Saturday, January 04, 2014

The Dow Paradox

How is it, despite the utterly counter productive and business bashing moves of this Obama Administration, is the stock market reaching new highs?

First, we must understand that these highs are *nominal* highs, and they are achieved with "Quantitatively Eased" dollars. In real terms, a 16,469 Dow closing today simply *does not* mean what a 12,000 Dow meant in 2006, let alone what an "irrationally exuberant" Dow of 14,000 meant in 2007.

And what of the irrational exuberance of today? What is truly underpinning this economy? And mroe importantly, what isn't?

For all the Leftist Rhetoric about the "99 percent", it is the politically connected 1%, like bit time Obama donors at General Electric for example, who are making out big in this easy credit driven market boom.

Rahm Emanuel famously said that a crisis should not be wasted. Well, the Obama administration has made a very good use of this one. By relatively shielding the wealthy and the educated, the Obama bureaucracy loving elite has used the crisis to make the less prosperous and less educated poorer and more dependent on government largess. How? By using tax payer money to employ the grad school educated in more and more government administrative jobs and by pumping money into the stock markets through near zero percent bank lending.
 
The result? Two Americas. (1) A mostly employed graduate degree America increasingly drawn to secure, well paid, prestigious if unproductive government jobs, and (2) the increasingly underemployed rest.

How come? The promise of continued low interest rates emboldens those who have gobs and gobs of money to afford risking losing it, i, e., hedge funds and other professionals.
 
Meanwhile, other individuals with just a little bit of savings are too worried by the dire economy (high unemployment, poor housing markets and record national debt) to risk what remains of their funds. So, they missed the bull market.

What do they do with their money? They put it in the bank for very little return. For as Charles Schwab poignantly notes, Low Interest Rates Punish the Savers and the Prudent.  To make matters worse, American saw their personal income decline by by 3.2% during the Obama presidency. Not to mention that “At the end of last year, debt averaged $43,874 per American, or about 122% of annual disposable income,” though economist debt should exceed 100%.

Ironically, to jump start the economy, Americans, and not merely wealthy ones, are encouraged to spend more, not less of money many do not have. Some fear their money is going to be worth less and less not to mention the probability that an increasing percentage of it will be lost to regressive taxes. They are getting more and more dependent on food stamps, unemployment checks and soon to come government health care.
 
The big question, of course, is when all these quantitatively eased chickens come home to an inflationary roost.

Monday, July 29, 2013

Black Democrat Smear on Immigration Backfires

Karen Bass (pictured) is a black congresswoman who held a townhall in Los Angeles. She made sure to attack Steve King, and accuse those Republicans who refuse to back the farce of "Comprehensive immigration reform" of being secretly racist:

But it turns out her own constituents aren't happy:
About 300 people attended the meeting, and despite Los Angeles' deeply liberal bent, the crowd was sharply divided over what should be done with the millions of people who are living in this country illegally.
(....)
Several spoke out against a pathway to legalization, saying it would reward those who broke the law by entering the country illegally. Others pointed to the economy and unemployment and argued that the job prospects of Americans — particularly African Americans — would be harmed.

Keith Hardiner, 57, said he is the descendant of slaves.

"They were separated from their families, but we had to fight and struggle," said the Silver Lake resident. "And now I feel like we are being set back and the country is being kind of stolen from us."
In 1994, when Pete Wilson *tripled* the share of votes he and other Republicans usually get from African Americans becuse of their stance on the illegal alien issue, did anyone in the GOP Establishment pay attention? Or, like the Wall Street Journal, they so want their cheap maids and gardeners they have to do everything to smear border patriots?

Sunday, July 28, 2013

How to REALLY win Hispanic votes

Allan Wall nails it:
OK, here's an interesting result from a California State Senate special election in a district that is 60% Hispanic, in which Republican Andy Vidak beat Hispanic Democrat Leticia Perez.

According to Breitbart, "Vidak, a working class candidate, resonated with working class Hispanics in the district who also saw how coastal California elites were not putting their bread-and-butter interests first." 
Breitbart also reported that: "Vidak ran broadly on "the bifurcation of California: the coastal liberal elites versus the Valley folks." On a more local level, Vidak's theme of "fish versus farmer" resonated with Democrats in a District where the unemployment rate is 15% and as high as 30% in some communities in the District." 
Rather than allowing hysteria about the Hispanic vote to provoke them to pander to the leftist Hispanic establishment, some astute Republicans might be able to use local issues to win elections. They could at least try to campaign against amnesty on the grounds that it hurts employment prospects among American citizens. It's worth a try.
THIS is how the GOP wins Hispanic votes.

Not by "Hispandering" amnesties that import a larger underclass that will vote Commiecrat, but by engaging those Mexican Americans who actually *run businesses*--as farmers, as restaurateurs, as contractors, as oil and gas drillers, as truckers, as "Jose' the Plumber". All of whom are being hurt--badly--by the Eco-Fiend Left in this state.

The "Green" Demunists in California have been shutting down agribusiness, "fracking" for oil and natural gas, road improvements, irrigation water and hydro power.

Wake up, GOP, and turn the "Brown Businesses" against the "Green" Eco-Fiends, who are really "Watermelons", "Green" outside, but Pinko Red inside.

How is allowing more illegal aliens in going to help the actual Mexican American and other Latin American CITIZENS who have always been here?

Update (08/02/13): Maybe not. Vidak is already pandering, too.

Friday, July 19, 2013

LA Times admits to "Bash Mobs Sweeping Through Southern California"....

....but it still can't acknowledge just who the bash mobs are.

Black goons attack White and Asian victims, and the LA Times just leaves the racism of the mobs utterly unmentioned, even when all the video camera evidence makes it obvious.

Congratualtions, LA Times. You've been encouraging this for weeks. Every since the Zimmerman trial started. Feel happy now that you got what you wanted?

Gee, I wonder if any of the "bash mob" participants look like President Obama did 35 years ago?
35 years ago Obama could have been part of a bash mob. 35 years ago President Obama WAS part of an academic communist cabal excusing the bash mobs.

It would be nice if these bash mobs would find their way to prison fast, as everything is recorded on video and can be reviewed frame by frame. The flash mob footage will be scrutinized down to the pixel.

However, given our Liberal Demunist Commiecrats in office, it is more likely they will find their way to a slap on the wrist, perhaps. They will be coddled and excused because after all, someone once thought their appeared to look like a criminal, so all their actions are justified. Just ask Obama, he will cry a tear for them right on camera.

So if I am attacked by these bash mobs, and I shoot them in self defense, will I be tried for attempted murder or murder for standing my ground? Given the libs who run this state, probably.

These aren't "bash mobs", they are feral black mobs rioting under the protection the media who call them "youths".

And God help any white person who is CCW (are there ANY in L.A.?) who takes out one or more while defending himself. Zinnerman verdict reaction redux.

Theser bash mobs are the result of a single parent Sub-Culture raised on anti-white animosity and envy. Triggered by their racist hatred and a righteous indignation instilled and encouraged by a Leftist Hollywood and Public School Victimist Propaganda. Empowered by Liberals and their Entitlement Mentality. Often Ignored and Protected by the National News Media, Political Correctness and a corrupt DOJ. Forgiven by an endless list of Affirmative Excuses and Lowered Expectations. Glorified beyond recognition by a fawning media on TV, on the Movie screen, and Gansta Rap.

This is the chaotic new social dis-order, void of personal safety, common decency, and civilized behavior that the multi-cultists have forced upon us, and until America wakes up out of its blind obedience to Political Correctness and recognizes this behavior for what it is, and admit that it is a serious problem, violent crimes like these will only get worse....much worse.

Although, in fairness, the LA Times won't admit when Latino criminal gangs are targeting African American victims either.



 

Saturday, June 15, 2013

Remember MTV?

Daniel Flynn does. When it just played music, and didn't attempt to be the arbiter of anything, and certainly wasn't full of commie politics:
I want my MTV. I keep getting Snooki’s.

MTV celebrates the Fourth of July by declaring its independence from reality television. The initialism that formerly stood for Music Television returns for twelve hours to what it once did 24/7/365: music videos. Perhaps the move will inspire the network formerly known as The Learning Channel to ditch Long Island Medium and the History Channel to take a respite from Ice Road Truckers.

MTV, after all, is contagious. Cable’s reality obsession proves that.

The surreal announcement that MTV will play music videos comes in the wake of VJ: The Unplugged Adventures of MTV’s First Wave, a memoir by the four surviving original video jockeys. “To this day,” Martha Quinn writes, “I have dreams that I’ve been fired by MTV. In my dream, I’m going to a party. I can see that Mark [Goodman] and J.J. [Jackson] and Al [Hunter] are all having a really good time, but nobody will talk to me because I’m not allowed in that area anymore.” But viewers aren’t even allowed in that area anymore, save for a few hours during a backyard holiday when the television is off.

The group memoir recounts tales of Alan Hunter snorting lines with David Lee Roth to an audience of onlookers (“they were all just watching us do blow”); Nina Blackwood finding herself a subject of the #1 hit “Missing You” by former beau John Waite; Martha Quinn on an ill-fated date with Paul Stanley in which a bowling loss compels the Kiss frontman to inspect the lane for defects; Mark Goodman “hooking up in the bathroom” midflight with the winner of the network’s “Asia in Asia” contest (“the mile-high club is great in theory”); and a sweaty and jumpy J. J. Jackson getting through his morning broadcast via the same chemicals that fueled him the night before.

They partied like rock stars. They weren’t paid like them.

The stingy network initially awarded Quinn a paltry $26,000 annual salary. She couldn’t afford cable so, as one of the fledgling medium’s most identifiable faces, she stole it. Alan Hunter, an actor with bit parts in David Bowie’s “Fashion” video and the movie Annie, earned $27,500. He elected to keep his bartending night job. J.J. Jackson and Mark Goodman, veterans of FM rock radio, earned more than double. But on a channel less music than television, the popularity of the younger, more camera-friendly VJs soon eclipsed their colleagues with more impressive rock CVs.

In the beginning, MTV was a transplanted-to-television album-oriented rock station, albeit one that leaned heavily on New Wave imports. Outside of reggae influences like Musical Youth’s “Pass the Dutchie” and Eddy Grant’s “Electric Avenue,” few black performers won saturation airplay on the promotional juggernaut. So, the VJs found themselves on the defensive from recording executives charging racism. Country stations didn’t play The Waitresses. Why should MTV play Michael Jackson?

“We were ecstatic when ‘Billie Jean’ got added — art trumped format,” Quinn remembers. “What we didn’t see at the time was how it was the foot in the door to expanding the format. And then it became a constant exercise in expanding it a little more: How about a game show? How about a reality show?” The start of MTV’s end didn’t come with Remote Control or Real World but with “Billie Jean.”

When Quinn refused to ask Robert Palmer a trashy question at 1986’s Video Music Awards, she sealed her fate. “I went on unemployment, because I couldn’t pay my rent. That was my lowest point: Less than a year after that Robert Palmer interview, I was standing on line at the unemployment office in Van Nuys, California, praying that nobody would recognize me.” The reality of her post-MTV life dawned on her at a stoplight where, from her Honda Accord, she spotted acting school classmate Heather Locklear in her Porsche Turbo Carrera. “She was going home with her husband, Motley Crue’s drummer — I was heading back to Sherman Oaks, where I had a roommate because I didn’t have the money to pay the rent myself.”

Regrets? They have a few. Goodman spends much of VJ apologizing to his then wife Carol Miller for his serial adultery and admits that hard living has led to cirrhosis. “We’re the reason you have no attention span,” Goodman confesses. “And you can really pin reality TV on us too. You’re welcome.” Nina Blackwood laments that she exuded a sexpot image when she was in fact a prude. “I have very few regrets in life, but posing for Playboy is probably my biggest,” Blackwood recalls of a pre-MTV shoot that came back to haunt. Mom Martha Quinn now cringes at some of the videos she played then: “I have to admit, now I see where Tipper Gore and the [Parents Music Resource Center] were coming from.”

A Sunset Blvd. quality colors the retrospective. One can imagine Quinn and company surfing the web for old clips the way I do. If they searched back far enough, they would discover aSunset Blvd. vibe present at the creation. What else is“Video Killed the Radio Star” but an aural reinterpretation of a dilapidated Gloria Swanson watching her old movies?

“In the beginning, everyone told us MTV wouldn’t last,” Quinn recalls. “As it turns out, they were right — our MTV doesn’t exist anymore.” For twelve hours on the Fourth of July, MTV lives again— if but as a ghost of its former self. But it’s never the same the second time around.

We can’t rewind. We’ve gone too far.

Monday, May 13, 2013

US Stay Out of Syria

The optimal solution is to support the Syrian rebels just enough to keep them fighting. Let Assad's goons kill the Al Quaeda goons and vice versa. It's good for the US that Syria is suffering a Civil War - it keeps them pinned down with domestic unrest, but we don't benefit by anyone winning that war. Minimal intervention, just enough to keep the rival factions of savages evenly match and killing each other, like Iran - Iraq 1980-1988, is optimal.

 

Sunday, March 31, 2013

On the "Gay Marriage" court battles

I honestly don't see how redefining a word which has held the same meaning since the beginning of recorded history is a 'civil right', bogus semantic examples to claim otherwise notwithstanding.

Nor do I see why redefining the word is necessary in light of the other legal vehicles available to same sex couples. There are civil unions, domestic partnerships, or they could even come up with a new word that sounds cooler and doesn't create controversy by hijacking an institution that is considered ancient and sacred by many in our society. 

If anyone is showing "bigotry" here, it is those with the dogma that same-sex relationships deserve the *exact* same status as a marriage, whatever status they may merit, and I do understand that they deserve a legal status and legal protection, which the state of  California has already well established with its domestic partnership laws.

Marriage has been the primary building block of human society for thousands of years, and is closely tied to human reproduction. Same sex relationships, however loving they may be, are fundamentally different in that respect, and parents who simply want their children to grow up and produce grandchildren don't view same sex relationships as the equivalent of marriage, nor, frankly, does mother nature. 

Parents who don't want the "gay rights" crowd circumventing what they teach their children about sexuality at home don't view it as equivalent, nor do parents who raise their children in a religious manner. 

If the goal is to achieve legal status for same-sex couples, this could have already been done if we weren't just fighting over ownership of a word. 

If the goal is to rub the gay lifestyle in the faces of people who don't agree with it, and in the faces of the religious community from which the concept of "marriage" flows, then this fight will probably continue for quite some time.
 

And let's just get something out of the way right now. I support the traditional definition of marriage, but it has nothing to do with hatred for anyone, contrary to leftist Commiecrat propaganda. This is a free country, and people should be able to live however they choose, up to the point that it infringes on others. 
 
I only oppose the agenda of the gay rights political lobby when they begin to trample on the rights of others, such as by forcing people to publicly agree with lifestyles they privately disagree with, circumventing what parents teach their children about sexuality at home with "gay" curriculum in public schools, or hijacking an ancient, sacred institution such as marriage in an effort to force society at large to their viewpoint.
 
But even if you DO think homosexual relationships deserve the *exact* same legal status as a marriage, then such matters are to be hashed out in the legislatures, not imposed by tyrants in black robes.

The Constitution is utterly silent on this matter. There is NO reference to sexual orientation whatsoever in the Constitution. Not even so much as "I'm a little bi-curious..."

However, the Tenth Amendment tells us that the powers not delegated to the United States federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. That means this needs to be hashed out in the legislatures, not subject to Roe-style hijacking. But such is the smug arrogance by the Commiecrat Left: 
Notice that the “inevitability” argument for gay marriage is coming from Beltway elites who want judges to decide the issue. Why are they waiting at the back doors of court houses so anxiously if public support for it is so strong? Why do they try and shut down debate so quickly by branding their opponents the moral equivalent of racists if their case is so manifestly clear? 
The bullying belies their confident pronouncements. Were the people on their side, they wouldn’t need to doctor “social science”to justify their propaganda. They wouldn’t need to use judicial activists to undo democratic results. They wouldn’t need to ignore the written Constitution in favor of a “living” one. 
At Tuesday’s Supreme Court hearing, Justice Samuel Alito, trying to calm the elite herd down, noted that cell phones have been around longer than gay marriage laws. Justice Scalia asked Ted Olson, the lawyer who seeks to overturn Proposition 8, when gay marriage crept into the Constitution as a right: “We don’t prescribe law for the future. We decide what the law is. I’m curious, when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868? When the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted?” 
Olson couldn’t give a date, to which Scalia replied: “Well, how am I supposed to know how to decide a case, then, if you can’t give me a date when the Constitution changes?”
This exchange highlights what a sham these cases are, and explains why gay-marriage activists don’t want a prolonged debate but a Roe-style judicial coup.



 
 

Monday, November 19, 2012

Tom McClintock: Do not change the GOP

In spite of a lost election, Tom McClintock reminds us it was a *narrow* loss, and that going wobbly will only fail. Emphasis in bold.

* * * * *

"I will begin with three incontrovertible truths about this election.

First, the same election that returned Barack Obama to the White House also returned the second largest House Republican majority since World War II - bigger than anything Newt Gingrich ever had.

Second, according to polls before, during and after this election, the American people agree with us fundamentally on issues involving the economy, Obamacare, government spending, bailouts - you name it.

Third, the American people are about to get a graduate level course in Obamanomics, and at the end of that course, they are going to be a lot sadder and a lot wiser.

That is not to say that there aren't many lessons that we need to learn and to learn well from this election, particularly here in California. But capitulation is not one of them.

Have we forgotten that just two years ago, Republicans campaigned on clear principles of individual liberty and constitutionally limited government? We took strong and united stands to oppose Obamacare, rein in out-of-control spending, roll back the regulatory burdens that are crushing our economy and yes - dare I say it - secure our borders? Have we forgotten that the result was one of the most stunning mid-term elections in American history: a net gain of 63 U.S. House seats, six U.S. Senate seats, 19 state legislatures, six governors and nearly 700 state legislative seats?

Now we're told, just two years later, after a net loss of just eight House seats, two Senate seats and a 2 1/2-percentage point loss of the White House, that we must abandon these principles or consign ourselves to the dustbin of history."
(...)
The first of the cold stove lids we are told not to sit on {issues where we are told we must capitulate} is illegal immigration. Republicans, they say, must accept the notion that our nation can no longer control its borders and we should declare amnesty for the 12 to 20 million illegal aliens now in this country. We should do so, we are told, because our position on border security has hopelessly alienated Latino voters who would otherwise share our values.

It is true that Latino voters are a growing part of the American electorate - making up ten percent of the vote in 2012, of which 71 percent voted for Barack Obama, according to the CBS exit poll.
Sean Trende is the senior political analyst for Real Clear Politics. Last May, he published an article addressing this argument directly. He made three points.

First, Latino voters are not a monolithic group on this issue. Citing 2008 exit polling, he noted that a majority of Latino voters "either thought that illegal immigration was fairly unimportant or thought that it was important and voted Republican."

And sensibly so. Mexican American U.S. citizens--shoved aside by illegals--would logically not be happy about what is going on! And *they* are the ones who will vote GOP, not the ethnic activist leftists.

So why are Latinos voting for Democrats? Very simply, he said, once you adjust for socio-economic status, Latinos vote pretty much the same as the general voting population. But because they are disproportionately poor, they tend to vote disproportionately Democratic. However, as they begin to work their way up the socio-economic ladder and assimilate into American society, they become more and more Republican.

Second, citing research from the Pew Institute, he pointed out that the wave of illegal immigration has now crested, and may actually be reversing. He noted that every immigration wave has followed this pattern. Those who stay become more and more assimilated and more and more Republican as the years go by.

As recently as 30 years ago, we used to hear a lot about the Italian vote or the Irish vote. We don't hear about that anymore because they have melted into the general population. The demographic tide, he said, is not running against the Republicans, but running with them.

Third, he points out that a very sizeable part of the Republican base is firmly opposed to illegal immigration, and that abandoning that position could be politically catastrophic. He reminded us, "In a large, diverse country, every move to gain one member of a political coalition usually alienates another member."

Heather MacDonald makes the same point in the aftermath of the election. She notes that 62 percent of Latino voters support Obamacare. They overwhelmingly support higher taxes to pay for a larger government and more public services. These are not voters who will suddenly flock to the Republican banner because we have reversed our position on border security.

That's not to say Republicans should ignore the Latino vote - far from it - and I will get to that in a few minutes. But to suggest that Republicans need to reverse themselves on a fundamental issue of national sovereignty and the rule of law is unprincipled, counterproductive, self-destructive and wrong.

Ironically, the issues where most Latino and African-American voters do agree with us are the social issues, like abortion and marriage -- but of course, we're told by the same naysayers that we should repudiate our position on these messy social issues.

Let's look closer at the polling on the social issues. According to exit polling by Public Opinion Strategies, it is true that five percent of voters last week said that the most important issue in their vote for President was their pro-choice/pro-abortion position. Five percent of the entire electorate is nothing to sneeze at.

But four percent of voters said that the most important issue in casting their vote for President was their pro-life/anti-abortion position. That's a statistical tie.

I have a question for you. How many of those hard-core, single-issue abortion-on-demand Obama voters will suddenly switch their votes to Republicans once we've renounced our position on this issue?
 
Now, here's a bonus question: how many of that four percent of the electorate who support us solely because of our pro-life position are going to stay with us once we have repudiated them?
 
It is important in politics to know the difference between addition and subtraction. Addition is what creates majorities and subtraction is what destroys them. In this single exercise, we have just subtracted four percent of the entire American electorate from our vote and added little or nothing.

Now, repeat this process on every other so-called social issue, and tell me if we will be better off or worse off for taking this advice.

With all this said, there is no blinking at the fact that we just lost an election that we should have won, and to pretend there's nothing wrong meets Einstein's definition of insanity. There's a great deal wrong and a great deal that we need to address.

The voters who appeared at the polls agree with us on Obamacare. According to the CBS exit poll, by a plurality of 49 to 44 percent, they want to repeal some or all of Obamacare.

They agree with us on the size of government. By a margin of 51 to 43 percent, they believe that government is "doing too many things better left to businesses and individuals."

They agree with us on taxes. By a resounding margin of 63 to 33 percent, they disagreed with the statement that "taxes should be raised to help cut the deficit."

Perhaps most telling of all, 52 percent of voters agreed "things in this country today are seriously off on the wrong track," and yet then voted to continue down that wrong track for another four years.

As Lincoln said, "The voters are everything. If the voters get their backsides too close to the fire, they'll just have to sit on the blisters a while." It is a painful experience; but it is a learning experience. And at the end of that experience, they emerge sadder but wiser and in time for the next election.

We are winning the issues. And that means over time we will be winning the votes -- but only if we stay true to our principles and true to the millions of Americans who are already with us and many more who may not consider themselves Republicans today - but who believe as we believe.

What was the single biggest political movement in 2009 and 2010? It was the much-maligned, politically incorrect Tea Party, which energized fully one third of the American electorate across party lines. Although 60 percent were Republicans, 20 percent were Independents and 20 percent were Democrats. Long before the Tea Party, we had another name for that phenomenon. We used to call it the "Reagan Coalition." But this year, those who tell us we need a bigger tent told the Tea Party to get out. And many did.
 
Who brought a tidal wave of young people into the party? It was the much maligned and politically incorrect Ron Paul, whose simple message of unadulterated freedom resonated deeply on college campuses. Eight thousand UC Berkeley students turned out last year to hear that message. But this year, those who tell us we need a bigger tent told Ron Paul and his supporters to get out. And they did. In fact, many of their votes went to Obama.

A well-intentioned supporter e-mailed me last week and said, "we've got to kick the religious right out of the party." I reminded him that we did that in 1976, when the religious right voted for Jimmy Carter.

My point is, you cannot build a majority by systematically ejecting the constituent parts of that coalition. You build a majority by adding to that coalition by taking your principles to new constituencies.

Working Americans of every race know instinctively that you cannot borrow and spend your way rich. We need to appeal to them.

Immigrants came to this country to escape the stultifying central planning and corrupt bureaucracies that ravaged their economies. We need to appeal to them.

For the first time in our history, young people face a bleaker future than their parents enjoyed. We need to appeal to them.

The very groups of voters most damaged by Obama's policies are those who voted for Obama - we need to appeal to them.

Not in the closing days of a campaign poisoned with partisanship - but right now.

We need to recognize that a large portion of our population is not familiar with the self-evident truths of the American Founding and has no compass with which to follow back to the prosperity, happiness and fulfillment that is the hallmark of free societies.

Without that clarion call - without a party of freedom willing to paint our positions in bold colors - I am afraid that as the economy suffocates under the avalanche of government burdens, intrusions, restrictions, regulations and edicts, people in their growing despair, will increasingly turn to the false hope that paternalistic government offers.

The only antidote to that is the self-evident truth of the American founding: that freedom works and we need to put it back to work.

Like it or not, we are at this moment the only party equipped to revive and restore those truths and take them to the millions of Americans who are desperately searching for them.

Great parties are built upon great principles, and they are judged by their devotion to those principles.

Since its inception, the central principle of the Republican Party can be summarized in a word: freedom. The closer we have hewn to this principle, the better we have done; the farther we have drifted from it, the worse that we - and the country - have done.

Dick Armey put it more simply: "When we act like us, we win, and when we act like them, we lose."

 

Monday, November 12, 2012

The Frogman's Prophecies

A great blog post from "The Dissident Frogman", a French expat, now in America, about what we have done to ourselves in this most recent election:

Now that a slight majority of American voters have caught the French, I will share visions of the times ahead with those who are still immune to this ghastly Western Occidental disease, and with the infected themselves.

Hear ye, hear ye, Great American Tribe: thou hast lost thy ways and hast forged thyself chains of iron. Hear the Revelations of the prophet Frogman, he who wandered through the barren wasteland of Europa under a wooden yoke and witnessed the terrible plight and dreadful blight that will now descend upon thee:

TO THE GLOATERS crowing over the comments sections of every conservative and Republican websites: burn through every gallons of that sweet euphoria as quickly and fully as you can, for it will very soon become stale and leave only the putrid taste of rot in your mouth. I know you, for I’ve seen your peers and walk among them in the Land of the Frenchmen. Tomorrow, the effects of your plebiscite will pierce through the exhilaration of your victory, and they will crush you as much as they afflict those you mock today.

Just as they did in France, the policies you champion will affect everyone’s standards of living, directly and indirectly. If you are wealthy today, your wealth will dwindle tomorrow. If you are already poor or believe yourself so, you will never rise and prosper.

Soon, just as the French did, you will realize that you’ve elected yourself servants of an unaccountable oligarchy courted by a small intelligentsia to which you will never belong, from which you will never profit and of which you can never get rid. Then, you will join the legions of what the French call les déçus de la Gauche, or "the Left’s disappointed"—Indeed, even in Left wing France, the Left never fails to disappoint its followers for it is made of and thrives on fallacy and deceit.

Just as the French, when you realize that the effects of the political model you tout today cascade and accumulate to the point where you have effectively handed that oligarchy a permanent majority that begins to feed on its pawns—you—it will be too late and your loss will be complete.

Understand this: I am not a US citizen nor a resident in the USA, so this is not the bitter retort of a sore looser. This is a prophecy from a foreigner who has seen your future because he lives in it: you, my friend, who laugh today will cry twice as much tomorrow.

TO THE VARIOUS BRANCHES OF LIBERTARIANISM, whether followers of the cranky Dr. Ron "The Bane of the Fed" or hipsters swapping commodity traders’ jokes on Zero Hedge as they wink-wink-nod-nod "wait for the Titanic to sink". You who decided against opposing the Eurobama Project rather than banking on the Romney & Ryan ticket who, despite all its shortcomings (whether real, perceived or invented) would nevertheless have been far more receptive to most Libertarian ideals and would have been easier to steer in the directions you favor than the Chicago Machinist will ever be, here is an enigma:

Have you ever heard about the French Libertarian Party?

Me neither. True, there’s a couple of pretenders to the title, but they are merely social clubs, where every now and then attendants get a tingling in the pants by quoting good old Ludwig Von Mises and Claude Frédéric Bastiat between connoisseurs. Their true distinctive feature when compared to the other French is that they won’t even bother entertaining any delusion of grandeur or relevance—they know they have no place in the French political process, and no chance to ever gain one.

So hear this, Friends of Gary the Third Party and other Principled Abstentionists: by choosing ideological purity over strategic thinking, you’ve effectively hedged your own political future in the one competing force that is most capable of propelling you into irrelevance and oblivion—as we say in France: Bravo!

Just as in France, once a majority of the US population—no matter how slim—has tasted the poisonous fruits of the State, they will demand the keys to the cornucopia and regard with disdain, scorn or hostility any soul brave or foolish enough to call it unsustainable and propose to lock the larder. The fact that you are right will not matter at all. Just as they do in France, the people will ask for more and tout de suite, never realizing or willing to acknowledge that they are effectively cannibalizing themselves and their offspring—as we’ve been saying in France for quite a while: Après moi le Déluge!

Thank in no small part to you, Obama now has more time to multiply the locusts, thus depleting your future ranks. You shall keep fancying yourselves as The Smart Ones, when compared to those Neanderthaloid Conservatives and Liberal Zombies, until one of you wonders aloud why the lights went off in the Libertarian cave, and hears only the echo in answer.

Understand this: I am not a US citizen nor a resident in the USA, so this is not the bitter retort of a sore looser. This is a prophecy from a foreigner who has seen your future because he lives in it: you, my friend, who didn’t oppose Obama today will be politically extinct tomorrow.

TO THE REPUBLICANS, INDEPENDENTS AND, YES, DEMOCRATS—after all, between Lot and his family, even in Sodom there were a few righteous—who saw that great Evil roaming the land, pledged to do anything in their power to stop him but ultimately couldn’t muster a big enough army.

Some of you believe that shifting demographics have now relegated the American Right to a permanent minority status, and that to regain the initiative, you must disown the "Right-wing nut jobs" and "move to the center". That notion would be stupid and self-defeating enough at face value, even if it wasn’t echoed by a slew of Left wing pundits, who smelled the blood and see your doubts as a unique opportunity to demolish you further.

For the results of such a ‘strategic’ move, one needs only to turn, once again, to France.

Look at the French Right. See it? Look harder, as it is now very difficult to distinguish from the Left. Back in 1981, when the French elected their first officially Socialist president in a long time, and the French Right went on a losing streak, collapsing at the polls under what was then dubbed la vague rose ("the pink wave". Rose in French meaning both the color pink and the rose flower, emblem of the French Socialists) they figured, quite cynically, that they had to give the voters whatever they demanded—and moved left. They are now only nominatively Right wing, yet are consistently chided and scorned by the French press as right-wingers, ultra conservative and free market fundamentalists.

In other words, the French "Right" is now always wrong, and only has herself to blame.

I am not going to lecture you on what Republicans and conservatives should or shouldn’t do—if you want patronizing political advice, ask any of the other 60 millions+ French, they’ll happily oblige—but in light of the rapid destruction of the French Right, I’ll just state the obvious: what you need to change isn’t your principles, it’s the narrative.

Some of you believe that societal collapse or civil war are coming soon hereafter, and advocate stocking supplies and ammunitions for the conflict they see ahead.

Truly, there isn’t such things as too much food and weapons, and yes, collapse and conflict could come to America. Yet it is not written.

The various flavors of Social Democrats who run Europe (into the ground, admittedly), and share so many features and aspirations with Obama have learned the mistakes of the less subtle autocrats who preceded them. If France can teach you one thing, it’s that Obama will never bleed you dry or push you beyond the threshold of revolt, only to the nearest edge of it: you are now more likely to bleed from a thousand cuts over a thousand years than to get a quick, if violent, resolution to the relentless assaults against your life, liberty and pursuit of happiness—snarky Libertarians who opted to let Obama squat in the Oval Office unopposed on the deluded notion that "it doesn’t matter" and will bring the fall of Leviathan sooner, may want to take notice.

Even the French have not yet managed to completely plunder and ruin their comparatively much weaker economy, and the good Lord knows they’ve been trying for the best of the last 80 years or so.

Just like in France, the rates of taxes, duties and fees unleashed upon the good folks of the US of A will not only augment, they will also metastasize over an incredibly varied and ever expanding range of products and services, in addition to your income and profits. You will suffocate under an unrelenting onslaught of new regulations, red tape and audits by a growing army of government agencies and bureaucrats all tasked with the mission of controlling that nothing passes through their nets, and punishing you ruthlessly for anything that does.

And still: you will live through it, and you will live well enough—for a given value of "well"—to never really have a legally and morally unquestionable motive to rise up in arms and go full scale de oppresso liber on the tyrant. This will not be, as many of you imagine when they think about France, North Korea only with more cheese, wine and broads who don’t shave their armpits. Instead, you will find yourself in a multi-generations limbo of "too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards"—as, ironically, a Libertarian once said.

Just like in France, this will turn you into a depressed, cynical and pessimistic people, until they finally manage to kill your spirit whole, and nearly everybody is on the dole.

That’s when they’ve won. They do not need to kill you, they just have to break you.

Understand this: I am not a US citizen nor a resident in the USA, so this is not the bitter augury of a sore looser. This is a prophecy from a foreigner who has seen one of your possible futures while living in it.

Yet you, my friend, are all that’s needed to change that destiny.

If, as some say, this is all about demographics, then look at demographics and rejoice: no matter the color of your collar, you are the the productive class, the entrepreneurial class, the creative class—quite literally, the working class—the likes and numbers of which France has never seen. You are guided by family morals and work ethics that are long gone in France, assuming they’ve ever existed here. And you are living under the cover of the most formidable declaration and system of self-governance, one that simply never existed in France.

Thus the only future I can predict is the one where you go French and surrender. You, and only you can turn this debacle around and me into a false prophet.

Sadly, some among you seem to have all but given up. Reading through your reactions in the comments at PJ Media, Breitbart, Hotair and others, I see cries that "the Republic is dead", and even claims—shocking claims, for this Americanophile—to burn the flag because "it doesn’t mean anything anymore".

Old Glory doesn’t mean anything, simply because you woke up last Wednesday to a measly 4 millions popular votes difference? A battle of nearly 121 million voters finds you outnumbered by four and hear, hear: the Republic is dead and the war is lost?

Try and tell that to those Americans who found themselves outnumbered and outgunned by far more disadvantageous enemy ratios, whether in a forest in the Ardennes, a hill in Korea, a valley in Vietnam or a mountain in Afghanistan. Try and tell them you’re considering giving up and burning the flag in despair.

Even though I am just a French, I am quite certain I can predict their reaction.

Once again, you don’t need a lecture from this Frenchman, but it seems to me that some of you, in the emotion of that unexpected electoral defeat, forgot this simple fact: America is always outnumbered.

This unique nation, founded not on feudal or religious fault lines but on a radical philosophy of individual freedom isn’t the norm in this world: it is an anomaly. If you needed a quick and simple reminder on the basis for American exceptionalism, there you go.

America is always outnumbered and, until the rest of the world sees the guiding light and builds shining cities on America’s model—if that day ever comes—America will always be outnumbered.

Yet it doesn’t matter: America’s strength isn’t in numbers, it’s in her soul.

Hear this final prophecy America: only one man can kill the Republic, and it isn’t Barack Obama. The one man who will kill your Republic is the one man who will last give up and renounce it.

Don’t you dare be that man.
 

Sunday, November 11, 2012

It's not 1980 anymore

Many patriots are left asking, "How could this happen? Surely people remember the Jimmuh Cartur disasters? How could another liberal fool get elected twice?"

However, the sad truth is that the American electorate has changed. Some of this is merely a new generation, or maybe two, coming of age without memory of The wretchedly liberal late 1970's. As one comment I ran across on Yahoo! News put it: "Dude, I wasn't even *born* when Jimmy Carter was president...."
For months, conservatives have been likening the conditions of the 2012 presidential race to that which saw the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. The American Spectator's own Jeffrey Lord proclaimed that President Obama could be beaten handily“because the past four years really have been Jimmy Carter's second term.”

Victor Davis Hanson of National Review Online put it this way: "What does 1980 tell us about 2012? Barack Obama, like Carter, can run neither on his dismal four-year stewardship of the economy nor on his collapsing Middle East policy."

Hanson went on to write: "The winner probably won't be decided by old video clips, gaffes, or even campaign money, but by turnout and the October debates --depending on whether incumbent Obama comes across as a petulant Carter and challenger Romney appears an upbeat Reagan. As in 1980, voters want a better president -- but they first have to be assured he's on the ballot."
This goes even more so for California. I remember joking on a chat board, Yelp.com, that the Jerry Brown for Governor campaign theme song should be "You're No Good" by Linda Rondstadt, and again, a good many younger readers did not understand what I was getting at.
Well, Obama did come across as petulant in the debates while Romney was upbeat. And yet it wasn't enough. At the end of the day, despite Obama's dismal economic record and an ineffectual Middle East policy, his well-oiled organization turned out his vote and Romney could not. Romney could not break through in key states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan nor could he put Ohio and Florida back in the Republican column.

And yet Obama didn't win on turnout alone. He won because America has changed. We're not in 1980 anymore.
(...)
At the dawn of the '80s, a critical mass of the American population knew what life was like in the Great Depression and WWII, understood the evils of Soviet communism and did not take kindly to American diplomats being held hostage. But when we have an education establishment that is skeptical of the use of American power and weans high school students on Howard Zinn's communist A People's History of the United States, should it come as a surprise that many shrug when an American ambassador is murdered? Still, Romney had not one but two chances to expose the folly of the Obama Administration's insistence the attacks in Benghazi were a result of a YouTube video, not a terrorist attack and twice he failed to do so.

In 1980, Americans would not tolerate rising unemployment. In 2012, not only is high unemployment accepted as a fact of life but receiving food stamps is encouraged. There was also no concept of gay marriage in 1980. In 2012, Obama endorsed gay marriage (albeit sooner than he wanted to on account of the loose lips of Joe Biden). Nor was it conceivable in 1980 that a sitting Commander-in-Chief's re-election campaign could have put out a commercial featuring a woman likening support for the President to the loss of her virginity. Thirty-two years ago, being wealthy and successful was considered something to aspire to and be proud of. Today, it is a source of bitterness, envy, resentment and, in some quarters, the very epitome of evil.

In the final analysis, it must also be remembered that a significant segment of the electorate was emotionally vested in Barack Obama in a way it never was with Carter -- and I'm not just talking about the mainstream media. Obama received a near unanimous vote from African-Americans and a substantial majority of Hispanics as well as people under 30 (especially women). That doesn't necessarily mean we've entered the permanent Democratic majority which Ruy Teixeira and John Judis wrote of a decade ago. It is certainly possible that America could again elect a conservative Republican President. But conservatives must recognize that the American electorate has changed and that 1980 has come and gone, never to return.
 
Moreover, demographics have changed. And NO, Hispandering with an amnesty or phony "comprehensive immigration reform", or a "DREAM" (sic) Act, won't change the voting trends. People with a favorable view of big government will vote for the Democrats, even the full blown Commierats. Victor Davis Hanson proves:
As far as the grand bargain, the Dream Act, comprehensive immigration reform, or whatever the rubric of the day that a clueless Republican establishment employs: just imagine the opposite to learn the truth. If the Republicans were to agree to amnesty for, say, two million who were brought here as children and are in school or in the military, do you really think the “Latino community” in response would celebrate and then also agree to deport those who did not qualify? Or do you imagine the deal would at least result in deportation for those entirely on public assistance or with a criminal record? Did the Reagan-era Simpson-Mazzoli Act amnesty lead to 1) an end to calls for amnesty, 2) closing the border, 3) a surge in Latino support for Republicans, or 4) none of the above?

Does a conservative message of lower taxes, less government, and fewer regulations really appeal to Latinos en masse, who define La Familia values as something that includes a big and paternalistic government, along the Spanish/European model? 
(...) 
So family values are defined somewhat differently from the Republican silk-stocking view that Latinos are natural Republicans — if only (fill in the blanks). Again, I would like the Democrats to introduce the Dream Act, and then watch whether closed borders, E-Verify, and deportation of criminals were part of the deal. That is not to say one should not talk in softer tones and be magnanimous; but one is fooling oneself if one believes a cheap Dream Act endorsement would mean anything.
(...)
The truth is that the present system of illegal immigration is quite logical and thrives because too many are invested in it, well aside from corporate employers. California is a permanently blue state. Latino leaders, many of whom can no longer speak Spanish, represent a vast underclass of illegal aliens whose numbers warp all statistics on Latino achievement and become a permanent argument for set-asides, more government help, higher taxes (think: who just voted for California’s higher taxes?), affirmative action, and changing demography. Why simply give that up, and join a party of the melting-pot, up-by-the bootstraps, self-reliant, shrink-the-government types? To go to Parlier or Orange Cove is to drive through a maze of federal/state clinics and government facilities, many eponymously named by those who secured the government funding for them. No, I am sorry: I don’t see a natural Hispanic constituency for what Mitt Romney was trying to offer.
VDH concludes that once again, the Demunist Commiecrats played their class warfare card and the Republicans did not effectively respond:
I also confess that stupid ads like Lena Dunham’s sex-equals-voting-for-Obama ad and stupider ones like the African-American garbage collector, who said Romney never talked to him at the curb, worked. 
I sense the same misinformation about the “wealthy” and the “job creators:” Just think the opposite and the truth emerges. Most in the top brackets voted for Obama; eight out of the ten wealthiest counties did at least. Many of the people I know in Silicon Valley, who this year passed on the signs and bumper stickers, nonetheless voted for Obama. The fact is that the Democratic Party, to generalize, is largely now the subsidized lower classes who pay no federal income tax and receive a growing array of federal largess coupled with, on the other end, a technocratic blue-state elite making over $200,000 annually. If taxes go up under Obama, at least theirs will, too. Another truth: the Republican Party is basically made up of a shrinking middle class and upper middle class, flanked on both ends by Democrats who, for various reasons, on one end, either do not appreciate their success or, on the other, hate them for their hoity-toity, un-PC tastes and culture. Yet how strange that the two ends of the Democratic coalition have so little to do with each other — a partnership based on cynical opportunism on both sides. All that is missing are the Roman tribunes, or perhaps the wealthy demagogi.

What Lost the Election?

Marco Rubio would not have won the Latino vote this year. A ticket of Condoleezza Rice and Herman Cain would not have won the black vote. Bobby Jindal and Nikki Haley would not have won the Asian vote. Obama, in brilliant fashion, marketed himself as the above-the-fray great healer and our post-racial future, while his surrogates waged the most vicious race-, class-, and gender- divisive campaign in history. More likely, what lost the race for Romney — a decent and strong candidate — was instead the failure of the white working classes to turn out to vote en masse.

Why so? I was in Michigan, near the Ohio border, for all of September, and each night was stunned by the variations in the class warfare ads, mostly brilliant and effective in painting Romney as your kill-Detroit, wet-suited, jet-ski-setting, multi-home employer — a veritable John Kerry, John Edwards, or Ted Kennedy — and “us” as a disabled, homeless, starving, and out-of-work collective victim as a result. Millions, who did not prefer Obama, just stayed home and thought that they would pass on voting for the guy who had too much money and gave them their pink slips. In 2004 they saw Kerry as the wet-suited wind surfer; in 2012 it was Romney.

Thursday, November 08, 2012

A Vision 0f 2016?

I was originally emailed this back in 2010. After this re-election, it bears repeating:

This belongs in the "Email Hall of
Fame"

How's this for apocalyptic literature. This was written by a pastor's
wife in biblical prose as a commentary of current events. It is
brilliant.
And it came to pass in the Age Of Insanity that the people of the land
called America, having lost their morals, and their initiative, and their
will to defend their liberties, chose as their Supreme Leader that
person known as "The One".

He emerged from the vapors with a message that had no meaning; but
He hypnotized the people telling them, "I am sent to save you." My lack
of experience, my questionable ethics, my monstrous ego, and my
association with evil doers are of no consequence. I shall save you with
Hope and Change. Go, therefore, and proclaim throughout the land that
he who proceeded me is evil, that he has defiled the nation, and that all
he has built must be destroyed. And the people rejoiced, for even though
they knew not what "The One" would do, he had promised that it was
good; and they believed. And "The One" said "We live in the greatest
country in the world. Help me change everything about it!"
And the people said, "Hallelujah! Change is good!"
Then He said, "We are going to tax the rich fat-cats." And the people
said "Sock it to them!" And He added, "And redistribute their wealth."
And the people said, "Show us the money!" And the he said,
"Redistribution of wealth is good for everybody."


And a man called "Joe The Plumber" asked, " Are you kidding me?
You're going to steal my money and give it to the deadbeats??"
And "The One" ridiculed and taunted him, and Joe's personal
records were hacked and publicized.

One lone reporter asked, "Isn't that Marxist policy?" And she was
banished from the kingdom!

Then a citizen asked, "With no foreign relations experience and having
zero military experience or knowledge, how will you deal with radical
terrorists?" And "The One" said, "Simple. I shall sit with them and talk
with them and show them how nice we really are; and they will forget
that they ever wanted to kill us all!" And the people said, "Hallelujah!!
We are safe at last, and we can beat our weapons into free electric
cars for the people!"

Then "The One" said "I shall give 95% of you lower taxes." And one lone
voice said, "But 40% of us don't pay ANY taxes." So "The One" said,
"Then I shall give you some of the taxes the fat-cats pay!" And the
people said, "Hallelujah! Show us the money!"


Then "The One" said, "I shall tax your Capital Gains when you sell your
homes!" And the people yawned and the slumping housing market
collapsed. And He said, "I shall mandate employer-funded health care
for every worker and raise the minimum wage. And I shall give every
person unlimited healthcare and medicine and transportation to the
clinics." And the people said, "Give me some of that!"


And so the employers decided to leave the nation. Then "The One" said,
"I shall penalize employers who ship jobs overseas." And the people said,
"Where's my rebate check?"

Then "The One" said, "I shall bankrupt the coal industry and electricity
rates will skyrocket!" And the people said, "Coal is dirty, coal is evil, no
more coal! But we don't care for that part about higher electric rates."
So "The One" said, Not to worry. If your rebate isn't enough to cover
your expenses, we shall bail you out. Just sign up with the ACORN and
your troubles are over!"

Then He said, "Illegal immigrants feel scorned and slighted. Let's grant
them amnesty, Social Security, free education, free lunches, free
medical care, bi-lingual signs and guaranteed housing..." And the people
said, "Hallelujah!" and they made him king!

And so it came to pass that employers, facing spiraling costs and
ever-higher taxes, raised their prices and laid off workers. Others
simply gave up and went out of business and the economy sank like
unto a rock dropped from a cliff. The banking industry was destroyed.
Manufacturing slowed to a crawl. And more of the people were
without a means of support.

Then "The One" said, "I am the "the One"- The Messiah - and I'm here
to save you! We shall just print more money so everyone will have
enough!"

But our foreign trading partners said unto Him: "Wait a minute. Your
dollar is not worth a pile of camel dung! You will have to pay more..."
And "The One" said, "Wait a minute. That is unfair!!" And the world
said, "Neither are these other idiotic programs you have embraced.
Lo, you have become a Socialist state and a second-rate power.
Now you shall play by our rules!"
And the people cried out, "Alas, alas!! What have we done?" But yea verily,
it was too late. The people set upon The One and spat upon him and
stoned him, and his name was dung. And the once mighty nation was no
more; and the once proud people were without sustenance or shelter or
hope. And the Change "The One" had given them was as like unto a
poison that had destroyed them and like a whirlwind that consumed all
that they had built.
And the people beat their chests in despair and cried out in anguish, "Give
us back our nation and our pride and our hope!!" But it was too late, and
their homeland was no more.
You may think this a fairy tale, but it's not. It's happening RIGHT NOW...