Welcome to the Nuclear-Armed World

Mark Noonan

The basics of the world since the end of the Second World War – a few Great Powers with nuclear weapons counter-balancing each other while no major wars were allowed to get out of hand by the international community – is gone. The last few bits of it are being interred by Obama – his failed policies in general are doing it, but midwifing Iran’s nuclear program is the nail in the coffin.

I did a quick look around at Saudi Arabia’s military today and I noticed that some years ago, Saudi Arabia purchased some nuclear-capable medium-range ballistic missiles from China. They are of an old design, to be sure, but from all appearances, they’d work just fine – and they put all of Iran within range. And given the Saudi bank account, there is no telling what sorts of upgrades they’ve been able to purchase for the missiles. Meanwhile, there are rumors that Saudi Arabia has either already purchased some nuclear warheads or has an option to buy them from Pakistan, which got at least part of its nuclear research funding from Saudi Arabia. If Ikea had a nuke-mart, then Saudi Arabia has been shopping there – and all they have to do is insert tab B into slot A, and its all done. They’ll be a nuclear power probably within a very short time of Iran becoming one…if not sooner. And it appears that Saudi Arabia is in the market for some German submarines…the very same very high quality submarines Germany sold to Israel, and which are likely capable of being armed with nuclear-tipped cruise missiles.

Welcome to the new world, boys and girls – a world where regional powers are arming to the teeth and readying themselves for war because other regional powers are arming to the teeth and have aggressive intentions. How long before Poland decides it needs some nukes? Japan? The only thing which prevents any nation from getting them is money – do they have enough to buy the technology? Most nations do. Ready for a jittery, 30 year period where nuclear blackmail is considered part of the armory of diplomacy? It isn’t going to be pretty – and while one can’t entirely blame Obama for this, his eagerness to strike a deal with Iran is letting the genie out of the bottle for good.

Attacking Big Corporation as a GOP Campaign Issue

Mark Noonan37 Comments

See? It’s not just me any more – Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) weighs in on how the GOP can leverage a bit of anti-corporatism for electoral victory:

…the fact is that many big businesses are unpopular with the public, aligned with the Democrats, and wide open for attack. And after eight years of the Obama administration’s naked cronyism and support of Wall Street even as the middle class has suffered, the opportunities are there.

One of the most appealing targets would be the tech industry’s wage-suppressing hiring habits. Not only have tech giants like Apple and Google engaged in what a federal court called an “overarching conspiracy” to prevent wage competition, but Silicon Valley firms also abuse H-1B visas to bring in immigrant competition at lower wages, a practice that’s now spreading to other industries. (In Los Angeles, Southern California Edison is firing workers and replacing them with immigrants now)…

Reynolds goes on to note how big corporations – especially big tech – are abusing the H1-B visa program to get rid of well-paid American workers and bring in low-paid foreigners, thus abusing both Americans and foreigners in the name of increased corporate profits. That is just one in a very long line of issues where Big Corporation is working against the United States. We on the GOP side have got to wrap our minds around the fact that big anything is bad. Once a concentration of power and wealth exceeds a certain size, it becomes baleful…and must be controlled carefully, lest is wreck everything. We understand this regarding things like the Department of Education, but we’ve failed to understand that General Motors is just like the Department of Education…an bureaucratic behemoth most interested in using raw, political power to preserve itself.

It is the free market we must defend – not those who are on top of the market and who are abusing their position. That the leaders of these corporations also largely support Democrats (or are at least de-facto liberals), just makes attacking them doubly advantageous for us. It becomes best of all when we realize that a lot of people who vote liberal (but who are not particularly liberal, themselves) can be moved to vote for us when we do this. Defending the worker against ruthless exploitation by Big Tech is just a splendid way to move the needle in our favor…let Democrats defend the H1-B visa program, we’ll defend the workers.

We have a grand opportunity to take the abysmal failure of the Obama years and use it to destroy liberalism as a political force forever. All we have to do is dare to take it.

Obama’s Diplomacy in a Void

Mark Noonan7 Comments

There are two reasons you engage in international diplomacy:

1. You both want roughly the same thing, but there are some thorny issues involved which must be addressed before either of you can get it. Trade agreements and alliances against a third party are this sort of diplomacy.

2. You and the other guy want diametrically opposed outcomes and you’re both trying to force the other to climb down, with a risk of war ever present. This sort of thing comes up when two nations with a great deal of enmity are getting at loggerheads.

The first example is mostly harmless in that success doesn’t lead to universal peace and brotherhood, but failure also doesn’t come with much cost. It would be the rarest of rare birds if, say, a negotiation over a trade deal resulted in war breaking out between the two parties because they couldn’t come to an agreement on tariffs. On the other hand, the second form of diplomacy is fraught with danger because the whole point of negotiating is to try to prevent a war – both sides want something the other side cannot agree to. In negotiating, what they are really doing is trying to answer the question, “are you willing to fight over it?”.

In the aftermath of the Russo-Turkish War in 1877, Russia – victorious – was in a mood to just do as she wished with Turkish possessions…which then ranged deep into the Balkans of Europe and which were of great concern to other major powers. When Russia’s plans for prostrate Turkey became known, Britain, especially, let it be known that Russia’s plans were unacceptable and if not modified, war would result. The Germans, under Bismarck, held a conference of all interested parties in Berlin and to Bismarck fell the task of finding out if the British answer to the question was really, “yes”. Bismarck went at it for quite a long time against the British Prime Minister, Disraeli, trying to get out of him a “no”. At the end of it, Britain’s position was crystal clear and Bismarck, who was trusted by the Russians, let them know that if they persisted, they’d have a war with Britain, with incalculable risks that other nations would become involved. Russia, having got her “yes” from Britain, answered her “no” in reply…Russia didn’t want a war with Britain. They weren’t willing to fight over it. War was averted (well, strictly speaking, it was delayed…until 1914 when Russia started fishing in those same troubled waters…but, still, peace was achieved in the 1870’s which endured for decades). That is the sort of diplomacy we’re really thinking of when we think “diplomacy”.

Our liberals use the word diplomacy quite a lot – in fact, it is their magic talisman against all threats. All you gotta do is get some diplomacy going and everything can be made right. But what liberals don’t understand – refuse to understand – is that in the great international crisis, the question remains as always: are you willing to fight about it? If you are not willing to fight about it, then you will not get what you want. The other side, once sure you won’t fight, will just grab what they demanded – and then probably demand even more, just to see how far you can be pushed until the answer becomes “yes”, with the risk that they’ll miscalculate your weakness and thus provoke a war (this was Hitler’s problem in 1939 – he thought that after Munich he could take Poland without Britain fighting…he miscalculated…there was a lot of surrender in Neville Chamberlain, but not complete national abasement). In Obama’s Iran negotiations, what we are seeing are the results of one side thinking that negotiations are the end rather than the means – and they are viewed as an end, in themselves, because a person like Obama is fundamentally incapable of envisioning war resulting from failure.

Obama is going to get his agreement with Iran – which will be of no real value, because all Obama wants is the “agreement”…something on paper which says that peace and amity are secured. What actually happens is irrelevant – the agreement is all. This is diplomacy in a void – mere sound and fury, signifying nothing. I’ve watched a few MSM reports of late – forgive me for wasting my time – and they’re all, “there is only a few days left until the deadline”. Deadline? Deadline for what? Suppose we pass it – are we going to go to war? No. Impose new sanctions? No. Stop negotiating? No. We’ll just set a new deadline. Because we have to get an agreement – and, in fact, the current deadline, given Obama, means the pressure is on us. As we won’t do anything if the deadline is passed, it is up to us to get something on paper before the deadline arrives. The Iranians know this full well – and are taking advantage of it (their demand that all sanctions be lifted is a, “we know you won’t do anything, so give us all we want” ploy). At the end of the day, it would have been better all around if Obama had just unilaterally terminated the sanctions and entered into no negotiations, at all. Our overall position would be stronger – we could still, in theory, have a military option on the table, even if only as a wink and a nod to Israel, should they decide to strike. Now there is no military option, rumors that we’ve agreed to prevent even an Israeli strike, and an upcoming agreement which will commit us to removing sanctions without stopping Iran’s nuclear program. Obama is essentially going to make the United States the guarantor of Iran’s nuclear program – protected until fruition by an “agreement”…and once complete, impossible to reverse because you can’t ever force a nation to give up nuclear weapons.

My view is that Obama doesn’t understand this – he has shown over time that he understands very little about how the world works. Combine this with a set of liberals in his Administration who are likely convinced that Iran is only an enemy because of bad American actions, and you’ve got the impetus for one of the most astoundingly stupid foreign policy programs in human history. Obama is going to redeem Neville Chamberlain – after Obama gets done with Iran, people will be able to look back and say, “well, at least Chamberlain didn’t actually arm the Germans”.

How this mess is to be cleaned up remains to be seen – if Iran tests a nuclear weapon before 1/20/17, there will be no way for us to really do anything. We’ll just have to wait for the inevitable Iranian collapse – their fertility rate is below replacement level and corrupt, dictatorial governments are really never too long for this world. The USSR showed probably the maximum length of time such a thing can endure before it implodes. But this could mean several decades of a nuclear-armed Iran causing massive trouble around the world. If Iran doesn’t get a nuke before Obama leaves office, then the next President will have to make stopping Iran the first priority of foreign policy – and we’d better be loud and clear that our answer is “yes” to the question, or we’ll just be wasting our time.

The Conservative Circular Firing Squad

Mark Noonan26 Comments

Scott Walker hired Liz Mair to be a communications outreach staffer – and while I can’t say that I know Ms. Mair (we are Facebook friends and have met some years back – I think at CPAC in 2007), everyone who knows her says she’d be splendid in the position. I have no doubt that this is true. As it turns out, however, Ms. Mair had to very swiftly leave the Walker campaign – from what I’ve read, she’s made some disparaging remarks about the whole Iowa caucus system and that caused a ruckus. On the other hand, Erick Erickson over at Red State is holding that Christian conservatives went after her because of her liberal stance on some social issues. In the end, it was probably more the latter than the former – making fun of Iowa is almost a political standard…but being socially liberal is much more problematic.

The other day Ms. Mair took a break from her Lenten fast from Facebook to post the following:

I’m breaking my rule against no social media during Lent to share that I’m a little bit proud and excited that my name is on this amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court.

The amicus brief in question was in support of legalization of same-sex marriage. By judicial fiat. Votes of the people be damned.

To this post, I responded with words to the effect of, “so, by doing this what, exactly, are we conservatives supposed to be conserving?”. My comment isn’t there – so perhaps I forgot to post it. No matter. The main thing is that I find it astonishing that conservatives – of any stripe – do this sort of thing. Same-sex marriage is not just a stand-alone thing. It is not something that once done will be over and done with. It is not, no matter how much one might want to believe, merely a matter of whether or not the privilege of marriage shall be extended to same-sex couples. It is just another tool in the liberal armory. Liberals have many tools – and this one is to be used to further break down the traditional family but even more important, to the left, to attack Christianity. For a conservative to support the imposition of same-sex marriage (especially via judicial fiat!) is to be working for the destruction of conservatism. In theory same-sex marriage might be within the tolerable eccentricities of mankind – it might be something, that is, that a broadly tolerant and reasonable Republic allows to happen…but we are not living in broadly tolerant and reasonable Republic. We are living in the tail-end of a Republic which is mere steps away from becoming a Third World banana republic.

If we just give the left this, then they will use it – and they’ll use it against Christians. It is already being so used in Europe…and if you think liberals will actually care about the 1st Amendment, you’re nuts. Heck, if you’re even of the opinion that when push comes to shove that the Supreme Court will protect the 1st Amendment rights of Christians, you’re still nuts…suppose it happens? Ok. So the Court carves out an exception which allows Christian churches to not perform same-sex marriages…but that would only be after a massive, lengthy and expensive legal fight against the left. And, meanwhile, anyone who can’t afford such a battle just retreats into silence…including political silence. I don’t know how our more libertarian minded conservatives expect to survive when we more socially minded conservatives are forced into the political wilderness.

I’m sure Ms. Mair is sincere about it. Fine. A thousand points for adherence to personal conviction – but minus a million for lack of political sense. We are in a crisis in this nation and the very survival of the United States is the stakes we play for over the next 10 to 15 years. To be sure, she’s just one person who got caught up in the political meat grinder – and she seems a tough enough person to go through it without too much trouble. I’m sorry it happened to her – I wish we had a Republic where tolerance was the order of the day. But we don’t. Liberals forbid tolerance – they are out to destroy us, social and libertarian conservatives, alike. It is time to firmly choose a side – time for all of us on the right to cease the circular firing squad and keep our eye on the ball. We can’t work across the aisle. We can’t generate an alliance to advance one liberal thing and expect to follow up by advancing a conservative thing. For goodness sakes, people: do any of you on the right backing same-sex marriage think that liberals will now come to you to help advance school choice? Go ask your liberal allies about it. See if they are willing.

It is all or nothing – either we go all one way, or we’ll go all the other way. The left has set up the battle just like that – and giving them concessions is akin to surrendering a hill top wherein they now dominate our lines of supply. Every issue has to be taken in consideration to its position in the overall battle. Will an action help or hinder the advance of the overall right? If it will, then do it – if not, then put it aside and concentrate on some other aspect of your agenda which will.

You Can’t Have a Conversation With Lunatics

Mark Noonan11 Comments

I’m not a fan of coffee. When camping I might have a cup, but the only time I drank it on anything like a regular basis was when I was in the Navy and it was the only caffeine readily available on the mid-watch (midnight for 4 am for you lubbers). So, when Starbucks announced they wanted their servers (I know they go by another name – but I refuse to call a server a fancy name – its like calling garbage men “sanitation engineers”; all work, if done for the Lord, is good…tacking a fancy name on it means you hate the job and have self-esteem issues) initiate a conversation on race with you after you dropped a fiver for a cup of Joe, I just didn’t care. But, my goodness, it turned out the idea was weapons-grade stupid.

Social media rather exploded – and things got so hot that the CEO of Starbucks actually deleted his Twitter account. He found, of course, that liberals were nasty and mean. This was not what he expected. The expectation was probably that Starbucks would get kudos from all and sundry, with everyone in the “conversation” proclaiming love and tolerance. Well, it doesn’t work that way – because modern liberalism is about hatred and intolerance.

I do realize why the CEO got it wrong – the upper class liberals he hangs out with are probably of the opinion that if we could just have a conversation about race then we bitter clingers in flyover country would finally stop being nasty racists and start to love President Obama, just as all good liberals do. We can rely on it that our principled opposition to Obama is not considered anything of the sort – we’re just junior-league Klansmen who hate Obama because he’s black…that is what has been endlessly drilled into the liberal mind; and it was especially drilled in during the 2012 campaign as Obama had no positive achievements to justify a second term. What the CEO was unaware of is that if you are using race-hatred to gin up electoral support for Obama on voting day, then what you actually get is a lot of people deeply infused with race-hatred. And that hatred will be directed at anyone who happens along who is white – even a white liberal who thinks he’s being helpful. We’re well past any point we can have a conversation on race in this country because liberals have arrived at the point where white people must (a) admit they are evil and (b) atone for their evil by grovelling. Somewhere out there in the Twitterverse is the opinion that even if your parents died at Auschwitz, you still have race-privilege you cracker bastard. This is the level of “discussion” on race – and the CEO of Starbucks just found this out.

The truth is, of course, that we can’t converse with liberals on anything – liberals have become so divorced from reality that conversation is impossible. And, indeed, liberals these days don’t really want a conversation. They want a surrender. Unless you are prepared to strike your colors (which, now that I think about it, may be considered by liberals to be a racist statement), there’s just nothing to be said. So, forget about conversation – lets just work on beating them electorally into the ground so we don’t have to deal with them any longer.

Republicans Write a Letter; Liberals Go Insane

Mark Noonan9 Comments

Our liberals have insta-amended the Constitution – now, instead of treason being defined as adhering to America’s enemies or levying war against the United States, it is now defined as “writing a letter Obama doesn’t like”. Our liberals have gone very deep into Deal Leader devotion on this.

The letter, itself, is not much – just noting to Iran’s leadership that any deal made with President Obama will not be held binding on future American Presidents. That is just a statement of fact – because if Obama does get a treaty, then it is a dead letter unless ratified by the Senate, which simply will not happen. If Obama gets some sort of executive agreement, then it is something which has no force of law and the next President can ignore at will (and likely will ignore because no President – not even Hillary – is going to want to be bound by what Obama did 2009-2017). To me, this was a wise thing to do – we don’t want the Iranians thinking that the entirety of the United States is whatever Obama says it is – he’s gone in less than two years and other people in the United States have other ideas. Indeed, enough people have other ideas to ensure that no treaty negotiated by Obama regarding Iran’s nuclear program has any chance of ratification (this is because Obama’s ideas on how to deal with Iran are so mind-bogglingly stupid that even a lot of liberal Democrats won’t sign off on them). But, a lot of liberals are just beside themselves over the Republican letter.

It is best seen, so far, with the #47Traitors hashtag on Twitter. Yes, they are really calling the Republican signatories traitors! I guess their memories don’t stretch back even to 2007 when then-House Speaker Pelosi went to the Middle East in an essay of foreign policy in direct contravention of Bush Administration foreign policy. I won’t even bother with the Democrats’ 1984 “Dear Commandante” letter to the communist dictator of Nicaragua, nor Ted Kennedy trying to work with the Soviets to defeat Reagan in the 1984 election; anything prior to, say, 2000 is ancient history and not at all relevant.

What I think is making the liberals really mad here is that the letter exposes the hollowness of Obama. Obama cannot get anything concrete done – everything he does especially in his last two years is subject to immediate reversal by whomever takes over on January 20th, 2017. And, rely on it, a very large amount of Obama’s actions will be immediately undone after he leaves office. Why should any President – even a liberal President – just keep an Obama order alive? Out of respect for Obama? Please. Liberals are in a shrieking conniption fit because they just got told that their Dear Leader is actually not all-powerful.

INSANE UPDATE: Democrats start petition to jail the 47, get 140,000 signatures.

The Limits of Tolerance

Mark Noonan12 Comments

Back during the whole Charlie Hebdo event, a lot of people were defending Charlie on the grounds of free speech – I took a bit of an exception to that. Even though there was no justification for the murders, I still felt that it wasn’t appropriate for anyone to insult the deepest held beliefs of others. To be sure, Free Speech – but I’m not quite sure that our ancestors at Lexington and Concord were thinking, “if I die here today, at least people will be free to be vulgar and rude like no tomorrow”.

To make myself clear, I do believe in a very broad definition of free speech – but back in the days when men were a bit more like men, if you offered an insult to another man who had an ounce of manly virtues, you’d be called out to the dueling field. In other words, if you did decide that insult was your way of working, then you were required to put your life up as security…and if you didn’t, then you’d be known not just as vulgar, but as a vulgar coward. The historian Will Durant noted that men in 18th century England commonly carried swords – and this he identified as the place where England’s reputation for good manners developed. Knowing that the other guy had a sword and could run you through enjoined a cautious courtesy of speech. Eventually, it became ingrained into society – you just didn’t say certain things unless you were willing to fight about it.

For someone to sit safely behind soldiers and police and hurl insults right and left is not an act of liberty – it is not an act of bravery; quite the contrary…it is the act of a coward. It is to demand that other, rougher men protect you while you throw vile insults around. Man up – or manner up. Pick one.

I bring this up because the television show House of Cards has decided to get very insulting:

We’re barely into Lent, and Hollywood is already spitting on Jesus Christ on the crucifix. Netflix released the entire third season of the incredibly sleazy D.C. drama House of Cards on February 28, and in its fourth episode, as Kevin Spacey’s loathsome Frank Underwood character has schemed his way into the presidency, he wanders into a Catholic church.

The local bishop preaches to him as a friend that he’s supposed to love God and love his neighbor. Underwood proclaims that he understands the vengeful God he sees in the Old Testament, but doesn’t understand why Jesus would let someone kill him. Underwood asks for a moment alone to pray. Then he sidles up to the crucifix – just a few feet above his head – and mutters most cynically to God the Son.

“Love….that’s what you’re selling? Well, I don’t buy it!” Then he spits in the face of Christ…

This is free speech? This is an act of bravery? This is why men and women will sell their blood on a battlefield? I don’t think so. Now, the character spits in the face of a statue of Our Lord for one reason, only: spitting in the face of a depiction of Mohammed would get him killed. This is quite a lot of cowardice – cowardice in that the creators of the show are hiding behind the rougher men; cowardice in that the creators of the show only insult where it is safe to do so; cowardice in that if we Christians complain, the popular culture will condemn us for daring to be offended.

How much more of this are we Christians supposed to tolerate? Are there absolutely no limits? At least as far as we are concerned – because we know where the limit is: can’t do this with Muslims. I agree they shouldn’t do it with Muslims – but that is because I am trying, in my own weak way, to be a Christian gentleman; and such don’t offer insult. How much of a citizen of this Republic am I when my most deeply held beliefs can be held up to scorn? Do I not pay my taxes? Did I not serve for four years in our Navy? Did not my father and grandfather serve in war? Am I that much of a social nothing that you can do with me as you wish?

There are at least 100 million people in the United States who actually, sincerely believe as I do – that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. We are the backbone of this nation – we are the descendents of those who built this nation up from nothing. We have poured out our blood and treasure for this nation for more than 200 years – and I think we’re worthy of at least this much respect: don’t insult us. Dislike us all you want. Disagree with us till the cows come home. Be whatever you want to be – but don’t go out of your way to insult that which we hold dear. This is the common courtesy all human beings owe to each other.

Out and About on a Friday

Mark Noonan3 Comments

Yet another Obama foreign policy success:

Iran’s state-owned Press TV is reporting that Tehran is demanding that all sanctions be lifted to proceed with a nuclear agreement.

“Our principle position is that all sanctions are lifted at once,” Iran’s senior nuclear negotiator and deputy foreign minister, Abbas Araqchi, reportedly told the network…

To be sure, for Obama this is success – because his whole plan, as far as I can tell, is to empower Iran to stand up vigorously to the United States. In the real world, things are a bit different: this is Iran seeing how far they can push Obama around. The answer: quite a lot. Obama will never, ever wake up to the fact that Iran hates us not because of Israel or the coup back in the 50’s, but because we’re not Islamist fruitcakes like the Iranian leadership.

Hillary is officially in trouble over her use of a private e mail account during her tenure as Secretary of State. But the reality is that this scandal – which is horrible and is disqualifying as far as the Presidency goes – won’t amount to much because Narrative. She’s a woman and its her turn to be President. Period. The only way the Hillary Express gets derailed is if a credible, female candidate jumps into the Democrat primary…so, if it ain’t Hillary, it will be Warren. Warren would be better for us as she’s more easily beatable (I think Hillary is, as well; but the betting line is that she’s unstoppable). No matter how bad the scandals get, the MSM will come round to be her palace guard – they have to; they can’t do other. To actually tell the full truth about Hillary is to destroy her political viability and no MSMer out there is going to risk social disapproval in DC, NYC and LA by doing that – and this includes allegedly conservative MSMers. If Hillary is to be beaten, she’ll have to beaten at the polls by a good GOP candidate. Nothing else will do it.

ISIS has bulldozed an ancient, Assyrian city but what about the Crusades? I’ve been reading up a bit on the Assyrians – a Christian people which has been relentlessly persecuted by Islam for a thousand years because they refuse to knuckle under. Even the Kurds – otherwise decent folk in the area – have it in for the Assyrians. My dream: we re-create Assyria…make it a Christian nation right smack dab in the middle of the Muslim world. Hey, if Palestinians get the West Bank, then the Assyrians get northern Iraq.

Jeb will visit Iowa but no one really cares.

The betting is that Roberts will rescue ObamaCare, again. I’m pretty sure he will – because the Ruling Class gotta Ruling Class. Remember, the GOP leadership doesn’t want to do away with ObamaCare, either. No one does – except the majority of the American people, and we don’t count. Until we get a President and a Congress with real back bone for revolution, we won’t get anywhere. So, to work with a will in 2016 and beyond.

The Lee-Rubio tax plan is mostly good stuff – but it isn’t revolutionary enough for my taste. I dig the whole idea of essentially putting large amounts of American middle class income into a gigantic tax haven as that will starve the government beast…but I want some punitive taxes on those elements of the rich who use their money to punish the rest of us with things like Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama. A tax reform proposal which is marketed at ending “loopholes for the rich” but which in reality takes away the tax exempt status of all those liberal political hit groups masquerading as non-partisan social services organizations is a great place to start.

With that in mind, the “two” in a “one, two” punch against liberalism is going after the mis-named and misbegotten “higher education” industry:

Understand that the purpose of modern American “education” is not to educate students. It is primarily to provide cushy, subsidized sinecures for liberal administrators and faculty while, secondarily, providing a forum to indoctrinate soft young minds in the liberal fetishes du jour. Actually educating students is hard, and a meaningful education is anathema to liberalism. In the liberals’ ideal world, the universities would simply fester with leftist nonsense and not even bother with trying to teach their charges anything at all. And today, it’s pretty close to being the liberals’ ideal world…

Take away the government subsidies for this monstrosity and we’ll deal a death-blow to the left – it cannot be calculated just how much money and political influence the left obtains from their control of “higher” education. Safe behind college walls, liberals sally forth to destroy the society which subsidizes their attacks. If we were at least getting educated citizens out of it, that would be something – but a college degree, outside the scientific disciplines (and increasingly even there) is a sick joke. A mere credential which allows a numbskull to enter the Ruling Class and start screwing everyone who works for a living.

Thank goodness Obama vetoed Keystone – if he hadn’t done that, Buffet wouldn’t be set to collect some insurance money on one of his oil trains blowing up.

And from David Burge (@iowahawkblog):

We don’t have a government, we have a sh***y third-rate cow college student council with nuclear weapons.

America’s Ruling Class Unites on Amnesty

Mark Noonan2 Comments

The House voted today to approve the filthy and disgusting DHS funding bill – it is called “clean” by the Ruling Class because it cleanly drops a hammer on the American people. Seventy five Republicans joined almost all the Democrats in the House to approve the monstrosity; 167 Republicans voted against – and that, my friends is roughly the actual number of people on our side there are in the House. In terms of actual political power, we are the distinct minority in DC. Get used to it and get ready to fight to change it.

Here we are, March 3rd, 2015, and the leadership of the Republican Party has decided that it wants to ratify Obama’s illegal and odious amnesty policy. Fine. Glad to know it. Lets us all know where we stand – and where they stand. The leadership of the GOP is entirely beholden to the Ruling Class of this nation and will do its bidding, come what may. They are expecting rank-and-file GOPers to stay with them – after all, what are we going to do? Vote Democrat? Well, why the heck not? What do we get by voting for Republicans?

Ace is in a fine and entirely justified fury – now advocating for a $15 an hour minimum wage…because if we’re going to have a two-party Ruling Class screwing over the American people, let’s at least get a bit of pay back. The GOP leadership signed off on this because the GOP part of the Ruling Class wants to import millions of unskilled workers…so that they can employ them at low wages, thus increasing their profit margins…and screw the American worker. Yeah, well, I see Ace’s point – jack that wage up to $15 and hour and see how the Chamber of Commerce likes it.

Still, it isn’t quite time for us to put Hillary in the White House – there’s hard ball politics and then there’s suicide…but we really should seek ways to punish the Congressional GOP for their transgressions. Primary the heck out of every GOPer who voted for this dog of a bill…and if they survive the primary, then vote for their Democrat opponent in the general. Get them out; let them know that we don’t elect Republicans in order to do the bidding of liberals and the Chamber of Commerce…we elect them to represent us and preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. I’d rather have us back in Congressional minority status come 2017 than continue with leadership that doesn’t do one darned thing for our side.