America Next

Governor Bobby Jindal & Congressman Bill Flores have teamed up to deliver what I have waited for for a long time now. A responsible, common sense, aggressive economic strategy to lift Americans up, lessen our countries dependence on foreign oil, and solidify our economic prominence, which in turn strengthens our overall standing and influence in the world. Not too mention, this strategy could very well stave us off from bankruptcy and/or loss of our reserve currency status which would be devastating to all of us in this country and our way of life. Just as manufacturing was the economic platform that made America strong in the 1940’s and 1950’s, and much like the technological boom made the 1980’s and 1990’s thrive, energy is the next economic platform that will drive jobs and salaries and we have vast amounts for energy to tap into. The current economies malaise and standstill we find ourselves in is a direct result of Obama’s left wing ideology and pandering to the minority of environmental lobbyists. Obama has even forsaken one of the Democrats golden geese, the Unions, in his refusal to allow Americans to build the next energy economic platform and in turn he has suppressed job growth, wage growth, increased dependence on government hand outs, and has generally made life economically miserable for millions of American families. We can do so much better.

Access to affordable energy impacts every aspect of our nation and our families – it is the lifeblood of our economic security, and ultimately our national security. America’s energy resources are the envy of the world. Our nation’s combined resources of oil, natural gas, and coal exceed those of every other nation on Earth.  And these energy resources, if fully maximized, could help create millions of high-quality American jobs. Nevertheless, over many years, Congresses, and administrations,  have enacted a shortsighted patchwork of reactive laws, regulations, and executive orders only dealing with immediate energy issues. We can and must do better.

This strategy must be at the core of the GOP platform for 2016, and any candidate that does not fully embrace this strategy will not earn my vote. We can and must use our vast energy resources to strengthen our economic and national security while at the same time protecting our environment. North Dakota has led the way on this and you will only need to look at that state to see what the possibilities are — 3% unemployment and high wages even in the service industry. If we expand that opportunity out across large areas across this country, we can deliver prosperity to millions of Americans currently mired in the Obamaville of no hope and little change.

This strategy is a “no brainer” in my opinion. Please read the entire document and offer your opinion, and go to the website here for more information.

Life in Liberal-Fascist America

Here’s the story - you’ll recall that Governor Walker was the target of a completely bogus, politically-motivated hatchet job by an out-of-control Democrat prosecutor. Recently, details of the political motivation for the case were revealed – and what did our MSM do? Ruthlessly track down the source of the revelation, and then smear him.

Do read the linked article – it tells you all you need to know about the real power structure of the United States. It is more nakedly exposed in Wisconsin than elsewhere because in Wisconsin it is more directly under threat…and the liberals believe (correctly) that if they can’t squash Walker, then what Walker has done will spread, thus undermining the whole basis of liberal power (which is, ultimately, that liberals are subsidized by government – and if you take away the government subsidy, then liberals will whither away and die as a political force).

Remember what happened in this particular case – the truth about an out-of-control prosecutor was revealed and the MSM went out not to investigate the prosecutor, but to smear the man who told the truth. If you think that the MSM has any sense of honor or decency, think again – if liberalism is threatened, the MSM becomes the merest arm of political liberalism. And this brings us to the most important lesson: the liberals are at war with us. They want us destroyed. They will not play fair. They will not obey the rules. They will not tell the truth. Unless and until we internalize the message that it is all or nothing, we can’t do what is necessary to win. There can’t be bipartisanship. There can’t be working across the aisle. There can only be unrelenting conflict all up and down the line.

Scotland: Secession is the Answer

Tomorrow (or, maybe, today? Its kinda late as I write this on Wednesday in the USA), the Scots will vote on whether or not to leave the United Kingdom. Lots of worrying articles have been written about the horror of horrors which will happen if the Scots for “yes” on secession, but I can’t think of a more splendid thing for the Scots to do.  Keep in mind that those most opposed are part of the United Kingdom’s Ruling Class – it would reduce their power if Scotland and England weren’t together.

As readers here know, I’ve long advocated secession as the answer for many ills in the United States – not in the sense of States leaving the Union, but in the sense of States leaving the States.  Setting up 60-65 States in place of the 50 States we have today, many of which are just too large or two different in their constituent parts to make a rational whole. But, still, everyone stays in the good, old US of A: so, why am I ok with the Scots bailing on the United Kingdom?  Because it is probably the only way to eventually get to a Europe which is basically united.  The United States is, so far, essentially united – we have a general sense in our broad majority what it means to be American and what America is supposed to be about…we just have a problem in taming the Big Government beast we’ve allowed to grow up among us. Breaking up the States and other reforms will restore the situation.  Europe doesn’t have that – it has a lot of States which already dictate minutely the lives of the people and in the European Union you just get one more layer of micro-managing bureaucrats thrown into the mix to ensure that there are no local differences, at all.

A lot of places in Europe which are part of larger nations today really don’t have much business being part of their nations. Northern and southern Italy, for instance, are very different and were cobbled together in the 19th century by a set of ambitious adventurers who really didn’t ask so much as a “by your leave” of the Italian people if they wanted to be united in a nation called “Italy” (yeah, they cooked up some plebiscites which allegedly gave the will of the people – but when the army of the group wanting you “in” is already there, kind of a foregone conclusion how the vote will go…). The end result of this is two very different places being artificially fused together – and for south Italy to live a relatively impoverished and parasitic life attached to the wealthy and dynamic north. Same thing goes in Spain where the Catalans are starting to revive their age-old dream of independence – and if you can find me a reason that Bavaria is in the same Germany as Pomerania, then I’m all ears.  Other than ethnic affinity, there is no reason for Scotland to be in Britain, Naples and Milan to be in Italy, Bavaria to be in Germany or Catalonia to be in Spain. To be sure, all of these places are (or, at least were until recently) European (which means, further, Christian), but that is really where the unity ends. For the rest of it, these are different places with different people and different ideas of what is needed – they can be in one nation, but only if there is a limited central government and maximum power at the local level.

The Scots leaving the United Kingdom is, then, to me a healthy development. To be sure, the Scottish nationalist leadership seems to be largely made up of socialist pinheads who are apparently promising more welfare without anyone having to work harder. That illusion will quickly be dashed after independence, if won – but it was just as swiftly dashed in Slovakia when it broke off from the Czech Republic and now once-socialist Slovakia is one of the more dynamic nations of Europe; they no longer could live off the richer part of the nation; they no longer could blame others for their own troubles; they could only look to themselves.  And that is pretty much what they did – and that is what all of the peoples of Europe, once freed from the dead hand of the results of 19th century nationalism and 20th century multiculturalism, will do as well.

Don’t get me wrong, patriotism is a grand thing – but the welding together of things like “Germany” and “Italy” in the 19th century (and “Great Britain” in the 18th) weren’t acts of patriots – they were the acts of ambitious people, some of whom were scoundrels, who didn’t care about the people involved but only about the expansion of their own power (prime examples of this were Bismarck in Germany and Cavour in Italy). It’d be better, in the long run, if the genuine constituent parts of Europe separated and then found a mechanism of unity – some modern revival of the ideal behind the Holy Roman Empire. Some form of government which will keep the peace between the parts and defend the whole against outside enemies: but which will leave the parts pretty much alone to do as they wish (the European Union is the negation of this ideal – it is senseless and remote bureaucrats trying to micro-manage every aspect of European life and no locality having the power to opt out).

The Scots may take the first step – or they may decide that cutting lose from London and the money therein is too risky. We’ll see.  But I think that the concept is growing in the public mind both in Europe and the United States that remote, central governments simply cannot answer for the needs of the people and that while a central government is necessary for a few, limited functions, most power had better be in the hands of the people and their local governments.

What Media Bias? Part 198

There is a Media Research Center study which shows that from January 1, 2006 to August 31, 2006 the MSM reported on Bush’s crumbling poll numbers 124 times.  Fast forward and between January 1, 2014 and August 31, 2014 the MSM has reported on Obama’s equally crumbling poll numbers a total of nine times.

This is what media bias is all about: its not so much the outright lies (though they are a problem – and an increasing problem), but the way that the same sort of story will be reported quite differently depending on whether it involves a Republican or a Democrat.  Take, for instance, when a politician is arrested – you can just about bet your life savings on it that if a Republican politician is arrested, his party affiliation will be front and center. Meanwhile, if a Democrat is cuffed, you’d have to read to the last paragraph where it is revealed that the offender may have had some slight connection to the Democrat party.

This is common across all elements of the MSM – doesn’t matter what organization, they all report things pretty much the same way. There is, however, no cure for this – the hard left people who make up the MSM simply will not change.  The only thing we can do, as conservatives, is to create a duplicate MSM to compete.  Fox News has shown the way, but we need a genuinely conservative news network; we need newspapers and magazines and all that MSM infrastructure which drives the narrative. And we need to start ignoring what the MSM is saying because it is all presented in a manner to help the Democrats and harm Republicans.

Obama’s Non-War

The usual course of action is that when the guns go off, we citizens are to rally ’round the flag and back our forces in the pursuit of victory. But that is a bit impossible right now – Obama and his Administration are telling us, over and over, that this isn’t a war. That we’ll be bombing the heck out of things and that lots of people will die horrific, violent deaths at our hands doesn’t count: per Obama and Co, war is only in existence is U.S. troops are on the ground doing the fighting.

So, no war – and thus no rallying ’round the flag. And even if we decided – correctly – that Obama and Co are just full of “stuff” and that this is a war so we’d better rally anyways, what would we be rallying for? Not for victory, because there can be no victory in this non-war. Its not like the enemy commander can offer to surrender to a drone. We’ll bomb a lot and kill a lot of people and this will help those who are fighting the people we’re bombing – and that, in turn, might lead others to victory. A Kurdish victory would be ok, as the Kurds seem a lot of very decent people – but it could also lead to Assad’s victory in Syria and Iran’s victory in Iraq; not exactly ideal outcomes for us. It could also lead to victory for non-ISIS, non-Assad forces in Syria, this might not work out well, either. Let’s just say I have my doubts about Administration assurances that they can pick the non-Islamist-screwball forces in Syria for us to back.

We can also get the worst of all worlds – we blow a lot of stuff up and kill a lot of people with attendant video showing what a bunch of hideous war criminals we are but after all that, Assad still rules his part of Syria, ISIS still rules vast tracts of Syria and Iraq and Iran has secured itself the part of Iraq it cares about (ie, Baghdad plus the oil fields). That sort of outcome is made doubly bad because if ISIS survives in any form, it will become the Islamist hero as it stood up to us, endured a pounding and emerged from the welter of slaughter with victory. Of course, all of this won’t fully come out until after Obama leaves office, so he probably doesn’t care in the least about it, even if he’s aware of the possibility.

This whole thing is the terribly bad decision of a man – Obama – who knows nothing of history, nothing of the world and yet sits assured that he’s the smartest guy in the room. I hope it works out – and I hope our losses are small. But the rule of thumb for war is that you either go all in, or stay all out. Our choices for ISIS were two:

1.  Go all out to war against them until they are all killed or taken, regardless of cost.

2.  Surrender to them and allow them to do as the wish.

Either course of action can have rational arguments to back them up. We have failed to choose between them – we’re just going to bomb a bit and hope for the best. I believe we will be disappointed – and maybe in a vastly worse geo-strategic situation two or three years from now.

UPDATE: Reeling from criticism about us not being at war, the Administration has decided we are at war with ISIS, just as we are against al-Qaeda. Meaning? I guess that six years from now ISIS will be around and a threat, just as al-Qaeda is still around and a threat after six years of Obama…

Just Not Getting It – Open Thread Version

I meant to write a post about this article last week, and have since noticed that there is now a Part II version, which I have yet to read. But you see, according to the author, the reason why the racial divide still thrives is because of smug White delusion. We just don’t understand the plight of Black Americans. We’re too stupid and we need to have more conversations on this issue because we just haven’t discussed this topic enough. Like Eric Holder says, “we are a nation of cowards”. There were many statistics included in the article to support the authors contention, one of which was this:

The black-white income gap is roughly 40 percent greater today than it was in 1967.

One obvious conclusion to me for this result could be that the Democrats coveted “war on poverty” is a colossal failure. Another stat was this:

Because of the catastrophic experiment in mass incarceration, black men in their 20s without a high school diploma are more likely to be incarcerated today than employed

I don’t remember any “experiment in mass incarceration” – can anyone help me out here?

The way I see it, Black America has a huge cultural problem within their own community and that is a problem that only they can resolve. There have been an untold number of government programs and initiatives designed to lift them up, individually and collectively, and obviously they have all failed, and I just don’t think more “conversation” is going to help either. One idea does come to mind – improving the economy. 

Feel free to speak your mind on this issue and prove Eric Holder wrong! 

If You Really Want to Fight ISIS…

…then you’d better be willing to go to war. I mean real war. With two million American personnel over in the Middle East for a decade and a complete re-casting of Middle Eastern life under American rule for a long while.

As regular readers know, with Obama in the White House I have become a peacenik – all I am saying, is give peace a chance because I’m dead certain that any war Obama commands will be a lost war. But, maybe I’m wrong and Obama will turn into a regular Abraham Lincoln as war leader – and, so, let’s get to fighting, if that is what you want. After all, if ISIS isn’t worth fighting, then there’s never any cause to fight, ever.

But if we do this, then think about a few things. Don’t get upset about how long it takes: it will take a long time. Don’t get upset about harsh measures: harsh measures will be necessary. Don’t get upset about civilian deaths: civilians will die (especially as most of the people who would put up the stoutest fight are certain to use civilians as shields).  Think about what you want to accomplish: just to kill some ISIS guys, or to actually get to a general settlement of the Middle East?  Killing ISIS guys is fine; but just killing them won’t get rid of what created ISIS – which was not, by the way, Bush’s invasion of Iraq but a series of decisions of the past 1,000 years by the overall Muslim world as affected by various outside forces.

Resign yourself to a long, grinding, expensive fight among people who will alternately hate us or be resentful of us (with just maybe a few groups of people actually catching on that we’re helping them – these people will be invaluable to us). Or, just give it up and let things take their course.  Our choice. But let no one choose lightly. On either side is death and destruction – in a sense, there are no right answers to the problem.  There are a series of wrong answers, and we’d just be trying to find the least wrong thing to do, with a hope that we’ll eventually put things to right.