Smart Power or Disrespect.

7812822-1x1-700x700When I first read about the arrival of Barack Obama at Beijing, sadly I chuckled, because it felt like something so many of us would like to do. Then I remembered when the President is piped on board a navy ship, he is announced as “The United States, arriving”. That is ceremonially, and in large part effectively, he is the United States, and when he is disrespected, so is the country. And so my chuckle was short lived.

Paul Mirengoff wrote on this the other day

It was, as the New York Times acknowledged, “bruising even by Chinese standards.”

It was also unsurprising, Susan Rice’s statement that “they did things that weren’t anticipated” notwithstanding. Obama has earned China’s contempt.

The administration’s “pivot to Asia” was not, objectively, terribly meaningful. But to the extent it had meaning, the Chinese reasonably perceived it as an attempt to counteract China’s large and growing influence in the region. Subjectively, the pivot was full of meaning for China.

Obama hoped through his “pivot” to forge stronger alliances with our traditional friends in the region and make new allies out of nations like Vietnam and Burma that feel threatened by China. However, as William Wan of the Washington Post observes, “the very Asian allies the pivot was meant to reassure had their doubts” about Obama’s seriousness. “Many wondered how much of the pivot was empty rhetoric and how much it would be backed by economic and military substance.”

As a result, the “pivot” was counterproductive. China became more belligerent while the nations that were supposed to help us curb Chinese belligerence wanted little part of it.

And it’s certainly not just the Chinese, John Hinderaker adds this

In contrast, Obama had to cancel his scheduled meeting with Philippine President Rodrigo Détente after that leader blasted Obama for criticizing his government’s war against Philippine drug dealers.

President Obama canceled a meeting with Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte Monday, after the Filipino leader publicly swore while warning him not to raise questions about alleged death squad operations in his country against suspected drug dealers.

Earlier in the day, during a news conference before leaving the Philippines for Laos, where both men are to attend a summit of Southeast Asian leaders, Duterte had said that if Obama were to raise the issue during their scheduled meeting, “son of a bitch, I will swear at you.”

I haven’t heard the original Spanish, but other news sources say that Duterte said “son of a whore.”

He is a leader of a sovereign country and is answerable only to the Filipino people, Duterte said, and Obama must be respectful.

At the G20, Obama seemed determined to offend everyone, including his least favorite nation, Great Britain. He repeated his threat that Britain, having voted to leave the EU, would go to the back of the line when it comes to trade agreements with the U.S. But Brexit leaders weren’t buying it.

[A]t the G20 conference in China [Obama] appeared with the new Prime Minister Theresa May, and openly said that the 17 million who backed Brexit were wrong.

But Iain Duncan Smith, the former Conservative leader, said of Mr Obama’s comments: “Who cares what he says? He’s going. Bye bye.”

He told The Sun: “All the congressmen and senators I’ve spoken to have all said ‘When you’re ready to do a trade deal, we’ll step up to the plate’. We’re both free traders, it will take one or two years.

“The only trade deal the US has in train at the moment is TTIP, and everyone is saying that is dead. Congress won’t ratify it as they would have to make too many compromises to please the EU.

“It’s [Obama’s] vanity project. The truth is, no one really cares what he says.”

And Jacob Rees-Mogg, another Eurosceptic Tory MP, added: “Fortunately, he is yesterday’s man and will no longer be President early next year.

“The US is the UK’s single most important partner, and as far as I can see the EU-US trade deal is dead in the water.

“He’s putting a corpse ahead of the United States’ most loyal ally.

“These comments tell us all we need to know about how President Obama has never been a friend of ours.”

The “corpse” would be the EU.

As Streiff said on RedState,

He [Obama] was wrong then, he’s wrong now. He is confusing people being unafraid of us with people liking and respecting us. They don’t. They’ve witnessed the slow motion freight train wreck that has been America’s foreign policy under the morons Obama has appointed and hired. China should be thanked for showing the next president the low esteem in which China holds the United States.

Whoever the next president is, they’ve got a hell of a lot of rebuilding to do. Or we may as well go gentle into the night, for dark, it will certainly be.

Après nous le déluge

BLM and The End of PC: Bill Whittle Saturday

We haven’t had much Bill Whittle recently, so let’s have a couple for Saturday. First, how Black Lives Matters kills people.

And it’s going to get nothing but worse as the craven administrations of our cities force more and more police departments to ‘Go Fetal’. Anybody who thinks these people give a damn about blacks, or anybody else but themselves, well it’s hard to believe anyone can be that deluded.

Then there is political correctness. You know that I long ago decided not to play this game. I simply don’t care, I call things what and as they are. Bill and Stefan Molyneux thnk we’ve turned the corner on this one. Hope so, and in any case, keep the pressure on.

 

American Society on the Brink

Victor Davis Hanson recently wrote an article in National Review which makes a good follow-on for yesterday’s article here. Overall, VDH isn’t as optimistic as Brandon Smith. He sees the racial divide (and the racialism) in America as approaching (or perhaps past) the tipping point, that will divide the country for a long time to come. I think his point is valid and shows us what may well be in store.

We watched the other week as Britain nearly tore itself asunder, as the Remainers acted badly as a result of losing the referendum, and I probably don’t need to remind many Americans that the Republican Convention is next week, in Cleveland. There are many threats flying about the internet, and while many are just big talk, it won’t take many to make even more of a mess of it than the party has done on its own. Here’s some of VDH.

“Punish our enemies” characterized Obama’s approach to race and bloc voting. Each time an explosive racial confrontation appeared on the national scene, Obama — always in his accustomed academic intonations — did his best to exploit the issue. So the Skip Gates farce was leveraged into commentary about police stereotyping and profiling on a national level. The police officer in the Ferguson shooting was eventually exonerated by Obama’s own Justice Department, but not before Obama had already exploited the shooting for political advantage, as part of a larger false narrative of out-of-control racist cops who recklessly shoot black suspects at inordinate rates to the population (rather than in the context of their national incidence of contact with police).

**************************

Multicultural societies — from 19th-century Austria–Hungary to contemporary Iraq, Lebanon, the former Yugoslavia, and Rwanda — have a poor record of keeping the peace between competing tribes. They usually end up mired in nihilistic and endemic violence.

The only hope for history’s rare multiracial, multiethnic, and multireligious nations is to adopt a common culture, one that artificially suppresses the natural instinct of humans to identify first with their particular tribe. America, in the logical spirit of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, was exceptional among modern societies in slowly evolving from its original, largely European immigrant population to a 21st-century assimilated, integrated, and intermarried multiracial society, in which religious and racial affiliations were incidental, not essential, to one’s public character and identity.

But such a bold experiment was always tenuous and against the cruel grain of history, in which the hard work of centuries could be easily torn apart by the brief demagoguery of the moment. Unfortunately, President Obama, ever since he first appeared on the national political scene in 2008, has systematically adopted a rhetoric and an agenda that is predicated on dividing up the country according to tribal grievances, in hopes of recalibrating various factions into a majority grievance culture. In large part, he has succeeded politically. But in doing so he has nearly torn the country apart. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to suggest that no other recent president has offered such a level of polarizing and divisive racial bombast.

Most recently, without citing any facts about the circumstances of the police shootings in Minnesota and Louisiana, Barack Obama castigated the police and the citizenry on their culpability for racial disparity and prejudicial violence. “[T]hese fatal shootings are not isolated incidents. They are symptomatic of the broader challenges within our criminal-justice system, the racial disparities that appear across the system year after year, and the resulting lack of trust that exists between law enforcement and too many of the communities they serve.” Obama did not yet know the race of the policemen involved (as in the case of Baltimore, the Minnesota shooting involved non-white officers), the circumstances that led to the shootings, or the backgrounds of either the officers or their victims.

Shortly afterwards, twelve Dallas law-enforcement officers were shot, and five of them killed, by a black assassin who declared solidarity with Black Lives Matter and proclaimed his hatred for white law enforcement. That outbreak prompted Obama to take to the podium again to recalibrate his earlier message. This time he amplified his gun-control message, and somewhat delusionally added that the upswing in racial polarization did not imperil national unity — in much the same way that, in years past, he had announced that al-Qaeda was on the run, we were leaving behind a stable Iraq, and ISIS was a jayvee organization. Note the Obama editorial method in the case of police incidents, from Skip Gates to Louisiana and Minnesota: He typically speaks before he has the facts, and when subsequent information calls into question his talking points and theorizing, he never goes back and makes the corrections. Nor does he address facts — from Ferguson to Dallas — that do not fit his political agenda. Finally, a police shooting of an African-American suspect is never an “isolated event,” while the shooting of an officer by a black assassin is isolated and never really thematic of any larger racial pathology.

via American Society on the Brink | National Review

And still, it needs to be said that the police shoot, in both absolute terms and as a percentage of those they come in contact with, more white males than any other group. But of course, facts don’t matter, especially if it conflicts with the narrative. By the way, I suspect we are all aware that that the homicide rate in the US is lower than it has been since 1973 or so, even with the war zones we call Chicago, Detroit, and others.

So, we are simply being fed a line, by our administration, and by the news media (redundancy alert, of course), even after the administration said flat out that they are a bunch of semi-useful idiots.

It comes down to this: Whoever or whatever team Obama is playing for, it’s not the team that wants to promote racial harmony and self-sufficiency in America. And you can safely bet that the unfriendly part of the world is watching, and laughing at us as America tears itself, and western civilization apart.

The reasons why the globalists are destined to lose

quiblepenglobalismThis is quite interesting. I’m not sure if I completely follow his reasoning (I think I do in the main). His supposition comes down to the old one that there is something innate in human beings to seek after liberty, which is I think, beyond rational debate. So, read carefully, it is a bit dense at places; and enjoy. I surely did.

Under the surface of almost every sociopolitical and economic event in the world there burns an ever-raging, but often unseen, war. This war, for now, is fought with fiction and with truth, with journalistic combat and with quiet individual deeds. It is defined by two sides which could not be more philosophically or spiritually separate.

On one side is a pervasive network of corporate moguls and elites, banking entities, international financial consortiums, think tanks and political puppets. They work tirelessly to reshape public psychology and society as a whole into something they sometimes call the “New World Order;” a completely and scientifically centralized planet in which they control every aspect of government, trade, life and even moral compass. I often refer to them simply as the “Globalists,” which is how they at times refer to themselves.

On the other side is a movement that has developed organically and instinctively, growing without direct top-down “leadership,” but still guided through example by various teachers and activists, driven by a concrete set of principles based in natural law. It is composed of the religious, the agnostic and even some atheists.  It is soldiered by people of all ethnic and financial backgrounds. These groups are tied together by a singular and resounding belief in the one vital thing they can all agree upon — the inherent and inborn rights of freedom. I call them the “Liberty Movement.”

There are those who think they do not have a dog in this fight, those who ignore it and those who are completely oblivious to it. However,everyone can and will be affected by it, no exceptions. This war is for the future of the human race. Its consequences will determine if the next generation will choose the conditions of their environment and maintain the ability to reach their true potential as individuals or if every aspect of their lives will be micromanaged for them by a faceless, soulless bureaucracy that probably does not have their best interests at heart.

As you can probably tell, I am not unbiased in my examination of these two sides. While some of the more “academically minded” cynics out there do attempt to marginalize the entire conflict by accusing both sides of simply trying to impose “their ideology” on the rest of humanity, I would say that such people are generally ignorant of what is at stake.

There is in fact an elemental force behind this war. I would even call it a conflagration between good and evil. For a more in-depth analysis on the evil behind globalism, read my article “Are Globalists Evil Or Just Misunderstood.”

Some people don’t adhere to such absolutes or they think good and evil are fantasies created by religion to keep society in check. I have no intention of trying to convince them otherwise. All I can say is, I have seen and experienced these absolutes first hand and, therefore, I have no choice but to remain a believer.

I would also point out that the general experience of most men and women is that the act of organized and legitimate oppression is inherently evil and such actions in the name of satisfying delusional elitist narcissism are even more evil. While these experiences are subjective, they are also universal, regardless of the culture, place or time in history. Most of us feel the same horror and the same defiance when facing rising tyranny. We can’t necessarily explain why, but we all know.

While I am firmly on the side of liberty and am willing to fight and trade my life to stop the “New World Order” the globalists are so obsessed with, I will not turn this examination of their tactics into a blind or one sided farce. I will point out where the elites are effective just as I will point out where they are ineffective. It would do more harm than good to portray the globalists as “stupid” or bumbling in their efforts. They are not stupid. They are actually astonishingly clever and should not be underestimated.

They are indeed conniving and industrious, but they are not wise. For if they were wise, they would be able to see the ultimate futility of their goal and the world would be saved decades of tragedy and loss. Their cultism has dulled their senses to reality and they have abandoned truth in the name of control. Here are some of the primary strategies that the globalists are using to gain power and work towards total centralization and why their own mindset has doomed them to failure.

Globalism vs. “populism”

via The reasons why the globalists are destined to lose – Personal Liberty®

One thing I would caution the globalists amongst us about is this. Almost everybody harboring these type of dreams, sees themselves as in control, they won’t be, in probably 99% of the cases, the will simply be given enough power to do what they are told to do, without any authority at all to think. Strikes me as a very sterile existence.

The US government was expressly designed to guard against this type of thing, and that is why ‘Job 1’ for these types is to subvert “Rule through and under the law”, always remember that, you don’t have to believe the conspiracy (I too think it is mostly ephemeral, not explicit) to see the dangerous results.

And a word of caution, not everyone who makes noises like they belong to what the author calls ‘the Liberty Movement’ does, many are simply mouthing the words for their own gain. You (and I) need to make our own choices about who really wants freedom. Many are simply contesting who is in charge. And be assured, the media is most assuredly not on the side of freedom.

Plain Words; Well Spoken

In some ways, I’m cleaning out my files today but, you’ll find these are connected. In each case they involve the author telling the plain unvarnished truth as they see it. I find it very refreshing. You may or you may not agree with everything each author says, as it happens, I mostly agree with them. But then, I make no claim to be completely objective. I think you can learn from each of them.

Churchill’s Words on Obama, Congress, World.

Elizabeth Scalia (The Anchoress)

His scorn was withering. . .He had described his foes in Parliament as “good, honest men who are ready to die for their opinions, if only they knew what their opinions are.” Of Baldwin’s government, he said: “So they go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift…all powerful to be impotent.”
– Leo Rosten, on Winston Churchill**

Well, I read that last night and thought, were Churchill around here, he might rerun those sentiments about Obama and the Congress. He might also note with great sadness that upon the world political stage, there is currently no great leader, no one person capable — when the world is crying out for focus, as it is, today — of stirring a people to greatness by exchanging partisan postures for a larger, sharable vision and for decisiveness.

We are pursuing ISIS with the heart of Bartleby-the-Scrivener, who would prefer not to. Even as evidence mounts that they are here, and likely on every continent.

Churchill’s Words on Obama, Congress, World.

 

SHOCK! A Catholic bishop who speaks like – *gulp* – a Catholic bishop!

Father Z.

As you know, not to long ago Bp. Howard Hubbard was retired from his looooong tenure as Bishop of Albany.  He was succeeded by Bp. Edward Scharfenberger.

Recently Bp. Scharfenbeger gave a speech to an interfaith group in Albany.   At least one Protestant didn’t like what he had to say.

From the Times Union of Albany, NY.

Rev. Sam Trumbore
First Unitarian Universalist Society of Albany[Unitarian Universalist… what is that, I wonder.]

Bishop Scharfenberger’s after dinner speech last night at the Capital Region Theological Center Fall fundraising dinner seriously missed his audience and likely ruffled a few feathers in the interfaith, largely Protestant audience of about 230 community leaders.

Many of us in attendance were very interested to hear the recent replacement for long serving Bishop Hubbard, to hear what his message to the interfaith community might be. The Capital Region Theological Center is a wonderful ecumenical organization founded by the collaboration of the founding partners: The Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, Reformed Church of America, Presbyterian Church (USA) and the United Church of Christ. […] Their values welcoming and supporting all faith communities seeking peace, justice and a more sustainable planet and a spirit of collaboration, discussion over judgment, and diversity rather than uniformityline up well with the values of my Unitarian Universalist congregation.

SHOCK! A Catholic bishop who speaks like – *gulp* – a Catholic bishop! | Fr. Z’s BlogFr. Z’s Blog.

 

Speaking Truth To Wussies.

GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD

Great Satan’s avuncular Veep spoke truth and really p.o.’d some of our valuable fickle on again off again ‘Allies” and have hurt their feelings LOL

“What were they doing? They were so determined to take down Assad and essentially have a proxy Sunni-Shia war, what did they do? They poured hundreds of millions of dollars and tens, thousands of tons of weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad — except that the people who were being supplied were al Nusra and al Qaeda and the extremist elements of jihadis coming from other parts of the world.”

“Now you think I’m exaggerating? “Take a look! Where did all of this go?”

“All of a sudden everybody’s awakened because [of] this outfit called ISIL [or ISIS], which was Al Qaeda in Iraq,” said Biden. He sketched the organization’s history: it was “essentially thrown out of Iraq” but “found open space in territory in eastern Syria,” then it worked with the al Qaeda subsidiary al Nusra, which the United States “declared a terrorist group early on.” And, still, according to Biden, “we could not convince our colleagues to stop supplying them. So what happened? Now all of a sudden — I don’t want to be too facetious — but they have seen the Lord, [and] the President’s been able to put together a coalition of our Sunni neighbors, because America can’t once again go into a Muslim nation and be seen as the aggressor. It has to be led by Sunnis to go and attack a Sunni organization.

GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD: Speaking Truth To Wussies.

What Islam Is and What To Do about It

Enza Ferreri

The following only reflects my position and not necessarily that of my party Liberty GB.

Islam has been distorted by Western politicians and media to such an extreme point that this doctrine is almost completely the opposite of what is being described as.

It is not a “religion of peace”: it is a non-religion of war.

It is not a religion in the sense that we in the West understand, through the experience of our own religion: Christianity. It doesn’t make human beings better, but worse.

Whereas Christianity establishes a separation of powers between church and state, Islam is a political ideology. Men’s laws are imperfect and should be rejected. Only God-given law, Sharia, should rule the state. Notice that “law” here doesn’t mean “moral law”, but the country’s legislation. Sharia has to be enforced with all available means, peaceful or violent, democratic or totalitarian.

Islam’s holy scriptures say – and real Muslims believe – that the world will be a much better place for human beings to live in if Islam and its law govern the whole planet. Under Islam’s domination, there will be justice, equality and all the good things that communists have also promised humanity. And in both cases (Islam and communism), followers are prepared to cause mayhem and slaughter to attain this utopian “paradise on earth”.

Read more: http://enzaferreri.blogspot.com/2014/10/what-islam-is-and-what-to-do-about-it.html#ixzz3FgWE81we

So there you are, around the world in about a thousand words, telling the truth, as the authors see it.

Strategy and Stuff

B52BomberOK, I gather we lost our strategy for ISIS, maybe it got left in the Roosevelt room or something, but the President can’t seem to find it. That’s bad, things work a lot smoother when you have one.

See, a strategy is nothing more really than a plan for a specific area. We should have several running right now, one for Russia-Ukraine, one for the Mexican border, one for illegal immigration, one for countering ISIS, and to be honest, one to get your favorite Congresscritters reelected. If you’re a Democratic president, I might perhaps agree with some of your goals, although it’s very, very unlikely I’ll agree with all of them. I rather liked John Kennedy for not entirely valid reasons but, I didn’t agree with everything he wanted to do. Similarly with Reagan, although I agreed with more of what Reagan said than I did with what Reagan actually did. That’s life, essentially, we all have to deal with it to make this Leviathan called America work at all.

But what I’m really concerned about here is ISIS. What, Mr. President, do you want to happen to them? I have my givens and druthers, and so does pretty much every American, and likely every middle east resident, and European as well. There some people out there that think the proper thing is to convert and surrender, there are also people who think a few hundred megatons of nuclear fire from space will fix it. I’m somewhere in between, so likely are you, and most everyone with a couple of brain cells to rub together.

See the problem is, what is the overarching thing we want to do with them; whether it’s degrade and manage them or drive them to (wouldn’t through be better in that case) the gates of Hell. Or I suppose we can stick our head in the sand and hope we live till your replacement shows up, that’s highly unrecommended, though.

Likely, I’m different from most Americans, I don’t, in general, care if anyone likes us or not. We’re not running for Miss Congeniality here. I want everybody from the most American loving Brit on the street to our worst enemy in Damascus (or Moscow) to be afraid. Not only afraid of what he thinks we might do but especially afraid of what we might do that he never even thought of in his worst dreams. That save lives (ours). The thing is when you get right down to it, in a war zone there are only two animals, ‘sheep’ our people, civilian and military, and ‘goats’, which defines as everybody else.

It’s desirable to not kill too many non-combatant goats, it’s easier on the conscience and generally less of a health hazard, but it’s not a critical thing, ask the Germans who survived Dresden in 1945, if you can find one. Uncle Billy said it “War is Hell”. And Americans have been pretty good at proving that since long before there was an America.

Now pay attention here, Mr. Obama. I don’t want you up there blathering about how Company C of the 506 PIR will do such and so. One, you don’t know what you’re talking about, and second, I have no need to know, and its better for the sheep if the goats don’t know. I need to know, really know, that you’re going to fight the war through to victory, somehow. That’s all, really. I know it doesn’t sound like much. But it’s apparently a big deal, because you, and your predecessors, back to Truman in Korea, especially the ones with a D behind their names, have never managed it. Granted the Rs haven’t been all that much better, but they seemed to have some clue.

A tip from the old Soviet Union seems in order here. You see the Sovs were a thoroughly political culture, every damned thing was political, kind of like Washington is now, maybe even a bit worse. That sort of thing leads to believing your own bullshit, which works short-term at best in politics. Long term it brings you to 1989, oops! But if you do that in a wartime military you get dead rather quickly. The Sovs recognized that, and their military ran on ‘objective conditions‘ in other words the truth, or as close to it as they could get hold of. I recommend that policy.

What would I like to see done. I’d like to celebrate 9/11 this year. Maybe with some fireworks. Like every strategic bomber in the inventory (read that as every airplane that can both get there and carry a bomb) over Syria/Iraq (the parts being destroyed by ISIS) taking out every obvious emplacement, every leadership group, every communication node, every group of more than 5 rifles. Yeah, we’ll miss some, and we’ll kill some innocent people but, you know probably not as many as ISIS will in the next month.

The last plane in parachutes a big billboard down to the survivors, it says this, from AoSHQ

35 Posted by: ace at September 04, 2014 01:02 PM (/FnUH)—-

Pithier version.

Invade their land.
Flatten their capital.
Kill their leaders.
Hang a sign on the gate.

“Up to you now. Don’t make us come back”
Leave.

Posted by: fixerupper at September 04, 2014 01:04 PM (NaV4z)

Emphasis mine.

On Friday the 12th, call Putin and ask very nicely, “Hey Vlad, are you going to behave in the Ukraine?” and hang up.

%d bloggers like this: