Monthly Archives: February 2016

Christopher Morris Picked Fight with Secret Service, Lost

Christopher Morris, who works for Time Magazine, appears to have attacked a secret service agent. At some point Morris told the agent, “F*ck you”. This is the result:

Morris might have been wanting a fight with a mere bodyguard, which he could then spin in his favour.

H/T: Zerohedge

Statistics: Trump Supporters Aren’t Racists

USA Today author David Mastio is having fun with statistics. He writes that while in a very small New York Times survey (2000 people), 20% of Trump supporters disapprove of Lincoln’s freeing the slaves, similarly shocking results can be pulled from the survey.

1. Clinton and Sanders supporters are twice as racist as Rubio supporters.

2. 15% of American Hispanics believe the Emancipation Proclamation was a bad idea while a quarter of Hispanics are not sure.

3. Only 71% of American blacks approve of Lincoln’s freeing the slaves while 5% disapprove and 24% aren’t sure.

And Mastio pulls additionally shocking figures.

As I argued elsewhere at the time, to troll an annoying pollster, many are going to give extreme answers. This is especially true of Trump supporters due to the alpha culture that has arisen around the tough talking businessman.

As for David Duke’s “endorsement” of Trump, it’s no surprise considering how Trump is strong on immigration and at war with political correctness. Trump has also stated that black Americans would benefit the most from his presidency, would love Trump more than they do Obama after 4 years.

The only way Trump can be defeated in a general election is if the media creates a case using such fabricated “evidence” that Trump is racist, showing its material to voters who might otherwise support Trump.

One of the wonderful things about Trump’s candidacy is it has the potential to unite America, healing the ethnic partisan divide. I believe American citizens share greater political interest with each other than they do with moneyed special interests. Sanders will not defeat Clinton, so the choice will be between Trump and Clinton. Can we unite, or will America be divided-and-conquered?

Senator Jeff Sessions Will Endorse Trump!!

SEN. SESSIONS TO ENDORSE TRUMP
Sun Feb 28 2016 16:36:22 ET

The conservative soul of the US Senate, Jeff Sessions, will endorse Trump this evening at a Huntsville, Alabama rally…

This news will be delivered as a suprise to all 25k Alabamians in attendance at the Trump rally and all participating news media….

Source: Drudge

This is *huge*.

Trump answered The Sessions Test, previously.

Some other material:

Ralph Nader talks about Trump and Sanders here, mostly Sanders:

[Trump is] shaking up the system, which is good, because some things will fall out well, some things may not.

Putin seems willing to work with Trump, which would be outstanding for foreign relations:

He is a bright and talented person without any doubt.

Pat Buchanan praises Trump on trade here:

Last year, China ran up the largest trade surplus in history, at our expense, $365 billion. We exported $116 billion in goods to China. China exported $482 billion worth of goods to us.

America is on a path of national decline because, while we have been looking out for what is best for the “global economy,” our rivals have been looking out for what is best for their own nations.

Edward Snowden Tweets for Trump

What’s so great about this is Snowden disagrees with Trump over the iPhone controversy, likely other things, yet still tweets the above.

This sums up Kasich’s appeal:

Stephen Miller: Marco Rubio Wants to End Existence of USA

Stephen Miller, who is on loan to Trump from Senator Sessions, said the following:

If you’re concerned at all about the Constitution, if you’re concerned about the arrival of foreign workers, the idea that you would enmesh the United States permanently in a trans-national union that hands over sovereign U.S. power to foreign countries, dictating labor, environmental, regulation, trade, commercial policy, then clearly the Constitution is not as important to you as you suggest. That was a defining vote…

Mass immigration, open borders, amnesty, TPP [Trans-Pacific Trade partnership] and even more globalist trade deals, and the destruction of U.S. sovereignty.

Understand, everyone listening today: There is a point of no return. It is not far away. It is right in front of you. And if you cross it, there is no going back.

Marco Rubio’s career has been a career of deception for the singular purpose of advancing his own ambition and financial standing and campaign fundraising in order to put him in a position to end forever the existence of the United States as a country with sovereign, protected, secure, defined, certain boundaries.

In Florida, Mr. Rubio killed a bill to block sanctuary cities. How many Floridians today have been wounded or maimed or lost a loved one because Marco Rubio didn’t fight to help the bill to stop sanctuary cities? Who is their voice?

Marco Rubio pushed to give in-state tuition to illegal aliens.

And it continues. The entire thing is well worth reading. TPP is a terrifying proposal.

 

Recent Trump endorsements

Former Arizona Republican Governor Jan Brewer:

This may be our last chance to ensure our children grow up in a country with borders, and with a government that protects its own people. This is our chance – Donald Trump is our chance – to save this country and Make America Great Again

Maine Governor Paul LePage:

Here in Maine, we have seen firsthand the burdens imposed by politicians who allow illegal immigrants to take advantage of our hardworking taxpayers. Mr. Trump is the only candidate talking about reducing these burdens and helping Americans first

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie:

There is no one who is better prepared to provide America with the strong leadership that it needs.

US Rep. Chris Collins:

Donald Trump has clearly demonstrated that he has both the guts and the fortitude to return our nation’s jobs stolen by China, take on our enemies like ISIS, Iran, North Korea and Russia, and, most importantly, reestablish the opportunity for our children and grandchildren to attain the American Dream

US Rep. Duncan Hunter (see previous link):

I don’t think Trump wants my endorsement. And that’s one reason why I like him. I’ve liked Trump since the beginning. I think you may have some more Trump supporters in Congress. They just have to come out of the closest, so to speak.

In 2008, Duncan Hunter’s father ran for president, losing to John McCain in the primary. Hunter would have made an excellent president, could have beaten Obama.

National Front (France) Founder Jean-Marie Le Pen:

If I were American, I’d vote Donald Trump… but God bless him!

John O’Sullivan Says Trump IS OK

John O’Sullivan writes in the National Review:

​To give a further paradoxical twist to the argument, the above immigration policy would tighten the labor market and, if sustained long enough, might even foster the prosperous middle class needed for such policies as the privatization of Social Security. For one of the internal contradictions of Kemp-style ideological conservatism was the attempt to combine mass immigration with the scaling back of entitlement programs: Keeping wages down through immigrant competition is incompatible with moving away from state welfare entitlements to market provision: Not many people would be able to save enough. More widely, mass immigration builds up a large new constituency for state welfare programs of every kind. ​As a New York Democrat once remarked, the Republicans have a choice: They can either change their policy on immigration or their policies on everything else. Trump stumbled on that insight earlier this year; it may have transformed American politics forever. Or not.

Haven’t critics been arguing this for years?

The GOP has pursued the interests of donors at the expense of the party. The strategy has seemed to be to bankrupt the US, forcing it to accept spending cuts while moving the US polity into a more global organisation after normalising wages among global partners. Obviously, most Americans reject this path, if given a choice.

While the US might now be on an inevitable course to bankruptcy, it is best to grow domestic investment, reduce unskilled immigration so that the coming “reset” isn’t so harsh as it otherwise would be. Ideally, a reset would be avoided altogether of course.

The advantage of so much present-day war spending is the US has an experienced military at the ready, but there’s no one to fight (none of the wars have been necessary). Foreign spending would be better directed domestically (eg. infrastructure) and on things like research and space exploration, or simply on balancing the budget. Additionally, Trump has mentioned the Federal Reserve Bank, could encourage future domestic investment if tackling that beast (ending low interest rates).

The US is divided, not only ethnically but by age. The elderly, mostly white, want social security and medicare, especially since they’ve paid into the Ponzi schemes for years. Younger Americans, who are less white, are more inclined to want free education (among other things), less inclined to support social security and medicare (though they do like Obamacare, currently). Additionally, around half of Americans pay almost no income tax. If the middle class and tax base aren’t expanded, we’re going to see a nasty future battle over government spending.

Trump has the potential to overcome such divides, uniting American citizens behind a pro-American platform, athwart many of the policies O’Sullivan’s “conservatives” would seem to support. Hopefully Trump can achieve the impossible: preserve American sovereignty, reduce the wealth gap, balance the budget, and more generally unify America. Pro-American policies (e.g. trade deals) are largely common sense, but it will be a struggle for Trump to pass them through Congress. Additionally, Trump is expected to spend money he doesn’t have, and Trump’s long-term focus could paint him badly in the near-term. Americans seem to prefer can-kickers and bubble-blowers over bubble-bursters.

Trump Ties Cruz in Texas Poll

Two noteworthy polls from Real Clear Politics:

TEGNA/SurveyUSA: 32 Cruz, 32 Trump, 17 RubioCthulhu, 6 Kasich, 5 Carson
Emerson: 29 Cruz, 28 Trump, 25 RubioCthulhu, 9 Kasich, 4 Carson

One of Cruz’s primary arguments seems to be that he would appoint good justices. However, Cruz supported Justice Roberts, and Roberts was crucial in upholding Obamacare, twice.

None of Rubio’s supporters are able to name even one accomplishment, even now. And Rubio is running opposite of his own record. Kasich should be the establishment’s pick, not Rubio. Rubio is joke.

Trump is dominating in… most every state other than Texas. The economic downturn should be positive for Trump in Texas. Arkansas could go Cruz; Utah & Minnesota for Rubio. I wish Carson would drop out to endorse Trump.

When Libertarians Attack!

The enemy of liberty has been found. Now it’s only a matter of exposing the monster for what it is, and it shall die from humiliation.

That monster is — conservatism.

It seems conservatism is an ideology, like communism or Nazism, that demands a powerful, centralized government, a police state, regulation over every aspect of an individual’s life, and a militaristic foreign policy.

Or so says libertarian author and blogger Tom Mullen. His book Where Do Conservatives and Liberals Come From? claims to expose conservatism as the ugly and vicious love-child of those ancient apologists for despots, Thomas Hobbes and Edmund Burke.

Wait, what? Edmund Burke?

It takes only a cursory look at Mullen’s assertions to see just how sloppy and poorly researched they are. In doing so, I will let conservatives define conservatives, rather than libertarians. Seems only fair.

First, let’s consider how ludicrous it is to claim conservatism was co-founded by Thomas Hobbes and Edmund Burke. In fact, Hobbes belonged to a camp of political science that was directly opposed to Burke’s. Hobbes was a rationalist philosopher. Rationalists, as Michael Spicer explains in The Founders, The Constitution, and Public Administration: A Conflict in World Views, view human reason as sovereign. Reason, say the rationalists, is the ultimate authority on how humans should conduct themselves and organize society. Rationalists believe man can perfect himself and create utopia on earth. Because reason is the same everywhere, its principles apply to all peoples. Spicer observes that “rationalists distrust ideas derived from customs and traditions,” and therefore customs and traditions “are seen as impediments to obtaining true knowledge and must be swept aside.”

That’s why rationalist philosophers look to violence, whether by revolution or state-sanctioned force, to sweep out those musty old traditions that impede their programs.

Edmund Burke, on the other hand, was an anti-rationalist. As Spicer explains in his book, anti-rationalists do not believe human nature can be perfected. Instead, anti-rationalists “see the world, particularly the world of human affairs, as simply too complex and hence too unpredictable for any one mind, however wise, to comprehend and control.” For that reason, anti-rationalist philosophers look to established customs, traditions, and institutions as the most reliable guides to human conduct.

I cannot improve on this summary of Burke’s thought from the Edmund Burke Institute:

Burke is commonly regarded as the founder of modern conservatism. In his speeches and writings, he articulated the concept of an organic society: a social order that is sacred, natural, historical and traditional. He believed that social change was best achieved when eschewing abstract thought divorced from experience; instead, he favored renewal of the polity in harmony with a regard for individual liberty, respect for the accumulated wisdom within existing institutions and a concern for the greater good of the community. His political theory can best be summarized by his most famous phrase: “Society is a contract between the past, the present and those yet unborn.”

Traditional, organic society, then, is the foundation of order. Russell Kirk argued that traditional society is the only — the ONLY — source of our rules for mutual interaction — in other words, our rights:

Traditions are not abstractions; they are particular beliefs and customs closely related to private life and faith. The American Republic has its traditions, and so has the Cambodian Kingdom; but traditions are not created by political authority, and ought not to be debased into party slogans.

Only for the past century and a half has the word “tradition” been employed to signify “ancient customs” or “established habits of life in society.” Edmund Burke, for instance, writing in the last years of the eighteenth century, used the word “prescription” to convey these meanings, rather than the word “tradition.”

When we speak of tradition in America, then, generally we mean prescriptive social habits, prejudices, customs, and political usages which most people accept with little question, as an intellectual legacy from their ancestors.

The stable of rationalist philosophers includes Jean-Jacques Rousseau, John Dewey, and Irving Kristol. Rationalists believe in the sovereign individual, whose chief concern is economic, and from that assumption, they derive their advocacy of the unitary, consolidated state; open borders; economic globalization; and the eradication of all traditional restraints on individual choice.

Among the notable anti-rationalists are David Hume, Adam Smith, and Joseph de Maistre. Anti-rationalists believe in the social nature of man, whose chief concern is the preservation and well-being of one’s culture, and from that foundation, they argue for small, culturally based political units; mediating institutions, such as families, churches, and voluntary associations to shelter and nurture the isolated individual; border security to insure demographic continuity; economic nationalism to protect jobs; and respect for traditional morality, which strengthens families and communities.

Mullen’s sloppiness is most apparent — and grating — in his conflation of neoconservatives and conservatives. Neoconservatives, despite their misleading name, are rationalists who view America as a “creedal nation” rather than a nation founded on Western traditions. Neocons base their ideology on Trotsky’s strategy of the “permanent revolution,” which called for supporting socialism in other countries to protect socialism in the USSR. So when Neocon handpuppet George W. Bush launched his US-led “global democratic revolution” beginning with Iraq, he argued that exporting democracy would help protect democracy in the US. When real conservatives, such as Pat Buchanan, Charley Reese, and Sam Francis aired their objections to Bush’s crusade, National Review’s David Frum denounced them as “unpatriotic conservatives.” Nevertheless, Mullen equates “militarism” as a defining conservative value.

There’s also an amusing aspect of Mullen’s intellectual confusion. On the basis of a few quotes, Mullen claims Edmund Burke fundamentally agreed with Thomas Hobbes, despite Burke’s radically different politics. While Burke believed in an organic society, Hobbes argued that man is not a social animal. Hobbes even went so far as to claim that society could not exist without a powerful government. The foundation of conservatism is that culture precedes government. Despite this breathtaking contradiction, Mullen frequently (obsessively?) uses Hobbes to discredit conservatism. Yet, Mullen applauds John Locke as one of the good guys, despite Locke’s frequent citation of Hobbes and partial agreement with him.

Why is this important? If we are to defend liberty, we have to understand where it came from, how it can be preserved, and what threatens it. Today we are faced with an out-of-control and self-serving central government that is busily importing a compliant Third-World population. Libertarians such as Mullen claim to defend liberty, but vocally support open borders and economic globalism, the same double-edged sword the ruling elite wields against us, its subjects. Without a Western majority, we cannot hope to preserve Western standards of behavior and governance.

The Rooster Ain’t Gonna Die

4497 American soldiers have died in Iraq since 3/19/03. Over 32K wounded.

Donald Trump is not only tough like The Rooster; he doesn’t want to send American soldiers into battle needlessly. Trump is willing to work with Assad & Russia to defeat ISIS, then exit. It is the foreign policy America needs.

America Is in a Proxy War with Itself in Syria: Kurds vs. “moderate” Sunni.

Nevada votes today, and there’s no Microsoft app to help Cruz. Trump should win.

Update: Dr. Paul Craig Roberts has a “new” (I just heard of it) book out, The Neoconservative Threat to World Order: Washington’s Perilous War for Hegemony. Apparently it was published October of last year.