Friday, September 30, 2011

Is Cain Able?

Yes, Herman Cain probably is able, certainly more able than Obama.  I figure anybody who's CEO'ed around like Cain has, most likely has all the administrative and executive ability necessary to be President, which includes the ability to hire people to advise him who know the stuff he doesn't.  That would apply to thousands of people, the vast majority of whom we've never heard of. But able is only part of the equation. Cain famously said this:

Now, this can be interpreted more than one way.  In context, he made the point that Obama has been ambiguous about this relationship with Israel, leading the Palestinians to press harder than they might have, had the President been clearer. That's actually a valid point.  I'm reminded of Old Bush's diplomatic ambiguity that led Saddam Hussein to think he could invade Kuwait with impunity. Another way to look at it is that Cain was reassuring the Israel Lobby that he'd remain safely under their control as President.  Or, giving him the benefit of the doubt, he was bowing to necessity, knowing full well that the Lobby wouldn't permit anybody who doesn't kowtow to them to get anywhere near the Presidency.

Cain, to my thinking, has two big advantages.  He's the anti-Obama.  This means, to a lot of people, that he can break Obama's near-total grip on the Black vote.  I think they're kidding themselves.  Obama will still get practically all the Black vote, and the guilty White liberal vote, just like he did last time.  Cain might very well get the independent vote, though, and win the Presidency.  His other advantage is that he seems decisive and tough in comparison to most of the other Republican candidates, and, being who and what he is, can dis' Obama and the pundits can't say "racism."  He's commented on that himself.

At this point I find myself willing to vote for any of the Republicans who've popped up so far, just to get Obama out of office, and that includes Cain.  Ron Paul remains my favorite, because he seems to be the only one who wants to fix the financial mess at the source, while all the others want to leave the established Federal Reserve/Wall Street/Goldman Sachs string-pullers safely in place.  My second choice  would be Bachmann, because she's the only one who seems to want to fix immigration, really, and sounds like she has some idea how to do it.  As for the rest, the one I'd hate most to have to vote for is Perry, because he's so transparently phony.  Cain falls somewhere in the middle.

But Cain is certainly interesting.  Here's a personal look at him from John Derbshire.

Thursday, September 29, 2011

Truth, Justice, and the Neocon Way!

Let's totally forget about domestic policy for awhile, and consider foreign policy.  What is the rule?  What should guide a nation's foreign policy?  No, it's not truth or justice, or morality, or political correctness, or any other touchy-feely idealistic stuff.  The goal of any nation's foreign policy should be the interests of that nation, nothing more or nothing less.  How machiavellian, you say?  No.  This is the rational answer.  Now, obviously, one can disagree about what the interests of a nation are, and even if there's agreement about that, there's still disagreement about how best to advance those interests.  But never mind that. We have a fundamental problem with people who don't think our foreign policy should be about our interests, but should serve other, more elevated (to them) purposes.  You might say that this started with McKinley, because to some extent, the propaganda in favor of war with Spain was all about "liberating" the Cubans and Filipinos, etc., in other words, it was about our foreign policy serving somebody else's interests.  Two problems with that.  First, if our government is serving somebody else's interests, then, to at least some extent, to do so,  it's taking resources away from serving our interests, and can be said to be behaving treasonously. The second problem is that our leaders, however wise they are (pause till laughter tapers off), they just aren't smart enough to be able to determine just what is best for Cubans or Afghans or Tutsis or whoever.  And when we spend a lot of blood and treasure "liberating" some group or another they all too often use their new freedom to lob grenades at us.

I say it started with McKinley, but it really got on line with Wilson, one of those brainy college professors who led us into World War I to make the world safe for democracy and self-determination and for French and British politicians to plunder the defeated Germans till we got into the next war fought for all sorts of etherial ideals.  In both those wars, our participation was for the sake of other nations, not ours.  Since then, we've devoted our foreign policy explicitly to coming to the rescue of South Korea, South Vietnam, Iraq, Somalia, Kosovo, etc. etc.  Always for the sake of foreigners, not Americans.  This superhero meme permeates the left and the right.  The left wants us to cruise around overthrowing what they perceive as right-wing dictators, while the so-called right wants us to save the Israelis, or teach the Afghans how to vote, etc.  In reality, your basic Democrats and Republicans agree on all of this, with minor quibbles about details, which is why we're fighting somebody around the world all the time these days, while we ignore our illegal alien problem.

And that's a good one right there.  Of course, the immigration traitors, both left and right, keep saying that importing millions of third-worlders is actually good for us, but since only an idiot could actually believe that, they add that it's "unfair" or "unjust" to keep these people out, because they "just want to make a better life for themselves and their families."  Hell, people rob banks to make a better life for themselves and their families, too!  Why not encourage them to do that?

So, the immigration mess is just another example of how running foreign policy for the sake of foreigners is self-defeating and downright stupid.

I was on a forum pointing out that our entire involvement in the Middle East is not in our interest.  One guy, who no doubt thinks he's a conservative, argued that even if it's contrary to our interests, we should do it anyway, because helping other people is "What America Is All About."  In other words, Jimmy Carterism is now central to the ideology of a lot of self-proclaimed conservatives.  Genuine conservatives agree with John Quincy Adams, not Jimmy Carter:

Speech to the U.S. House of Representatives on Foreign Policy (July 4, 1821)

John Quincy Adams

AND NOW, FRIENDS AND COUNTRYMEN, if the wise and learned philosophers of the elder world, the first observers of nutation and aberration, the discoverers of maddening ether and invisible planets, the inventors of Congreve rockets and Shrapnel shells, should find their hearts disposed to enquire what has America done for the benefit of mankind?
Let our answer be this: America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity.
She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights.
She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own.
She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart.
She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right.
Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be.
But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.
She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.
She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.
She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.
She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.
The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....
She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....
[America’s] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice.  (from the MILLER CENTER)

For some deeper analysis of what our foreign policy ought to be, see what THE GOLEM has to say."

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Rick Perry is a Creep

The Baloo strip there (original HERE) points out one of Rick Perry's flaws — his adoption of Ron Paul's positions on certain economic issues while scorning Ron Paul himself.  But Rick Perry has other flaws, which I've pointed out before, the main one being his outright treasonous position on reassuring illegal aliens that not only do they not have to worry about Texan authorities interfering with their entry, but they don't have to worry about college tuition for their kids.  Perry will make sure they get in-state tuition.  And now Ann Coulter chimes in about that, and about some other stuff that went on at the last debate HERE.

Alan Simpson for President! NOT AN ENDORSEMENT!

[Quick update — some people have been reading the title and going no further and assuming this post advocates electing this joker.  No!  This is about the phenomenon of the boomlet! So I'm amending the title. Now, back to the post, already in progress....]
No, I'm not a supporter, but I wanted to call your attention to this boomlet.  Thing about Simpson is that he's not slick — and I'm talking about how he comes across, here, not about how he is intrinsically, which I have no way of knowing — and most everybody else except Ron Paul does seem slick.  Too slick. This has nothing to do with his policies, tho, Perot-like, he does have a reputation for being straightforward about the money crisis and pointing out that fixes aren't going to be easy.

There are a lot of people who say the same thing, of course, but they seem stuffy or nerdy, usually, and don't connect with viewers.  Simpson has a Lincolnesque gawkiness, a Trumanesque tendency to say bullsh*t when he means it, and a Will-Rogersesque self-depricating aw-shuckness about him.  He's like  your uncle, the one who kids you and knows a whole lot of stuff and carries a complicated pocketknife.  He could have been a third brother in Secondhand Lions.

This almost certainly won't go anywhere, but it's interesting just how much enthusiasm a politician can collect just for seeming non-phony.

I got this story and video from Mother Jones, of all places.

Political Correctness Makes You Stupid, Again

Design by BALOO.  Buy it on merchandise HERE.
A lot of people have tried to exaggerate political correctness for comic effect, but it's impossible.  No matter how far you go, someone else has already gone farther for real.  One of the dopier political correct ideas is relating the metaphorical use of color terms to designate racial groups — White, Black, Brown, etc. — and forcing them to relate to other uses of color terms.  Like black cats crossing paths, black Friday, etc.  Counterexamples like "in the black," or "lily-livered" are just ignored.  In actual fact, the use of color words for races is just about completely unrelated to the use of color terms in other contexts. But what fun is that?  Why miss an opportunity to harass people and fine-tune everybody's behavior by government fiat? Even toddlers can be regimented by such fine new ideas.  Here's what "equality experts" are up to in Old Blighty.

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

Obama Jokes

Some jokes found on a Tea Party forum:

You know the honeymoon is over when the comedians start.

   The liberals are asking us to give Obama time.
We agree...and think 25 to life would be appropriate. 
--Jay Leno

America needs Obama-care like 
Nancy Pelosi needs a Halloween mask. 
--Jay Leno

Q: Have you heard about McDonald's'
New Obama Value Meal?
 A: Order anything you like
And the guy behind you has to pay for it. 
--Conan O'Brien

Q: What does Barack Obama 
Call lunch with a convicted felon?
A: A fund raiser. 
--Jay Leno

Q: What's the difference between
Obama's cabinet and a penitentiary?
A: One is filled with tax evaders, blackmailers,
And threats to society.
The other is for housing prisoners. 
--David Letterman

Q: If Nancy Pelosi and Obama were on a boat
In the middle of the ocean and it started to sink,
Who would be saved?
A: America ! 
--Jimmy Fallon

Q: What's the difference between
Obama and his dog, Bo?
A: Bo has papers. 
--Jimmy Kimmel

Q: What was the most positive result of
The "Cash for Clunkers" program?
A: It took 95% of the Obama bumper 

Stickers off the road. 
--David Letterman

Solution to the problem in Libya : They want a new Muslim leader, Give them ours.

Bill O'Reilly is a Putz

Cartoon by BALOO
It's amazing what passes for "conservative" these days.  Bill O'Reilly completely misrepresents the whole concept of conservatism all the time, and never better than now, as he joins the unthinking herd and continues the deification of one of our most disastrous Presidents, Abraham Lincoln, in his new book, Killing Lincoln.  No, I haven't read it, because it just came out, but he talks about it in this video, and we can certainly see what his point of view is.  Lincoln, according to him, is our greatest President, and we need one just like him now, because we're so deeply divided.  He holds Lincoln up as some kind of conservative and contrasts him to the "progressive" Obama.  Note: O'Reilly betrays his own basic liberal ideology by adopting the weasel word, "progressive," instead of calling a spade a spade.  Actually, in modern terms, Lincoln himself was a "progressive," starting up some delightful progressive ideas like the income tax, fiat money, and a military draft. And quadruple the size and power of the Federal Government. The actual conservatives in those days were opposing Lincoln. Maybe a less psychotic President, like Douglas or Sam Houston, could have avoided most of that.  We'll never know.

So, if what we need is another Lincoln, O'Reilly, I guess we need a nice big fratricidal Civil War, and we need to throw political dissenters in jail, defy habeas corpus, tax everybody to death, draft all the farm boys and let the upper classes buy their way out of the draft, and violate state laws by Federal proclamation.  Go and read "The American Lenin," by  L. Neil Smith, HERE.  I'll wait.  Okay?  Well, Smith contrasts libertarians with conservatives in his essay, but I'd use slightly different terminology to come to the same conclusion.  I'd use "paleoconservative" instead of "libertarian," and "neoconservative" instead of "conservative," because I think that, historically speaking, libertarianism is a basic part of paleoconservatism, and neoconservatism is the branch that rejects libertarian thinking, and that Lincolnism is the basis, the starting point, for the twin tyrannies of liberalism and neoconservatism in the United States today.  The O'Reillys of this world, in contrast, like great big government and lots of regulation and try to scoop in the natural American paleoconservatives to support their "Big Government" conservatism, which is nothing other than New Deal liberalism, now known as neoconservatism, under the phony name of "conservatism." Further info on that HERE.

Well, listen and learn.  With "conservatives" like O'Reilly, who needs "progressives" like Obama?

Whats the deal with Sarah Palin?

Cartoon by BALOO
Has any politician attracted as many nasty, insulting attacks as Sarah Palin?  I think the answer is a clear "no," but how do you explain it?  Policywise, I don't detect any differences between her and any other of the basic neocon Republican candidates, but the likes of Perry or Christie or even Bachmann will never be treated nearly as viciously as she has been.  I have my theory. First off, she's the antifeminist, doing none of the stuff the feminists require women to do, and has been rather wildly successful at it, staring from basically zero, while good little feminist icons like Hillary have gotten nowhere.  I blogged about this aspect of it all earlier HERE.

And beyond the sex aspect of it all is the sexual aspect.  Palin in many ways is an avatar for the White working class.  The White working class is despised by the pundits, so they despise Palin especially. And, of course, Blacks definitely have been conditioned to hate the White working class, and encouraged to express that hatred with violence, including rape, by the same pundits who remain safe in their gated communities. Sandra Bernhard spoke for them all when she threatened Sarah Palin with rape by her "big black brothers."  If you've forgotten this charming news item, it's HERE.

Sandra just put into explicit words what the rest of the establishment only implies.  If the White working class doesn't behave, they'll send their "brothers" in to rape them or worse. Kathy Shaidle explores this phenomenon more deeply HERE.

Monday, September 26, 2011

Wonderful Picture

No content here.  I just had to share this wonderful picture with you all from the Drudge Report.  Doesn't it make you feel all warm and fuzzy and safe?  How could a Supreme Court like this with such a terrific President possibly go wrong? If somebody had written the Obama Administration up as a sitcom, they couldn't have sold it to anybody but maybe the SciFi Channel.

Obama the Blank Slate

It happened again.  I thought I had an original idea, or had at least seen a new analogy, as I was pondering the fact that Obama got elected by being extremely vague about what he thought about everything, so that Black voters could vote for him just because he's Black (they did) and White liberals could vote for him because he's a clean and well-spoken Black (in the words of goofy old Joe Biden) and some other people could vote for him to "get it over with" and vote for a Black guy who at least didn't seem as bad as Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton and maybe things would calm down a little and Maxine Waters would shut up.  Didn't work.  But it worked for Obama — he was the blank slate that everybody could draw in their ideal of what a Black President could and should be.  And he's still trying to work the same scam.  Part of me wants Cain to get nominated just to see Obama have to switch gears and do without the race card, which, except for the clean and well-spoken part, is all he's got.

Anyhow, it suddenly hit me, at the end of Being There, when Chauncey Gardner is being sized up to become President, precisely because he mouths what seems to be wise, comforting platitudes while he's actually an ignorant idiot who knows precisely nothing that isn't either in his garden or on television (and he clearly doesn't understand the latter), is remarkably similar to our Obama, who doesn't really know anything but golf and community organizing.  And he seems to have been picked to run in pretty much the same process.  Alas, though, just in case I Googled "Chauncey Gardner," and sure enough, somebody already thought of it, and went to the trouble of Photoshopping Obama into Gardner's suit, in the illustration here. And he thought of it a couple of years ago.  See his site HERE.

And this whole train of thought started when I read Steve Sailer's review of Randall Kennedy's book, The Persistence of the Color Line: Racial Politics and the Obama Presidency, and you ought to read it, too.  Interesting insights, both in the book and in Steve's interpretations.  Read it HERE.

Shane Bauer and Josh Fattal

Shane Bauer and Josh Fattal have been released from Iranian prison.  Whoopee.  The bare bones of the story can be found HERE.  But are you like me in wondering what possessed these jokers (plus Sarah Shroud, who had already been let go) to decide that it would be a good idea to go hiking in a powder keg?  The same question has been asked and answered, with special reference to this photo,  over at the blog Just Not Said.

The Irish Savant

This illustration has absolutely nothing to do with the post.
The Irish Savant has a fascinating blog.  Mostly it's about politics and race, and you usually have to click through a "content warning" to get to it, but it's worth it.  Today he has a nice little video called "South African Handshake."  Go see it HERE.

Feminists/Women=Communists/Factory Workers

Or, in other words, feminists are to women as communists are to factory workers.  That is, feminists are hardly normal women, and communists are seldom factory workers at all.  Instead, the F/C's are in the business of making the W/FW's fit into an ideological mold, and if they ruin a few million lives in the process, well, you know the omelet saying.  Feminists and communists are all on the same team, of course, and the purpose of the team is the destruction of Western Civilization.

Alex Kurtagic asks what the left has done for women, and, in the process, he's posted two collages.  The women of the left:

And the women of the right:

How many of each can you identify?  Which group looks like the most pleasant to hang out with?  Discuss.
Late-breaking news.  Somebody just contacted me and said this is "the most obnoxious blog" she's ever seen and that I'm an "anti-intellictual."  If it makes her feel any better, some of the men on the right are pretty goofy-looking:)
Yet another update:
Alex Kurtagic sent the names of the Women on the Left:

From the gallery of horrors:

First row, left to right:

Betty Friedan, Susan Sontag, Bernardine Dohrn, Mary Daly

Second row:

Andrea Dworkin, Gayatri Spivak, Germaine Greer, Ti-Grace Atkinson

Third row:

Valerie Solanas, Gloria Steinem, Roxanne Dunbar, Cheryl Clarke

Fourth row:

Mary Jo Bane, Marilyn French, Phyllis Chesler, Simone de Bouvoir

Friedan, Sontag, Dworkin, Steinem, and Chesler were/are Jewish. Dohrn, a Vietnam War activist and communist, is not, though her father was. Dunbar's mother was half American Indian. Spivak is from India.

And the Women on the Right:

From the gallery of actual women:

First row, left to right:

Hannah Reitsch, Diana Mitford, Saga, Magda Goebbels

Second row:

Nesta Webster, Jaenelle Antas, Michele Renouf, Masha Scream

Third row:

Norah Dacre Fox, Leni Riefenstach, Brigitte Bardot, Unity Mitford

Fourth row:

Ingrid Rimland, Françoise Dior, Savitri Devi, Elizabeth Dilling

Sunday, September 25, 2011

Immigration and Rick Perry yet again

Rick Perry really stepped in it when he said that those who disagree with educating illegal immigrant up to, I suppose, post-graduate work have no heart.  Why is it that politicians with big hearts alway express it by giving away our money?  Anyhow, a link is coming up on this, and at the same link, OneSTDV makes an interesting argument:

If you support accepting immigrants from third-world countries, you're a racist.  Why?  Why, because you're insinuating that the United States is better than third-world countries, and what could be more racist than that?  His blog post is HERE.

Saturday, September 24, 2011

Herman Cain Wins Florida Straw Poll!

Will this change everything?  Anything?  We haven't had a President with a mustache since William Howard Taft.  I link, you decide.  Story HERE.

Calling Things by the Right Names

From Jerry Pournelle's Blog:

Something to Think About …
The English language has some wonderfully anthropomorphic collective nouns for groups of animals.
We are all familiar with a Herd of cows, a Flock of chickens, a School of fish, and a Gaggle of geese.
However, less widely known is a Pride of lions, a Murder of crows (as well as their cousins the rooks and ravens), an Exaltation of doves, and, presumably because they look so wise, a Parliament of owls.
Now consider a group of Baboons…
They are the loudest, most dangerous, most obnoxious, most viciously aggressive, and least intelligent of all primates.
What is the proper collective noun for a group of baboons?
Believe it or not, a Congress!

Ron Paul Straightens Sean Hannity Out

...Okay, tries to straighten him out.


Buy this HERE
The Zeitgeist is human equality, and like most ghosts, it turns out to be just a sheet over nothing.  The human equality the Founding Fathers were talking about is the equality of rights, certainly not the equality of capacity, intelligence, integrity, or any of the other things we judge people by.  The very fact that we judge people by them shows that people are manifestly not equal in that sense.  Neither are groups of people.  The main reason for "achievement gaps" in education and life in general is this inequality, and it makes a farce out of all attempts to "close the achievement gap."  And it's not a simple matter of "intelligence" alone.  Studies have shown that Gypsies, for example, do indeed have innate musical aptitude.  Ashkenazi Jews always score highest on certain kinds of intelligence tests.  Blacks, no matter how you cut it, remain fifteen points behind Whites in intelligence testing of all kinds.  And I don't think I have to explain the bell curve to readers of this blog, do I?  Well, in case outsiders show up today, I will — those fifteen points are an average.  If you take a thousand randomly-selected Blacks and Whites, there will be several Blacks smarter than several Whites.  You might find anything on the individual level, but the gap at the group level is always there.  Just Google "Bell curve" and you'll find lots of explanations.

Well, the amazing Glaivester has produced a symbol for those of us who understand about human inequality, also called Human Biodiversity, based on all those old "Equality" buttons all over the place back in the Sixties.  It's available in various versions HERE.  The "Galton" is Francis Galton.  Read about him HERE and you'll understand the reference.


I guess now that Gaddafi is setting pins in Osama's old bowling alley in Branson, and Osama himself is dead yet again, the Number One Bad Guy in the World Cup goes to Ahmadinejad. Most of the talking heads on TV have even learned to pronounce his name without giggling.  If his name was any harder, they might make some more easily-pronounced guy the current reincarnation of Hitler.  And would Hitler have been the Hitler of his day if the family name had remained Schickelgruber?  Would Stalin be hated a little less if he'd kept his original name, იოსებ ბესარიონის ძე ჯუღაშვილი?  Persians have a tendency to have such names, which is odd, considering that Farsi is an Indo-European language, related to English, and you'd expect a native Persian name to be easier to handle than a borrowed Arabic name, and then you encounter Sadegh Ghotbzadeh — remember him?

Anyhow, Ahmadinejad does rant and rave, but in the midst of all his hatefulness, he asks a difficult question or two.  If it's okay for the US, Israel, Pakistan, and India (to name just a few) to have nukes, why is it an unpardonable sin in the case of Iran?  Another:  If Jews were murdered and otherwise abused by Germans and other Europeans, why is it the Palestinians who have to be punished for it?

Well, these and other observations are to be found this morning over at Taki's Magazine.  Huh?  I used the wrong illustration? That's NOT Ahmadinejad?  Oh, well — too late to change it now.

Friday, September 23, 2011

Quick News Briefs

Bada Boom, Bada Bing!
Chris Christie is reconsidering running for President.  Romney's got the Romneycare problem, and Rick Perry's too obviously an open-borders advocate of unlimited illegal immigration, and the media are breaking their pencil necks trying to suppress the fact that Ron Paul's winning debates.  Point in fact — Ron Paul won the Fox News Poll as to who won that last debate, and Fox didn't like it, so they took the poll results down and lied about it.

Operation Enduring Freezing

Steve Sailer, on whom be peace, has informed us that Greg Cochran and Henry Harpending now have a blog. I will go there every day. They are the authors of the amazing book, 

The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution,

which I haven't gotten around to reviewing yet, because it's a biggie and I want to do it right, but which I recommend unreservedly to anybody who wants to understand the current state of evolutionary science.  So for now, you can read Steve's own review HERE.

It's nice to know that brainy types like Cochran and Harpending have the same take on the jolly Mideast wars that I do.  And they say it so well.  Here's a post from their new blog that sums the whole thing up in a nutshell.

X-Rated Joke

X-Rated joke received in e-mail. You have been warned:)


One day a fourth-grade teacher asked the children what their fathers did for a living. All the typical answers came up — fireman, mechanic, businessman, salesman... and so forth.

However, little Justin was being uncharacteristically quiet, so when the teacher prodded him about his father, he replied, "My father's an exotic dancer in a gay cabaret and takes off all his clothes to music in front of other men and they put money in his underwear. Sometimes, if the offer is really good, he will go home with some guy and stay with him all night for money."

The teacher, obviously shaken by this statement, hurriedly set the other children to work on some exercises and took little Justin aside to ask him, "Is that really true about your father?"

"No," the boy said, "He works for the Democratic National Committee and helped to get Obama elected, but it's too embarrassing to say that in front of the other kids."

Thursday, September 22, 2011

A Closer Look at the Troy Davis Execution

Cartoon by BALOO
We've all heard plenty by now about the execution of Troy Davis.  Listening superficially to the media, one gets the impression that he was some kind of innocent bystander, or Jean Valjean at the worst. Ann Coulter, who is better than anybody when she's at her best, sets us straight on that part of it HERE.  Liberals, bless them, like nothing more than an opportunity to save the lives of human garbage, and get them back out on the streets to predate some more, but are strangely silent when the government actually does get abusive and violates the rights of people who don't do anything wrong.  Use a gun to murder a cop, and everybody from Al Sharpton to Danny Glover will show up to shield you from justice, but if you simply protect yourself from aggression by merely producing a gun and not even firing it, you are pure evil and the liberals want your head.  This strange double standard is delved into by Guy Somerset HERE.

A Quick One — Robert Lindsay on Jared Taylor

This is just a quick alert to go to the site of my favorite leftist, Robert Lindsay, and read what he has to say about Jared Taylor HERE.  I say he's my favorite, not in an ironic way, but because he is my favorite, because tho I disagree with him a lot, I recognize in him a rare trait — a dedication to getting at the truth instead of fitting into the herd.  A very rare trait.  I read his blog all the time.

The Late Charlton Heston's Basement..

Received in e-mail:
"When a strong man, fully armed, guards his house, his possessions are safe."
- Luke 11:21 

late Charlton Heston's Basement....

this is a 'Gun Safe'! 


Another Fine Mess They've Got Us Into

Cartoon by BALOO
Most of the people with deep, sincere convictions about right and wrong in the Middle East, and what our policy should be, quite literally don't know what they're talking about.  Try asking one of them the difference between Sunnis and Shi'as. Some of them, of course, have religious reasons for their ignorance (See "Christian Zionists"), but the ones who don't, or think they don't, are remarkable for the huge inventory of facts they don't know about.  The pro-Zionist side is of course totally dominant in the US, so that's who I'll talk about here.

Most pro-Zionists think it all started in WWII.  Jews escaped, one way or the other, from Europe, and went to Palestine and established Israel and the Arabs went barking mad and attacked them.  Partially true.  Zionism goes back a lot further than that, and the principle of Palestine as a homeland for the world's Jews was made official by the Brits at the end of the First World War, when they and the French occupied and controlled the general area and the Arabs didn't have a thing they could do about it.  Indeed, they weren't in a position to do much until 1948, when the Brits pretty suddenly established Israel, disclaimed all responsibility for anything, and got out of Dodge before anything worse happened.  Originally, the US and the USSR were staunchly pro-Israel (do you ever hear "staunch" or "staunchly" any more in any context other than this one?), and then the Soviets saw an opening to exploit Arab resentment and switched sides, more or less. We were fairly objective about the situation through Eisenhower and Kennedy, and then LBJ poisoned the well by pretty much surrendering our whole foreign policy to the Zionist faction, and we've been in that situation ever since.

Right now we're in the midst of a terrific hissy-fit about the UN vote on whether to regard the Palestinians as a country, and emotions and illogic run high.  A rather deeper and probably more objective view on the whole rat's nest HERE from Dave Witter.

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

Names have consequences.

There's a theory that if you keep treating a person like a criminal, he'll eventually commit crimes, because why shouldn't he?  He's already got the rep.  And if you keep yelling "Bad dog!" at your pooch, sooner or later he'll go bad.  So maybe the lefties should be a little more careful what they call their opponents on the right, eh?  According to legend, way back in the old days, when the late George Lincoln Rockwell was a vague right-wing activist, supporting people like Joseph McCarthy and Douglas MacArthur, the left kept calling him a Nazi, until one day he said something like, "Okay, if you want me to be a Nazi, I'll be a Nazi!" and the rest is history.

The left is still doing that stuff, and their screechy little sisters, the neocons, are doing the same thing.  Disagree with their Middle East policy, and you're an anti-Semite. Just ask Tony Bennett.  Call for less government in one area or another, and, paradoxically, you're a fascist.  Vote against Obama, and you're a racist. Even oppose any of his policies, and you're a racist.  This sort of thing could backfire, as above. So far, most on the right have reacted like self-defacing high school girls, taking the names seriously, and bending over backwards to try to prove that they're not racists or whatever.  The Tea Party has acted especially silly, spending time and money to disprove the "racism" charges, though only an idiot would take them seriously in the first place.  I think Herman Cain is probably a very fine fellow, but I'd wager that at least half his support comes from insecure right-wingers bending over backwards to show how tolerant they are.

Sooner or later, those of us on the right are going to say, okay, you want to call us racists, go ahead. We don't care.  Fascists?  Sure!  Bigots?  Why not?  Too many of us are wasting a lot of energy responding to the childish name-calling, instead of working to spread our messages.  We have to stop doing that.  We have to take such names like war wounds, badges of honor.  Really, if the left has never called you any of those things, you're being very wimpy and need to tighten up a bit.  Here's a lesson on the subject over at Deconstructing Leftism.

Deconstructing Mel Gibson

Those of us on the right like heroes.  Not victims, who are enshrined by the left. They prefer helpless martyrs for the most part.  We like John Wayne characters — able, resourceful people who know right from wrong and take sides readily.  I'm a bit of a dissenter from the John Wayne cult myself, preferring Gary Cooper and Jimmy Stewart as symbols of the ideal American type, but that's just me.  Anyhow, we like historical heros and adopt them as our avatars, so to speak.  We almost elevate heroes like Crockett and Lindbergh over the Jeffersons and Paines.  And we like the Mel Gibson heroes.  We need heroes, you see, and we're inspired by that tenacious Indian in Apocalypto, by William Wallace who was even more pig-headedly tenacious in Braveheart, and by the slow-to-anger-but-run-like-hell-when-he-finally-gets-there Benjamin Martin in The Patriot.  In these times, when Obama is arranging the collapse of civilization as fast as possible, we're even inspired by Mad Max.  Now we're wondering how his "Judah Maccabee" project will turn out.

And since we're inspired by Mel Gibson heroes, we're sort of inspired by Mel Gibson himself, and expect a lot of him.  A lot of us liked his in-vino-veritas performance when stopped by the cop, and even those of us who aren't conservative Catholics at least admire his dedication to his faith.  So a lot of us have been hoping Gibson would turn out to be a celebrity-politician we could coalesce around for a political renaissance.  My friend Baloo is even selling this bumper sticker.

But are we expecting too much?  Libertarians have often gotten all excited about self-proclaimed libertarian  celebrities like Howard Stern and Drew Carey, only to find out that they really are just preening themselves and don't really have any convictions, and that their dedication to the principles we believe in are shallow at best.

Kevin MacDonald has been studying the Mel Gibson phenomenon and comes to these conclusions.

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Rick Perry's Peculiar Patriotism

I'm afraid Rick Perry is one of those politicians who practice "nationalism by proxy."  That is, he has no intention of defending our borders, despite the fact that he governs a state with a very long border with Mexico, and goes so far as to denounce Arizona's plans to defend its portion of that border.  But, he's very concerned with the defense of Israel's borders, going so far as to, acting as the Governor of Texas, urge Eric Holder to somehow arrange to stop the flotilla that was annoying Israel last year.  Kind of like the Mayor of Peoria declaring war on China for invading Tibet. There's a little analysis of this inappropriate idiocy HERE.  He went on to make his devotion to Israel extra-clear Tuesday. Perry's just another Confused Christian, who read Leon Uris's Exodus or saw the movie by the same name with Paul Newman and Sal Mineo and thought it was part of the Bible.  Here are the facts, folks.  Israel is just another foreign country with its own interests, like Japan or Bulgaria or Ecuador.  No reason we can be friendly with it, but also no reason to think it'll ever, ever, consider our interests as important as its own.  And when some goofball says that US interests are the same as Israel's, he's just blathering nonsense.  Interests of any two nations may occasionally coincide, but never be identical.  That's why they're two different countries.  Now, a couple of proofs of this — it is not in the interests of the United States to be spied on, and Israel spies on us. Nor is it in our interest to have our Navy ships attacked.  Israel attacked one of our Navy ships.  Get the picture?  That doesn't mean that Israel is the embodiment of evil, just that it's another country with its own interests.  I'm sure a lot of countries would attack our ships if they thought they could get away with it.  Somebody needs to enlighten Rick Perry, and Michele Bachmann, and just about all our other politicians, about this niggling fact.

More on Obama's (snicker!) competence

Cartoon by BALOO
I blogged earlier about how smart Obama is (not very), linking to Steve Sailer, who has been thinking about this sort of thing for quite some time. But beyond smartness is wisdom, or know-how, or just plain competence, for which a certain level of intelligence is necessary but not sufficient.  Most every President we've had has at one time or another been in charge of something substantial in an executive position, be it a state (George Bush), the CIA (that other George Bush), the invasion of Europe (Eisenhower), the whole damn Union Army (Grant), a newspaper (Harding)... etc.  Obama, in contrast, has never been in charge of anything, really, except for his own image, and he's had a lot of help with that.  In fact, if you'll remember the 2008 campaign, people questioned this fact, and Obama supporters countered that he was in charge of his own campaign for President.  And they expected that to be accepted as sufficient proof of his executive prowess. I guess it was enough for a lot of goofy voters.

Well, Steve is at it again, this time discussing Obama's competence rather than just his intelligence.  In order to know what is meant by "volcano gods" in his blog post, you need to go back and read his VDare article HERE.  Then read his piece HERE.

Moving to the Right

Robert Lindsay ask why leftists so often move to the right, but rightists so seldom move left HERE.  He concludes that it has to do with ideological commitment, but what about the ideological commitment of leftists?  My theory is different.  I say that the older you get, and the more experience you have with the real world, the harder it is to believe leftist ideology, because it gets both facts and logic wrong.  Now, there are cases where people have left conservatism and moved left, like Ed Schultz and Ariana Huffington, but in most such cases, we're talking about professional pundits who see such a switch as a money-making career move, not an actual ideological conversion on the personal level.
Real conservatism insists that you look at reality all the time. That's why neocons can't be considered actual conservatives.  They're mostly just an excrescence of the left, designed to confuse the people, and they've done a fine job of it so far. They're currently trying to co-opt the Tea Party movement, but that's a subject for another post.

There are plenty of stories out there about people who accepted the leftist memes of the MAG (media, academia, government) until they were shocked out of them by contact with reality. One of the most pervasive such memes is the weird self-contradictory notion that all people are basically equal (not just equal in moral worth, as in Christianity, or in rights, as in the US Constitution, but somehow intrinsically equal in potential), and, even worse, that all cultures are equal.  My experience is that almost everybody falls for the first these days, but there's at least some dissent on the latter.

Well, both are dead wrong and you have to abandon both facts and logic to support them.  Jim Goad describes his journey out of the stupidity of leftism HERE