Monday, September 16, 2013

Puttin' a Putin Together

An anonymous commenter on my "Putin - Peaking Too Soon?" post of a day or so a go really gets the point.  He wrote:

My only reservation about Putin as the president of the United States is that he is a Russian, through and through. As such, he will always be looking out for the interests of Russians. Don't take it wrongly, this is a good thing, provided one is leading Russia. It is the same reason why, while I respect Lee Kuan Yew as a statesman, I would never want him to lead the United States. 

But I think we need a president with a strong sense of connection to this country and its historic majority, who have defined its institutions and culture. As such, Putin simply wouldn't fit the bill, although he would still probably be a better president than Obama, by virtue of not sharing our current president's seething hatred of the White Christian founders of this country.

I think having a leader with the best qualities of Vladimir Putin and Lee Kuan Yew, who was still an American through and through, would be ideal. And I know such men must exist in this country. But the media, dominated as it is by cultural Marxists, would do everything it could to keep that leader's existence from becoming public knowledge. They like their puppet rulers, who will spout platitudes about human rights and democracy, while ignoring their own people's wishes to stay out of foreign wars fought on behalf of monstrous barbarians.

So since Putin has the advantage of name recognition, and he's sure as hell better than any of the other jokers being put forth as contenders, why not? Putin for President!


And that's exactly right. Interestingly, this is a case of Great Minds Think Alike, because this post was going to be speculation about who would make the best running mate for Putin's bid for the US presidency, and the conclusion was going to be, despite his advanced age, Lee Kuan Yew.  A side thought: An American President who was doggedly pro-Russian would, come to think of it, be much better than Obama, because American interests and Russians often coincide, or should do so. But an anti-American President, like Obama, is always against American interests.

But all kidding or near-kidding aside, what we really want for President is the American equivalent of Putin, which is kind of described on the poster here. We haven't seen anybody like that in a long time, have we? Oh, some candidates have shown elements of Putinesque virtues.  Perot was against trade agreements that hurt our economy.  George Wallace was against destroying America with social engineering. Pat Buchanan had a refreshing "America First" attitude and policy. Ron Paul advocated quaintly paying attention to the Constitution and other manifestations of the wisdom of the Founding Fathers. But no, we don't quite have a Putin here.  Not obviously, anyway.  We need this combo:

G. Gordon Liddy — His experience in intelligence and his realism about international politics.
Ron Paul — His awareness of, and dedication to, the founding ideas of the nation.
Kevin MacDonald — His scholar's awareness of history and who's wrecking the country and how they're doing it.
Jeff Sessions — Opposition to open borders.
L. Neil Smith — Total dedication to the Second Amendment, not to mention the rest of the Bill of Rights.

Mix them together and you might just have an American Putin.  Any suggestions?

12 comments:

  1. What makes the constitution and bill of rights so sacred to you? They are by no means perfect, which is why we keep amending it, it is outdated in many ways, and you hold up one small part as the most important part of all. You hold up a man who is a high school graduate, as someone who fully understands the bill of rights, I mean honestly what do you hope to accomplish here?

    ReplyDelete
  2. So, it's your position that one needs a college education to understand the Bill of Rights? This reminds me of the time I was working next to some young punk who knew everything, and held a liberal view of everything. I disagreed with some silly thing he said, and his answer was "If you went to college, you'd understand." I just let him go on till one of our co-workers told him i had a Master's Degree.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Eager young ignoramus: if for no other reason, the Bill of Rights must stand because it is substance of the bargain that libertarians like Jefferson and Paine made with the Father of Fascism, Alexander Hamilton, so there could be a United States. It doesn't get amended, it never has. If it ever does, the bargain is off, and the government you adore will have no authority to continue existing.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You need more education than you get from high school. That is why people without college degrees don't get elected into major office. The Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Occasionally one of these college grads says something that makes sense. One of them once said that he'd rather be governed by people randomly selected from the NYC phone directory than by the eggheads in DC.

    I've never understood why liberals automatically equate a degree with intelligence. It's as if they believe that the ability to discern which way the wind is blowing makes one intelligent. Who on earth has any faith in BOTH Bush and Obama, college ed. being the qualifier?



    ReplyDelete
  6. No a degree does not always denote intelligence, but it certainly helps. I don't doubt that Bush was smart but his administration did not do a good job. But I have a lot more faith in him than people who believe in tiny government with no regulations and no social aid whatsoever. I cannot imagine what sort of decaying hell that would bring about.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Don't ask me, I'm a monarchist. A decaying hell is where we're heading now, with 'democracy'.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Slightly OT:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiDwr2T95t4#t=209

    ReplyDelete
  9. Quartermain: Clearly you have never actually thought about anything I have said, ever. I am a Christian, which makes me for social justice and a pacifist as expressions of my faith. I support the democratic party because on social justices issues they are the closest to my own views, but I do not consider myself a democrat. Because I abhor violence, I do not support any war, and the fact that you think that I would simply because Obama is president, means you have not been paying attention.

    Anon: We are headed to a decaying hell because people who share in at least a few of the libertarian views manipulate the government so it grinds to a halt. Before they can get rid of government, they first need to stop it. So when the government literally does nothing, there is decay

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Will you relax? That vid was not a dig at you. Just Obama and anyone foolish to still support him.

      I wasn't picking on you this time.

      Delete
  10. Let's see if I get this. Libertarian views have manipulated government so it has ground to a halt?

    Since you agree that we are headed to a decaying hell, are you prepared to claim that the number and amount of things the US government does has not continually increased at an exponential rate since its founding? A century ago no one had heard of the welfare/warfare state.

    You do realize that what was formerly known as the United States is now commonly referred to as the American Empire, right? Does that imply a government ground to a halt or a government massively and continually expanding?

    ReplyDelete
  11. The military is expanding, but social programs are constantly being cut. I leave it up to Claire Conner, who is the greater expert on this issue, look her up she.

    ReplyDelete