How to Win the White House and Save the World

Cant-fix-stupid-cropI periodically reread (or watch) some of Reagan’s speeches, apparently Ace does as well. And he’s noticed something that has vaguely bugged me, as well:

I’ve been reading some of Reagan’s old speeches to confirm something to myself. At the Trump-less debate, Rand Paul finished his closing statement by saying something like, “And I’m the only Republican who’ll balance the budget.”

This provoked a reaction from me, because I thought — would Reagan have just made the promise that he would balance the budget? In a closing statement, in which he could chose his own words as he liked?

Looking back at Reagan’s speeches, I don’t see him just promising some government action. I see him promising a government action and then immediately telling you how this will directly and tangibly benefit you.

This has something to do with Trump’s appeal, he does it crudely, but “we’re gonna get rich” is surely a benefit. But other things we talk about have them too. Reducing regulatory burden? More jobs and/or better pay because business’ aren’t spending mega bucks doing government paperwork, and trying to comply with nonsensical ideas imposed by government lawyers. And so on, ad infinitum.

This ties into what economists call ‘opportunity cost’. Every dollar spent complying with Washington (or Lincoln, for that matter) could have been spent in other ways, buying a car, expanding operations, saving for college, whatever. It’s true for us all, business and labor, rich and poor, whatever. What the government takes, we can’t spend for what we want or need.

Ace again:

So often I hear candidates lapse into Conserva-Speak where they trouble themselves over points of policy, shorthanding years or decades of conservative ideological infighting on the issue.

But they do not end their statement with:

* This will make you freer.

* This will make you safer.

* This will make you richer.

* This will make you happier.

* This will make a better world for your children.

There is a principle called the 80/20 principle. You surely know it: 20% of the work produces 80% of the gains. But the next 80% of the work only produces the last 20% of the gains.

Trump is being taken seriously because he’s not forgetting the most important thing: to tell people

via How to Win the White House and Save the World: Don’t Talk <i>of</i> Reagan. Talk <i>Like</i> Reagan..

YUP!! Talk like Reagan, it a good part of why he won, twice.

A friend of mine published a so-called rant yesterday. I don’t think it is, really. To my mind, it is simple common sense, from those of us out here on the fruited plain, expressed quite clearly. Here’s part of what Cultural Limits had to say:

Two states into the 2016 presidential primary season, and the Republican “establishment” has yet to finish above third place.  Not that two states is all that much in the larger scheme of things (especially when the states in question are Iowa and New Hampshire, important only because they butted in at the front of the line), but out of the gate, the people who supposedly know what they are doing are losing, and losing badly.

Why?  Well, as so many of us have observed since 2009 when the electorate decided exercise their first amendment right to peacefully assemble, and over a million of them did so in Washington on September 12 of that year (a day that scared the $#@! out of all political operatives, according to one insider at the time), the American people are…how do we put this…PISSED OFF.  No one in Washington seems to be listening to the great unwashed masses that foot the bill for the government and everything else that seems to get stuck in the swamp that is the District of Columbia.  At that point over six years ago, the issue was mostly taxes, and the specter of ObamaCare, that has been every bit of the nightmare predicted.  Now…now the issues are so numerous that the people of the country fear for survival: the culture, the country, and, well, we the people ourselves.

We out on the fruited plain see an emasculated “establishment” that cannot or will not put our best interests ahead of their own and those of their donors.

[…] These are real, actual results which are the consequences of real, actual resentment stemming from real, actual betrayal.

The establishment may not see it that way, but the people do.  And that is what matters this time around.  2016 is the most important election in at least one hundred years in the United States.  The “dumbed-down” people are proving that they aren’t as much the blind followers as the “establishment” would like to believe.  The people aren’t falling for the narrative.  We are making up our own minds.  And we want America to be great again.

Now the question is who actually can facilitate that happening….

via: RANT: GOP Establishment FINALLY Notices How Ticked Off The Voters Are

Yes, and that is what We the (sovereign) People of these United States are going to decide this year, not the establishment (whoever they are). Us!

 

Beyoncé at the Super Bowl? I prefer the anti-racists of Millwall

thHeh, who are the racists here?

[…]It’s not just Millwall, mind — football has done extraordinarily well in accustoming the white folks to divest themselves of racial prejudice. It is still the focus of anti-racist odium from the middle-class liberal left, of course, which despises what it sees as a lowbrow white working-class leisure pursuit. And yet there were more black players on Millwall’s books in 1975 than there were black journalists on the Guardian’s staff. A greater proportion of black footballers then and now than black academics, black lawyers, black MPs, black educationalists, black social workers — name your middle-class profession and the answer will be the same. And black Britons thrived in the same trades as those working-class supporters on the terraces — as electricians, plumbers, labourers. […]

And the story is much the same in the USA. This week the hugely irritating singer Beyoncé performed at half time during the Super Bowl and, in a display of outstandingly self-obsessed virtue-signalling, devoted her routine to Black Power. Her dancers referenced both Malcolm X and the Black Panthers. Malcolm was, for almost all of his adult life, an uncompromising racist who believed in complete segregation of the races and that white people were devils who would soon be obliterated. He recanted on these loathsome views only a year or so before he was murdered by a former fellow traveller from the unspeakably vile Nation of Islam, which thought he had got too big for his boots. The Black Panthers, meanwhile, were a bedraggled and asinine collection of gun-toting Maoist halfwits.

If Beyoncé had wished to champion the cause of racial equality and proper integration, she would have been better off paying homage to the players on the field and those redneck supporters in the stands. At the same time that Malcolm X was advocating separation for blacks from white America, on account of its irrevocably racist agenda, the National Football League was showing the way: almost one third of American football players in the 1960s were black. Today that figure is more than two thirds.

Where is the real racism within our societies, do you think? Among the ordinary white working-class folk — or a little higher up the social ladder? Trevor Lee and many others could give you an answer.

via Beyoncé at the Super Bowl? I prefer the anti-racists of Millwall.

It’s the same the whole world over

Lawless America

I was watching the dramatisation of the Nuremberg Tribunal (the one with Alec Baldwin) last night, and it made me think.

First, with the immigration status, and such, how far is Germany again from the maelstrom that existed under Weimar? And what will happen this time? We know history doesn’t repeat, exactly, but it does rhyme. Something to think about, for us all.

But my stronger feeling was that America may be circling that same drain, for all the reasons that Bob Livingston writes of here. It doesn’t mean that it has to happen, or that it has to happen this way, but it means that we have a serious problem with this, and we’d best be thinking about a solution.

America is a nation of thousands if not millions of laws, yet it is a lawless nation.

A lawless nation is no nation at all. It is merely a Third-world backwater where those in power who lord over the people and abuse them for their own gain, for the gain of the bureaucrat class, and for the benefit of the banksters and the crony corporations who fund the charade elections every two or four years.

So those thousands or millions of laws written “for our benefit” – at least that’s what we’re told each time another edict from the District of Criminals becomes “law” – are employed against us while those in power are given a pass on them. Beyond that, those in power make the laws arbitrary by enforcing them or not enforcing them on a whim.

Last week, Brandon Judd of the National Border Patrol Council told  a House Judiciary Committee that the Barack Obama Department of Homeland Security had instructed U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents to release illegal immigrants and no longer order them to appear at deportation hearings. The stand down order includes a requirement that the whereabouts of illegals not be tracked, the Washington Examiner reported.

Judd said the new policy was implemented because only about 40 percent of illegal aliens apprehended and given a Notice to Appear (NTA) before an immigration judge actually show up. The process became so farcical that Border Patrol agents began calling them Notices to Disappear.

So in order to avoid the embarrassment of admitting that 60 percent of all illegals apprehended fail to appear before an immigration judge as required, the DHS and the Attorneys from the Department of Just(us) decided that any illegals apprehended who had no felony convictions and who claim to have been in the U.S. since January 2014 are to be released without an NTA.

Judd further testified:

Not only do we release these individuals that by law are subject to removal proceedings, we do it without any means of tracking their whereabouts. Agents believe this exploitable policy was set in place because DHS was embarrassed at the sheer number of those who choose not to follow the law by showing up for their court appearances. In essence, we pull these persons out of the shadows and into the light just to release them right back to those same shadows from whence they came.

Let me give you an example from my sector in Montana. Several months ago we arrested an illegal alien with a felony domestic violence arrest from another state. He was released because his trial had not occurred and therefore had not been convicted. Mind you he had not been acquitted either but we had to let him go all the same.

Under the law he should have been set up for removal proceedings, but under the policy he was let go. And he was let go even though he first proved that he cared so little about our laws that he entered the United States illegally, and once here, he proved further disdain by getting arrested for a serious violent act against another. What did we teach him and everyone else he undoubtedly told about his experience? We taught him our laws mean very little, but policies mean everything.

via Lawless America – Personal Liberty®.

Answers? I’m not sure I have any, but until we define the problems that doesn’t matter, so let’s get to defining!

Playing the political game

George-Washington

Part of the problem with politics, highlighted in Neo’s posts this week, is that frankly most decent people don’t want to touch it, and those that do tend to be tarred by the pitch they have touched. It takes a very strong character to resist the temptation, a thick skin to bear the slings and arrows, and the patience of a saint to deal with your fellow politicians. Such men, and women, come along infrequently. To my mind George Washington, despite sniping from various historians, fits the bill to a tremendous degree. He could quite easily have become king, or at least president for life, instead he retired to Mt Vernon. He was the American Cincinnatus. In their positions, most men would have held on to absolute power; they did not. The American Constitution, knowing that it is too much to hope for another Washington, wisely imposes term limits on the President; it is more than time to do the same for the Senate. Two terms are more than enough to do any good a Senator is going to do. Congressmen might also benefit from the same system, as would Governors. The fact is that power does, as Lord Acton wrote, tend to corrupt.

By that, Acton was not just meaning what we tend to mean – graft, peculation and monetary misdeeds, he was also referring to the subtle corruption of the character. Surround a man, or woman, with people whose self-interest lies in telling them what they want to hear, and they will soon lose their natural judgment. Politicians are even worse than the rest of us for thinking they are right, so tell them that and their big heads get even more swollen. Now there is the fame thing. Harry S Truman could walk down the street in DC and most people wouldn’t even have recognised him, he and Mrs T could dine at a restaurant without being bothered by the media. That all changed with TV and JFK, and now POTUS is a ‘celeb’. This is not good for the ego or the character.

Then there is the art of winning elections. There is no reason elections have to cost so much, and in the UK we have a limit of £18,000 (about $26,000) per MP per campaign. The main parties can spend whatever they can raise, and it would be better for them, and for the trees, if they were similarly limited. We all know most of it is ‘spin’, which is weasel-speak for telling lies. It encourages politicians to treat the process like a game, the objective of which is to get elected – at literally any cost. We fall for this time and again, but like a drunk the morning after, wake with a hangover proclaiming ‘never again’ – until the next time.

It’s easy to romanticise the past. Politics was in one sense cleaner when it was an affair of landed gentlemen arguing over power – men too wealthy to be ‘bought’. Democratic politics has always tended to be ‘down and dirty’. Neo was right earlier in the week when he reminded us of the importance of character. Viewed from my side of the Atlantic, Hillary looks to me like a bridesmaid determined to be the bride – no idea what she’s do if she was, but thinks it’s her turn now; you can see why, it would make all that putting up with the public humiliation from Bill sort of worth it. Bernie Sanders is a familiar type to us in the UK – an impractical socialist who wins easy support from the young by promising free stuff and who will get nowhere. As for ‘The Donald”, straight out of ‘Citizen Kane’, but souped up for the modern era. He’s a Republican? Really? Last time I looked (which was admittedly a few years back) he was still a Democrat. Rubio’s a good-looking boy put up to stop Cruz, because Cruz is dangerous – he seems to believe what he says, and we can’t be having that!

Not long now till Super Tuesday and these things get sorted – but I can’t be the only one to think that America ought to be able to find better than this?

Virtuous Reality Specs

Spring-Heeled Jack jumping over a gate Image o...

Spring-Heeled Jack jumping over a gate Image obtained from: http://anomalyinfo.com/illus.htm#i000001 A 19th century “penny dreadful” illustration. From the BBC Hulton Picture Library. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Heh! This is from England, but I’m very sure you’ll recognize the symptoms and easily be able to substitute the appropriate Americans. Zika, who cares (yet anyway), this is really dangerous!

If you think today’s violent porno online culture is corrupting our kids, wait until you see what’s coming next.

Games involving extreme violence, murder, gang rape, theft and misogyny are a bad influence on developing minds, but they are not that lifelike. I don’t care how good the graphics are in Grand Theft Auto, it’s still two dimensional and nobody is convinced this is real life.

However, there’s a new cult that is far more dangerous. It’s in 3D, startlingly realistic, and allows the participant to immerse themselves in a fantasy word of their choice. They become cut off from the physical world, oblivious to facts and data and the geography of their real surroundings, because they have the capacity to make everything look how they want it to. Before information can reach the rational regions of their brain, it is re-arranged into the picture the user wants to see, by being passed through a prism of their prejudice.

They call this Virtuous Reality. Celebrity users include Jeremy Corbyn, trendy vicar Giles Fraser, New Statesman columnist Penny Dreadful and the entire editorial staff of the BBC.

Like many new phenomena, virtuous reality has been around for a while, but it’s only just reached mass consciousness. Recent events in Cologne and Sweden have alerted the public to the power of this reality distorting power of virtuosity, but in truth it’s been around for decades.

via Nick Booth: I’ve rumbled Polly T and Co. Their distorted view is down to virtuous reality specs – The Conservative Woman.

And so we must develop the ‘New Soviet (British, American, German et. al.) Man’. or rather pick one of 20, 50, 100, whatever choices of virtuous reality genders.

Nor can they make sense of Islam, because they can’t make sense of religion, except perhaps as coffee houses full of do-gooders. A real religion, with a God who means what he says, whether Islam, Christianity, Sikhism, or any other, is simply beyond their ken. Daniel Greenfield expanded on this the other day on Frontpage Magazine.

The left’s greatest intellectual error is its conviction that the world can be divided into a binary power struggle in which both sides agree on the nature of the struggle, but disagree on the outcome.

For leftists of a certain generation, it was class. Marx began the Communist Manifesto by laying out a primal class struggle throughout human history. For Marxists, everything in the world could be broken down to a class struggle with the wealthy oppressors on one side and the oppressed on the other.

It didn’t matter that this model didn’t fit a reality in which Communists leaders came from wealthy backgrounds and their opponents were just as likely to be poor peasants. To the left, everything is defined by the model. Reality is an inconvenience that is suppressed with gulags and firing squads.

Today the variable is identity politics. Everything must be intersectional. There are those who stand on the right side of history, in favor of abortion, gay marriage and illegal immigration. Everyone who isn’t on board is a racist, even if they’re black or Latino, a sexist, even if they’re female, or a homophobe, even if they’re gay. Once again, reality doesn’t matter. The binary struggle is the model for everything.

The left believes that there is a binary struggle over the future of humanity with only two sides. It does not understand how the right actually thinks and it has no room for understanding equally compelling belief systems that operate outside this model.

That’s where Islam comes in. Or doesn’t.

The left has never been able to understand religion. It’s not so much secular or atheistic as it is consumed by a compelling belief system of its own which leaves no room for religious conviction.

Via: WHY THE LEFT CAN’T UNDERSTAND ISLAM

I would say these loose cannons are too dangerous to let run free amongst us, but we’ve nearly given them the keys to the kingdom. I think it may be time for the adults to reassume control.

Give Women the Right to Defend Themselves

Nederlands: Geert Wilders op campagne in zwolle

Nederlands: Geert Wilders op campagne in zwolle (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This is from Geert Wilders and Machiel de Graaf writing for the Gatestone Institute.

“Cultural enrichment” has brought us a new word: Taharrush. Remember it well, because we are going to have to deal with it a lot. Taharrush is the Arabic word for the phenomenon whereby women are encircled by groups of men and sexually harassed, assaulted, groped, raped. After the Cologne taharrush on New Year’s Eve, many German women bought pepper spray. Who can blame them?

A culture that has a specific word for sexual assaults of women by groups of men is a danger to all women. The existence of the word indicates that the phenomenon is widespread. Frau Merkel, Prime Minister Rutte and all the other open-door politicians could and should have known this.

The Islamic world is steeped in misogyny. The Koran explicitly states that a woman is worth only half a man (Suras 2: 228, 2: 282, 4:11), that women are unclean (5:6), and that a man can have sex with his wife whenever he wants (24:31). The Koran even says that men are allowed to have sex slaves (4:24), and that they have the right to rape women whom they have captured (24:31).

The hadiths, the descriptions of the life of Muhammad, the ideal human being whose example all the Islamic faithful must follow, confirm that women are sex objects, that they are inferior beings like dogs and donkeys, and that there is nothing wrong with sexual slavery and raping female prisoners.

Taharrush is quite common in Islamic countries. Women are frequently surrounded by men and subsequently abused. The Egyptian website Jadaliyya points out that it also happens to veiled women. Women are victims simply because they are women and not because they have provoked the men by their conduct or “provocative” clothing. It can happen in the streets, public transport, supermarkets, or during protest demonstrations. […]

The solution is not that our women keep an arm’s length from the male barbarians, but that the government keeps these men thousands of kilometers away from us. Until that happens, other measures are needed. It is irresponsible to turn our country into a jungle and subsequently send women unarmed into the jungle. They must at least have the right to defend themselves. Contrary to countries such as Germany and France, in our country it is illegal to carry pepper spray. With the Netherlands now being overrun by men who see women as inferior sex tools, it is time to legalize pepper spray in the Netherlands as a weapon against taharrush.

via Give Women the Right to Defend Themselves.

The only real problem that I have with this is this. Women, like men, have an inherent, God-given, right of self-defense, not to mention the duty to defend others. It is simply the right to life. It is illegitimate for any government to think it has any right at all to preemptively remove this right from any member of society. Pepper spray (and tasers and the like) are an OK stopgap. But the only way to stop animals like this is to put them down, and therefore, lethal self-defense is the answer.

Yes, for most of us that means guns. Not for nothing, in the Old American West, was it said that God created men and women, but Colonel Colt made them equal. How else is an 110-pound woman going to defend herself from 2 dozen or so young men? The answer is, she isn’t.

It’s far too late, in Europe certainly, but here as well, for half measures. Either we allow our women (and men, incidentally) to defend themselves, or we allow them to massacred at the will of the insurgents. That is the bottom line decision we have to make.

%d bloggers like this: