Worst President, Revised

Matt and I have been busy and we rather blame Obama for this – keeping up with the ongoing disaster has been a trial, but we’ve been willing to do the work:

As Barack Obama’s presidential failures keep adding up, remembering them all can be a challenge. Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan are compiling everything you need to know about the presidency of Barack Obama (so far) into one book. Soon, you can easily find all the information that was ignored by the media and that Barack Obama doesn’t want you to know about.

Did Barack Obama really save this country from another Great Depression? Did he really improve our country’s image around the world, or unite America? What about the new era of post-partisanship and government transparency? Did he really expand health coverage while lowering costs and cutting taxes?

The answer to all these questions—and the facts to back them up—are coming in a new book later this year.

Please go to our book website and sign up for e-mail updates. This will allow you to know precisely when the new edition is released to the public. If you purchased the original, rest assured that this is expanded with a great deal of new information. As bad as you think Obama has been, you don’t know the whole story until you’ve read The Worst President in History: the Legacy of Barack Obama.

Jeb’s Immigration Problem

We all know that Jeb is in favor of amnesty – as am I – but there’s a problem I detect in Jeb’s view:

Here’s Bush: “We need to find a way, a path to legalized status for those that have come here and have languished in the shadows. There’s no way that they’re going to be deported — no one’s suggesting an organized effort to do that. The cost of that would be extraordinary.”

And here’s Bush: “The 40 percent of the people that have come illegally came with a legal visa and overstayed their bounds. We ought to be able to find where they are and politely ask them to leave.”

As it turns out, those who over-stay their visas tend to be better educated, have a command of English and would be eligible for some pretty good jobs if their legal status was changed. Meanwhile, people who cross our southern border tend to be less educated, non-English-speakers and cluster in low-pay, low-skill jobs. It would seem to me that if we wanted to do amnesty, we’d actually want to favor those with the most skills – ie, those who can do the most good for the United States – than those with the least skills. But here’s pro-amnesty Bush saying let’s get rid of the high-educated and keep the low-educated. Why?

I can’t peer into Jeb’s heart and see what precisely is motivating him but I suspect that raw, political calculation might be at play. Who would feel most threatened by the sudden legalization of a large number of college-educated, high-skilled immigrants? Americans who are college-educated and high-skilled – you’d be allowing massive competition for their jobs to suddenly erupt…and people like that can command political power by simple fact of their ability to donate buckets of money to political campaigns. But letting in lots of low-skilled workers? No problem – they just compete with low-skill American workers…who cares about them? And, at any rate, a large increase in low-skill workers just drives down labor costs for some of our largest multinational corporations, and that is pleasing to the Chamber of Commerce types. In total, Jeb’s views on immigration are picture perfect if you are planning on running for President on an anti-GOP Base platform…it allows you to appeal to the big money corporate donors while also keeping upscale, suburban voters on your side (who are, also, all in favor of amnesty…as long as it doesn’t hurt them…and if it provides cheap nannies and gardeners, so much the better).

I’ve long grown rather irritated with our Ruling Class, including the GOP part of it. It appears to me that they want to keep masses of Americans on welfare so they can be fat, dumb and happy voters while importing a bunch of foreigners to do the grunt work of the nation while the people at the top get to live swell lives…meanwhile, those Americans who want to work hard and play by the rules are to be squeezed by cheap labor and high taxes. Methinks this might not be the best way for the nation to go. I’m not going to blame Jeb for all this – or even think him bad for what he advocates…but the whole system is rotten and it will screw us all over (even the immigrants – remember, cheap, easily exploitable labor is not exactly what America is supposed to stand for)…and Jeb is just part of it. We definitely cannot entrust ourselves to him, or anyone like him.

I retain a general support for amnesty – but until we get a government I can trust is actually on the side of the people, I want no part of it. I want liberty and justice for all – not special deals designed to merely perpetuate a Ruling Class in power.

By the Way: You Can’t Win With Nothing

In the end, you have to believe in something – those who believe in nothing are easy prey:

Michael Nikolai Skråmo, who also calls himself Abo Ibrahim Al Swedi, appears in the propaganda video wearing desert camouflage and clutching an assault rifle, and proceeds to give practical and motivational encouragement to would-be jihadis.

“My brothers, ‘hijra’ (migration) and ‘jihad’ are so simple. It only costs a few thousand ‘lapp’ [Swedish kronor],” he says in Swedish. “Do you not wish in in your heart to fight and show God what you have to offer him? The door to jihad is standing there waiting for you. It’s the fastest way to Jannah [Paradise].”

Skråmo, who has two Norwegian parents but was born and grew up near Gothenburg in Sweden is understood to have moved to Raqqah, the capital of the fledgling Islamic State in Syria, back in September with his wife and two children, hoping to fight alongside Islamic State soldiers…

The man is a Swede of Norwegian extraction. He was born and raised in Sweden. He had every opportunity a rich, western, socialist nation can provide with a lavish welfare State. He converted to Islam and is now willing to sell his life – and the lives of his family – in order to advance his faith. Why? Well, why not? What does life in Sweden offer? A chance for more welfare? More degraded pop culture? Multicultural mish-mash bull by the truck load? Who in Sweden ever offered him the chance to rise above narrow self-interest and subordinate himself to a cause? No one. ISIS did – and they got him now. This sort of thing shocks a lot of people – it doesn’t shock me. I know that if you don’t believe in something, you’ll fall for anything.

I believe in the Christian God and the Roman Catholic Church. I believe in the Declaration of Independence. There’s not a chance in heck you’ll ever find me fighting for the crazed barbarians of ISIS…but the endless number of westerners who believe in nothing? They might very well – because something always beats nothing. As I noted before, only believers will beat ISIS…in other words, only people who offer something rock-solid in opposition to ISIS can prevail…

HAT TIP: The Gateway Pundit

It’s The Lies, Stupid

A quote from Theodore Dalrymple via Mark Steyn via Ace of Spades:

In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control…

At the end of the day, it isn’t my business if someone wants to believe or speak lies. I am not the world’s truth enforcer. Lies, for the most part, are pretty easily discerned once a person takes a little time to think about them. If someone is so intellectually lazy that they won’t take the time to figure out if something is true or false, it isn’t up to me to do anything specific about it. My duty starts and ends with merely trying to tell the truth as best I can determine. The problem comes in with what Dalrymple is talking about: the social enforcement of lies. Anyone trying to compel me – or anyone else – to lie is very much my business.

Our people on the left, of course, live on lies – their who worldview is based upon a set of falsehoods and only via falsehoods can they advance their cause. The problem we all have is that our leftists don’t just leave it at that – they insist we all join in their lies and affirm them positively in the public square. If I won’t say that affirmative action is continually needed in the United States to correct the inherently racist nature of American society, then I am a racist – I’m evil and have to be shut up and shut out of the debate. I can only enter the debate if I subscribe in advance to a falsehood – that America is an inherently racist society. It is a long list of lies that the left insists upon, as well: everything from “only white people can be racists” to “there’s a wage gap between men and women due to sexism” and a thousand things in between must be agreed to, or I’m out. If you ever wonder why our leftists are so strident against us it is because of this refusal to join in their lies…our refusal marks us out, in their minds, as evil…and you don’t sit down and chat with evil, now do you? Additionally, of course, if the lies are exposed for what they are, then the left as a political force is finished for good.

Continue reading

Out and About on a Saturday

I had written an article on the 21 Martyrs in Libya – but I couldn’t get it right. Then I tried dipping my toes into the “Does Obama Love America” debate, and that didn’t come out right, either (spoiler: I don’t think he really does). I’m kind of at a loss – but I also feel we are in a great change in America…and it has to do with the combination of the 21 Martyrs and Obama being someone who isn’t over fond of America. I don’t think that America in 2017 will be quite what Obama hopes it will be.

That said, just a few things:

Want a name for your residential high-rise? Stay away from “Torch“.

The State Department, fresh off of hash-tagging our enemies into submission (I mean, Boko Haram brought back the girls, right?), has now put out a snappy website designed to get on top of “violent extremism”. Violent Extremism is bad – but only really, really bad – and politically useful – when it can be assigned to straight, white, Christian, American males who live in fly-over country. A lot of people are upset about this, but really it’s been the liberal MO for a while now – to soft-peddle the really bad actors while massively exaggerating the involvement of their particular, political opponents with the tiny, tiny number of home-grown bad actors in the United States. But, I’m sure that State Department presentation will get the whole problem licked in no time…

Greece and the EU come to a sort-of agreement on continued bail outs. Why? Because for all their white-hot rhetoric, the new, leftwing government of Greece is peas as a pod to the rest of the European Ruling Class. Some day a genuinely populist movement might gain power in an European country and tell the Eurocrats to pound sand, but that day isn’t today.

ObamaCare continues to be the complete nightmare of a worthless program we all said it would be.

Condi Rice leads a crowded field to replace out-going Senator (and numbskull) Barbara Boxer. Rice might be a very good fit for California – a bit socially liberal, fiscally conservative…smarter than all the Democrats in California combined. We’ll see if this comes to be.

Shocking News! Brazil’s experiment in socialism isn’t ushering in peace and prosperity.

Plurality of Democrats think Obama should just ignore the law – a very solid majority of Obama thinks he should, too.

Very widespread global warming activity going on. We here in Vegas are sitting at about 72 degrees and we’re just laughing and laughing and laughing…

Only Believers Can Beat the Islamists

Quite a long time ago, Hilaire Belloc wrote, “the Faith is Europe and Europe is the Faith”. To be sure, what Belloc specifically meant by “Faith” was the Roman Catholic Church, but it can be expanded to mean Christianity in a more general sense. While many streams of civilization flowed into the continent of Europe to help make it into Europe, the crucial thing about it was it’s Christian faith. Europe was not a mere development out of the Greco-Roman civilization which, in any case, never extended to Germany, Poland, the Baltic nations, Russia, Ireland and Scandinavia.

It was the Catholic Church – or Christianity if using the word “Catholic” causes discomfort – which welded the flotsam of barbarian invaders and the ruins of Greece and Rome into a completely new civilization. It was Christianity which stamped Europe in a particular manner and got it thinking in a certain way. It was because of Christianity that there was a decline and eventual termination of human slavery. It was because of Christianity that people starting thinking of the world as a rational place which human reason could come to understand (the Greeks did make a start at this, but failed to develop the scientific method…it took Christians to make that step). It was because of Christianity that the worth of a human being ceased to be a mere expression of his social position. It was because of Christianity that things were rendered to Caesar, but not all things. You can look endlessly through human history and you won’t find anywhere but in Christendom (though pre-figured strongly in Judaism) that mix of the worth of the individual, the limitation of the State and the rational approach to the world which we have come to think the normal state of human existence. It did not come into being of its own accord – it was created and fostered over a thousand years by Christians. And, now, it is nearly gone.

Continue reading

Time For a New Political Party?

Joy Cost makes a strong case that if you’re conservative, the GOP is not really your friend. I do recommend reading the whole thing. Cost points out that the GOP while being the political home of conservatism is not a truly conservative party. He’s right about that – and also right that the part of the GOP which is loyal to big business is not actually in tune with conservative principals.

This is something I’ve been yammering on about for a while – that big business and big government are actually quite in tune with each other. This is especially true as the sort of people who rise to the top in both areas are alike as peas in a pod. They mostly go to the same schools, have the same social backgrounds – they marry each other, attend each other’s events and, in the end, have the same world view, which is almost entirely liberal, save that big business types are often in favor of lower taxes, at least for big business. This is why the GOP leadership – which is often beholden to big business – infuriates us so often. There isn’t in big business – and thus there isn’t in a lot of the GOP leadership – the real will to reduce government, to end subsidies, to reduce regulation…because big business profits off the system as much as liberals who man the government system do. Think about it: if we really reduced regulation, then a lot of small time operators would be able to enter the market and start competing with the established companies…that means that profits would shrink! Can’t have that…

On the social issues side of the ledger, those who inhabit the world of big business are almost entirely on the side of legalized abortion, endless immigration, affirmative action and same-sex marriage. Why? Because it would be uncool to be otherwise – it really does go to that shallow a level. If you’re working at some large investment firm in New York City, do you want to go to the Manhattan party and admit that you think marriage should be between one man and one woman? For goodness sakes, everyone would think you entirely out of it…you might not get invited to the next party! Most, if they started with conservative social morals, will drop them like a bad habit once they reach the upper echelons…because that is just the way things are, and most people lack courage to stand against what is fashionable (and this condition is even more pronounced among those who rise high up in the bureaucracy or government or business).

For years now I’ve stuck with the GOP because I believe it is the party most likely to be taken over by conservatism – and I do believe that this is still the case. But suppose we work hard and battle our way to victory in 2016? We get even someone like Walker as President and we have a GOP controlled Congress. All that would be good – but suppose we get to 2019 and there’s still no ban on abortion after 20 weeks? Suppose the Department of Energy still exists? Suppose government spending is higher than it was in 2016? What have we really accomplished? Even supposing we’ve got taxes cut, our defense rebuilt and the economy is humming along? We’ve got nothing, as conservatives – we’ve neither reduced the size of government as more libertarian-minded conservatives demand nor have we even made a start at reviving American morality as social conservatives demand. All we’ve done it tinker around the edges and left in place the government monster built up by liberalism – and eventually to be reconquered by liberalism in a future election.

I have been wondering of late if it is time for a new party? Maybe even two new parties? To be sure, we have to be careful – we don’t want to spit the non-liberal vote and thus merely ensure endless liberal political dominance…but we do need some mechanism to ensure that what we, the base of the GOP, demands actually gets done.

What I wonder is if we split off, only for Congressional purposes, from the GOP about 100 Representatives and 10 Senators and formed, say, a Christian Democrat Party…without those Representatives and Senators, the GOP cannot control either house of Congress. Democrats can’t, either. In fact, no one can – absolute gridlock…unless certain demands are met. Boehner wants to be Speaker? Then there are certain actions which must be taken. You get the picture. Such a thing would become even more crucial if there is a Republican President because that is when actual laws which can be enacted can be sent up…if Congress does so; but the GOP as currently constituted might not really want to send up the sort of laws the base wants. Holding them to ransom (ie, do as we bid or you’re no longer Speaker) would be a convincing argument to actually move conservative legislation along. And if some on the right don’t want to be part of a Christian Democrat Party, they can form a Liberal Party (taking back a word which the Progressives have co-opted) to pretty much do the same thing…withhold support to the GOP unless, say, the GOP agrees to, for instance, reign in the power of government to spy on the American people.

I’m not at all sure this would work – but as you can see, what has happened here is that the three main elements of the GOP (business, social conservative, libertarian) are broken up for Congressional purposes into three different parties, and no one on the right gets anything unless everyone gets something. There is a risk that one party will join with the Democrats to form a Congressional majority, of course, but I think it pretty small as Democrats won’t openly embrace business and can’t embrace social conservatism…the libertarians might from time to time be swayed by Democrats, but such would never last long because, well, Democrats are just increasingly fascist. The best way for the new parties of the right to work is that they all nominate the same person for President…but if a real lousy GOP candidate emerges, then the Liberals and Christian Democrats nominate someone more acceptable and the GOP goes down to flaming defeat…which would make the GOP more likely to seek a candidate who can appeal to both Christian Democrats and Liberals. And there’s always that chance that a Liberal or Christian Democrat in a three or four way race could win the White House with a plurality…which works even better for the right.

This is all just an idea – for now, I’m still back in the GOP, especially in the White House, for 2016. But I think it something worth thinking about.