events link includes a URL for an 11 page .pdf from the Republican Caucus offering further details on the size, shape, color, and aroma of the loaf the Democrats have just delivered.
I don’t know what the policy equivalent of a full-on riot would be, but this seems like a predicate for pure, arbitrary ransacking of the public till. It seems like maybe the Democrats realize something about (a) their longevity or (b) that of the country with which they are less than forthcoming.
Fellow VA-8 residents are encouraged to check out this new Jim Moran on Demand business and see if the chap can stand and deliver on this outrage.
My Chance Meeting With Charles Bolden
by Smitty
This is one of those moments when you wish you kept a journal. It seemed that the tragic death of three Midshipmen in 1994 was the occasion for being in the Chapel of the Navy for a memorial service, and finding myself standing next to then-Colonel Bolden, the Dep. ‘Dant.
What I mostly remember was the astronoaut wings on his uniform:
In any case, that was 15+ years ago. He may have gone from literally out-of-this-world coolness to Mark 1, Mod 0 apparatchik, for all I know. Here he is, via PowerLine, where Paul seems concerned that the theraputic language in use may echo other policy confusion.
However, let’s note that this is Al frickin’ Jazeera here, and acquire some more data before pronouncing the man a complete squish.
I have no doubt that, if we want to pull our head out of the Socialist toilet and return to spacefaring, then Bolden is more than capable of leading that charge. Not a milquetoast, the fellow.
Democrat Stimulus Drum Corps
The Dow Jones Industrial Average is down more than 700 points since June 21, having lost more than 1,500 points (13.6%) from its late April peak at 11,205. The Dow closed Friday below 9,700 — a level not seen since early October 2009 — and talk of a “double-dip recession” is now far more common than when I discussed the possibility May 9 or again on June 1.
What to do about this? Robert Reich offers a familiar stew of his pet lefty schemes, and most liberals approach the double-dip problem in the same don’t-waste-a-crisis mode: “Hey, look! A good excuse for more deficit spending and economic regulation!”
Playing the devil’s advocate, Daniel Gross at Slate asks, “What’s so bad about deflation?” Which is to say, why not let the market work and take the slack out the economic sails, so that we can begin a real recovery based on a solid foundation?
“Unacceptable!” Matthew Yglesias screams. Yglesias has been maniacally beating the stimulus drums like Gene Krupa on meth.
Yglesias doesn’t understand economics, and he particularly doesn’t understand why the failure of Keynesian stimulus policies is so predictable.
The bursting of the housing bubble, which precipitated the October 2008 financial crisis, was the result of excessive private debt, people borrowing mortgage money they couldn’t afford to repay. The Keynesian “solution” is to increase public-sector debt via deficit spending intended to stimulate consumer demand. (This kind of illogic is why Nancy Pelosi thinks unemployment checks create jobs.)
What actually happens (what Keynesians can’t seem to grasp) is that deficit spending siphons capital out of the private sector, as bond sales soak up investor dollars that might otherwise have been invested in businesses, either as loans (corporate bonds) or stock purchases. You can’t make capitalism work without capital, and so private-sector job-creation fails to materialize — “unexpectedly,” as the MSM keeps saying, although it is only unexpected to people who didn’t pay attention to how Keynesian policies produced “stragflation” in the 1970s.
For a little more than a year, from March 2009 to April 2010, Obamanomics appeared to be working and the stock market almost doubled in value from its March 2009 low nearly 6,600. But that wasn’t really a recovery, it was a dead-cat bounce.
Now that the bounce is over, people are sobering up and recognizing that (a) Obamanomics hasn’t worked and (b) we are actually worse off as a nation than we would have been had we avoid all that “stimulus” spending. The FDIC has already closed 85 banks this year, and the worst of the commercial real-estate meltdown is still ahead of us.
All that Yglesias and the rest of the Democrat Stimulus Drum Corps care about is politics, using deficit spending to create the appearance of recovery, so as to limit their party’s mid-term losses. And they’re already preparing to blame Republicans for all that ails the country. Michael Laprarie at Wizbang:
Democrats can whine about “failed policies of the Bush Administration” until they are blue in the face, but nothing they say can disguise the dire economic straits that their own policies have directly led this country into.
Well, they’ll try to disguise it, and the MSM will be only too happy to assist. It’s just a damned shame that the Republicans don’t have a credible spokesman to call them to account for it.
Is The Left Fretting The Kagan Confirmation?
by Smitty
Update: See below, for Stanley Kutler playing a favorite old card.
Let’s review Mark Greenbaum at Salon, and see what our purported post-term-of-the-week overlords might be saying on closed JournoLists. Summary: the fret level doesn’t seem too elevated, but the article has some nice digs, in any case.
Members of Congress are rarely at a loss for ways to make themselves and their institution look foolish. But, as we were reminded last week, there is no more embarrassing spectacle than a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing for a Supreme Court nomination. If the three days of questioning that Elena Kagan endured proved anything, it’s that these sessions have outlived their usefulness.
OK, both the institution the advice-and-consent language, and, by inference, the filibuster are an unfair curb on tyranny. They are, at best, useful in a Republican administration only, apparently.
This is not a novel argument. Since 1987, when Robert Bork failed to gain confirmation in large part because he was too candid in expressing his views, nominees have become completely closed in discussing their opinions. After Bork, White House teams decided they could gain nothing from tapping individuals who might invite a hint of controversy. The result has been a stream of milquetoast, clam-mouthed nominees and, minus the Clarence Thomas saga, completely unmemorable hearings.
Constitutions don’t kill nominations; people like Ted Kennedy kill nominations. However, this appeal to removing safeguards from tyranny can be improved by appealy to blatantly unjust uses of confirmation hearings.
This week’s experience may have been the least noteworthy of all, as Kagan herself is the perfect representation of the emptiness of the current process. With absolutely no written or spoken record on seemingly any issue of significance, the shrewd careerist is the blankest of blank slates. The prevailing assumption was that little that would be gained by her hearings and, as it turned out, absolutely nothing that will affect her chances of confirmation was said. She will sail through the full Senate, something that was never really in doubt. As with most legislative matters these days, nearly every senator knew how he or she would vote on the nomination moments after it was announced.
Since the unjust use of a confirmation hearing against Robert Bork has meant that a useful Constitutional feature has been denigrated, we can now remove that feature. Call it the Gradual Scuttle Doctrine. Note the willingness to alter Constitutional procedure without amendment. Article 5 has been quite an impediment to Progress.
Consequently, neither side acquitted itself well during the hearings. Frustrated by the inevitability of Kagan’s approval, Republicans resorted to harsh questioning that evoked memories of Democrats’ treatment of John Roberts and Samuel Alito — two Republican nominees who the Democrats were powerless to derail. But the GOP’s tactics were more severe. The Judiciary Committee’s Republican members were actually reduced to shamelessly bashing civil rights pioneer Thurgood Marshall, whom Kagan clerked for, and focusing on Kagan’s position military recruitment on Harvard’s campus when she was the university law school dean. The ROTC issue, of course, had little connection to Kagan’s judicial temperament. It was a pathetic display.
This article can have a fig leaf of fairness by talking about ‘neither side acquitt[ing] itself well’. Then we lead into making Kagan’s nomination seem inevitable. Juxtapose her with some serious legal talent like Roberts and Alito. Declare one of the chief arguments against her confirmation ‘ha[ving] little connection’ to her judicial temperament. Grade the Republicans ‘pathetic’.
Sadly, Democrats were little better, throwing Kagan softball after softball, content to ease her through to a safe floor vote without pressing her on anything. The low point of the hearings may have come when Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota asked Kagan about her affinity for the characters in the vampire movie “Twilight.” Klobuchar’s cringe-inducing questioning was reminiscent of Joe Biden’s hectoring of Alito during his hearing in 2006, when Biden ranted against Alito’s alma mater, Princeton, inanely donning a baseball cap to make his point.
Attack a Democrat. Has she gaffed lately?
For her part, Kagan played the role she undoubtedly rehearsed with her White House handlers, pioneering innovative ways to say nothing by uttering something. Despite once writing that Supreme Court nominees should be candid in their Senate testimony, Kagan did precisely the opposite. Her cynical approach was a perfect fit for what these proceedings have become: pointless charades.
This is sublime! Blame the proceedings themselves for Kagan’s swan dive into the Potomac River of hypocrisy! Why should Elena Kagan, on the cusp of admission into an elect group charged with interpreting the Constitution, follow her own published opinion? All of that Joan of Harvard stuff is for kids. Given the opportunity to show some moxy, the first rule of political moxy is that you talk about political moxy, while showing none.
Naturally, the best thing to do would be to abolish all confirmation hearings and ask nominees to fill out simple written questionnaires. This actually happens already, before the hearings start. But alone, it would be more than sufficient, given that senators generally know how they will vote early on. This wouldn’t force nominees to be as candid as Bork, but frankly, there’s no way to push a nominee to answer difficult questions — especially when the nominees are brilliant lawyers who have made a career by fashioning evasive responses.
Asking the Senate not to showboat whenever possible, Mr. Greenbaum, would be like requiring Elena Kagan to show some political moxy. But this is a good distraction from the question: does Kagan merit appointment to SCOTUS?
Both parties could also agree that, barring extraordinary circumstances, all of a president’s nominees should be sent to the floor. This would expand on the famous 2005 deal carved out by the “Gang of 14,” which ended a long fight over a handful of blocked Bush appellate court nominees, acknowledging once and for all that with judicial nominations, elections have consequences.
So, we can admit en passant that the Democrats are the real choke point here. The question remains: should Kagan be approved? No. A broader question beckons: does this administration constitute ‘extraordinary circumstances’, under which none of the president’s nominees should be sent to the floor? I’ll go yes on that. I daresay the crisis administration is so odious that the Senate Republicans should just call a four month time out, until a more representative Congress can be sworn in.
Ultimately, this might be the biggest underlying issue. Both parties have come to use the confirmations process to stymie the other party’s nominees. This ignores the will of the voters and politicizes the judicial branch of government, which is meant to be free of partisanship. For most of the country’s history, judicial nominees were approved with little controversy. Democrats and Republicans should find a way to return to this arrangement, and could well start by dissolving the public nomination process.
Oh, here is a rich one, to declare the SCOTUS un-politicized and the Kagan nomination as representing the will of the voters. In propaganda mode, though, it is crucial to claim the opposite of any inconvenient fact.
Not that our senators will ever do this. There are few better ways for them to get the national exposure they crave than by sitting on the dais of an overflowing hearing room and playing to the cameras. More important, the judicial wars remain an important issue for the Republican base, and given the party’s rightward movement, elected GOP officials don’t want to give up an easy opportunity to connect with their base.
OK, admit that the notion of dispensing with Constitutional process was a feint to get a reader (I bit). Using confirmation hearings to slam Republicans and their base is an unexpected, elitist twist. We can be sure the Democrats would never, ever do something so crass, except for when they do, which is every time.
So even though last week’s hollow spectacle is behind us, another one just like it is already on the horizon.
Anyone who thinks defending the Constitution from the crypto-Marxists who have been slowly, methodically crushing it since Wilson is a ‘hollow spectacle’ merits a one-way ticket to Venezuela.
Overall, this piece doesn’t reveal a very high fear factor on the Left. Perhaps they’ve already shopped enough GOP support.
Update: Stanley Kutler comes through in a big way over at the Puffington Host, getting raaaaacism right out there in the lede:
Elena Kagan’s confirmation is likely if no other reason than the emptiness of the Republican case against here. Her hearing had, in her own well-chosen words, “an air of vacuity and farce.” Nevertheless, the Republicans scored electoral points and solidified their appeal to those whose hostility toward President Barack Obama is rooted in racial basis.
This was an interesting tangent, as well:
Kagan appeared with impeccable credentials, and with smarts and savvy for running essentially a seminar with the senators. Robert Bork foolishly tried to take the lecture senators as if he were in a classroom, but only succeeded in alienating them. Kagan not only demonstrated a learned and supple mind, she showed herself to be a very human, warm individual, with a sense of humor that provided a few spontaneous moments.
So, why the Republican hostility? Their not-so-subtle uses of the Marshall analogy amounted to stump speeches for the electorate back home. The senators well know their constituents’ hostility toward President Obama has powerful racial overtones that fuel the public anger so calculated for the evening television news. The Thurgood Marshall references amounted to a purposeful, well-orchestrated strategy to fire up the “base.”
I hope to meet Bork in person one day and ask if the narrative mixes cart and horse. I’m curious if he knew the handwriting was on the wall, that he was set to receive some serious character assassination, and didn’t just choose to go down in a blaze of glory.
VIDEO: 20lb Sledge ‘Right Wing Woman’
by Smitty
Zo delights with a Rule 5, social conservative, delightfully funky groove:
Go, Zo!
Charles Johnson Uses Twitter to Push ‘Racist’ Smear of Red State’s Josh Trevino
Joshua Trevino is a Texan, former Bush administration official and Republican political consultant. In 2004, he co-founded Red State along with Ben Domenech and Mike Krempasky.
A couple of days ago, Trevino was named among the “Top 25 Conservatives on Twitter.” And it was just about then that Trevino and his colleagues began kicking around a Twitter meme, “I’ve been blogging so long . . .” in which they recounted their memories of the medium’s early days. Two of Trevino’s contributions mentioned Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs:
As night follows day, Trevino’s mention of the LGF Grand Lizard provoked a predictable response:
It seems that no one may criticize Charles Johnson without incurring this kind of attack. Johnson’s Tweet linked a post he had written in April 2009:
The post Johnson Tweeted referred to an April 2009 article in the Washington Independent by David Weigel, recounting the “civil war” among anti-jihad bloggers that Johnson had instigated:
Johnson worries, in conversation and on his blog, that his old allies have been duped by far-right European political parties and have bought into wild attacks on the president that discredit their own causes.
“I don’t think there is an anti-jihadist movement anymore,” Johnson said. “It’s all a bunch of kooks. I’ve watched some people who I thought were reputable, and who I trusted, hook up with racists and Nazis. I see a lot of them promoting stories and causes that I think are completely nuts.” . . .
Johnson’s former allies can pinpoint the month, if not the moment, when he started to turn on them. In October 2007, some of the leading terrorism-focused conservative bloggers flew to Belgium for a Counterjihad Summit sponsored in part by the Center for Vigilant Freedom . . . an outgrowth of the LGF-inspired blog Gates of Vienna.
“It was the best conference I ever went to,” remembered Geller. But the summit included members of Vlaams Belang, a controversial Belgian political party that criticizes Islam and Shariah law . . . Johnson went to work exposing this, and the attendees reeled from the negative attention.
“He chose to portray the Brussels Conference as evil and he unconscionably slandered the people who attended,” said Dymphna, one of the editors of Gates of Vienna. Baron Bodissey, the other site editor (both editors use pen names), worries that Johnson “did serious damage to the American blogosphere’s view of European nationalists who oppose the EU . . .”
“Not only that,” said Bodissey, “he made it harder for certain American anti-jihad groups to raise funds if they failed to repudiate his designated ‘fascist-enablers’ like us.”
This article by Weigel — written in April 2009, I remind you — was the first journalistic recounting of Johnson’s estrangement from his former allies and admirers. And when Trevino responded to it (in a post that Trevino seems subsequently to have deleted), he said this:
Charles Johnson’s disenchantment with a movement he did much to create is more likely a function of his contrary nature than his active conscience, but it would be ungracious to pry overmuch. The sad truth is that the self-proclaimed anti-jihadists, as a group, have done a great deal to discredit themselves in the past decade.
Note that second sentence, which Johnson omitted when quoting Trevino at LGF. What Trevino appears to be saying is that he felt Johnson (and Johnson’s anti-jihad comrades) were often too extreme in their rhetoric even before Johnson and LGF turned on Geller, et al. And, as Weigel noted in a follow-up post, Johnson’s qualms about Belgian nationalism hadn’t prevented him from lamenting the banning of Vlaams Blok in November 2004:
While it’s hard to approve of every one of Vlaams Blok’s policies, there’s also no denying that this is very much a victory for European Islamic supremacist groups such as the openly radical, terror-supporting Arab-European League — because almost no one else opposes them.
In November 2004, then, Johnson seemed to “get” that far-right groups like Vlams Blok (a precursor to Vlaams Belang) were quite nearly the only active opponents of the Islamicization of Europe. A year later, in November 2005, when this problem was dramatized by Muslim riots in France, Michelle Malkin linked both LGF and Brussels Journal — the latter of which Charles Johnson, in attacking Josh Trevino, has since declared to be a “racist Website” run by an ally of “neofascists.”
Well, what were Josh Trevino’s contributions to Brussels Journal? Was he fomenting anti-Arab racism or advocating some sort of Blut und Boden nationalism? Not in the least. His first contribution, in February 2006, was a thoughtful consideration of America’s interest in the fate of Europe. His last article, in April 2009, was a rather highbrow analysis of wartime information strategies. In between, he wrote about multiculturalism, about Christianity, about the Israeli campaign against Hezbollah in Lebanon, about the Pope’s visit to Istanbul, about the election of Obama, etc.
Go through the entirety of Trevino’s Brussels Journal archives and see if you find anything that could fairly be described as “racist.” You won’t.
Whatever the errors of Paul Belien and Brussels Journal (which I haven’t bothered to research), Trevino has not committed them, so that Charles Johnson’s “racist” smear is obviously just that — a cheap guilt-by-association smear. And this is of a piece with Johnson’s recent modus operandi: Declare that Person X or Group Y or Publication Z is “fascist” or “ultra-nationalist” or whatever, and then proceed in connect-the-dots fashion, demanding that others denounce and repudiate the target, or else become tainted by association as an “enabler” or “apologist” for the target.
Johnson’s demand for endless purges against his erstwhile allies very much resembles Josef Stalin during the Moscow “show trials” of the 1930s, in which other Soviet leaders were mercilessly liquidated. In his famous 1956 recounting of Stalin’s crimes, Nikita Kruschev made reference to a 1934 meeting of Communist Party leaders when he said:
It was determined that of the 139 members and candidates of the party’s Central Committee who were elected at the Seventeenth Congress, 98 persons, i.e., 70 percent, were arrested and shot (mostly in 1937-38) . . .
Charles Johnson’s mad hunt for “racists,” which now numbers Joshua Trevino among its targets, is akin to Stalin’s accusations that his Communist comrades were “Trotskyites,” “deviationists” and “saboteurs.”
Students of history will recall that, scarcely a year after these show trials ended, Stalin entered into a treaty with Hitler. Immediately upon the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, those American communists who had loudly repeated Stalin’s anti-fascist slogans during the Popular Front years suddenly fell silent about fascism and began denouncing England and her allies as “warmongers.”
This first communist-led “peace” movement lasted 21 months, until Hitler invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941. American communists instantly switched to denouncing pacifists and isolationists (who had been their allies just days before) as de facto allies of Hitler, if not indeed Nazi sympathizers.
It was the peregrinations of the Communist Party USA and its allies in that era — first, the “Popular Front” solidarity against fascism, then the advocacy of “peace” while the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was in effect, and then pro-war militancy after the Soviet Union was invaded — which exposed CPUSA as a subversive tool of Soviet power, rather than an independent political movement.
We return, then, to Trevino’s April 2009 statement that “self-proclaimed anti-jihadists, as a group, have done a great deal to discredit themselves in the past decade.” Be that as it may, we can at least say that some anti-jihadists have been steadfast and sincere in their opposition to Islamicization and dhimmitude.
By contrast, his former colleagues now recognize Charles Johnson as a self-aggrandizing sociopath who attempted to make himself the Stalin of anti-jihadism, dictating a “party line” to which he demanded that others adhere or else be repudiated. I described how I became aware of Johnson’s jihad against Pamela Geller in an e-mail last week to the Blogmocracy:
It was the day after the 2008 election and Charles Johnson decided that the way to mark the occasion was to lash out at his idee fixe. I called him on it:
http://rsmccain.blogspot.com/2008/11/pam-geller-nazi.html“Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs has apparently decided that the problem with the conservative movement is that it needs more purges, and Pam Geller at Atlas Shrugs seems to be his designated scapegoat. . . . Pam is a good person and I would suggest that this guilt-by-association ‘urge to purge’ is antithetical to the best interests of conservatism. You can’t build a movement by the process of subtraction.”
Given everything that conservatives had to worry about on Nov. 5, 2008, how did Geller’s association with Belgian nationalists rate such attention?
This is the point, you see: Amid all the woes that afflicted conservatism in November 2008, Johnson made his year-old feud with Geller the top priority. As I also explained to the Blogmocracy:
Johnson can’t tell the difference between his pet peeves and genuine dangers, and people who don’t share his pet peeves are suspected of being in league with the enemy.
I’ve studied Johnson’s modus operandi and, what’s more, I know the type: People who seek to impress others by a pretended expertise, and who become enraged when it is pointed out that they don’t actually know what they’re talking about.
Read the whole thing. Beware of those who exhibit the “urge to purge,” who are furiously intolerant of disagreement and error, who are so insistent on the infallibility of their own judgment as to demand that anyone who criticizes them must be condemned and ostracized. It is more dangerous to be such a person’s friend than to be their enemy because they will eventually turn their paranoid rage upon their closest allies.
At the time of his death in 1953, Stalin was persecuting suspects accused of complicity in the (wholly imaginary) “doctors plot,” a purge that threatened to implicate even Kruschev, Beria, Malenkov and Molotov. The targets of Stalin’s “doctors plot” purge were mainly Jews.
Sic semper hoc.
UPDATE: Apologies for further extending a long post, but Trevino sends along a link to the post that inspired Johnson’s rage. The weird part? Trevino actually criticized Geller, and wrote:
As a rule of thumb, the policy preferences of the anti-jihadists range from thoughtless support of neoconservatism at best, to strange and unworkable schemes of Muslim exclusion at worst.
True to form, however, rather than seeing in Trevino a potential ally, the narcissistic Johnson only cared that he had been criticized, evidently decided that Trevino was therefore an enemy, and attacked.