GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Travels With Hercules

by

One of my favorite authors from my English classes in high school was John Steinbeck.  I’ve always gravitated toward ‘historical fiction’ and his observations on society were very different than my experiences growing up.

Steinbeck’s non-fictional story, “Travels with Charley: In Search of America,” was my favorite of his books though.   He travelled across the country he loved with his French poodle.  After reading the book as a teenager, I immediately wanted to journey across the country with my future dog.

For better or worse — thanks to COVID — I had the chance to drive across a quarter of the country the last two weeks with our newest Patriot Pooch, Hercules.   Herc is a mix of beagle, pitbull, and golden retriever.   We adopted him in July 2020 from a home that wasn’t a good fit for him; he had been abused by the kids in the house.   He’s had some emotional issues since joining our home which we are still working through.   But it turns out, he was a wonderful road companion.

I’m going to write another post or two about the trip.   It turns out I drove nearly the same route in March of 2020 — “two weeks” after the COVID lockdowns began.  So I’ve seen a lot of how America is doing — at least in the Southeast.   And it isn’t good.

For now, here is Herc.   He’s a good boy.

On the Confederate monuments: Be careful what you ask for

by

The U.S. Civil War killed or maimed huge numbers of people – as a proportion of how many people were alive, then. I’m told that, for two generations after the war, you would walk down the street in almost any U.S. city and see veterans missing an arm or leg, or women who were veterans’ widows.

After the war, the point of statues on both sides was to remember the sacrifice of those who had fallen. Both sides were American. Both fought because they thought they had a point.

The war was not about slavery until 1863 (well into it). The South fought to preserve the States against an encroaching central government. They lost – only after President Lincoln claimed a moral high ground, by finally making it a war to end the evil of slavery. Before then, in 1861 and 1862, the constitutional issues were primary and the South had a point. In short, they were not evil for fighting. They were Americans, fighting from a place of moral conviction (however mistaken).

The point of the Confederate monuments is to remember all that. The people whom you oppose so deeply are fellow Americans and they often (not always) come from a place of moral conviction (however mistaken).

It follows that the real effect of removing the Confederate monuments is to forget all that. Removal makes a statement that only one side matters: Your side, membership in which gives you the right to spit upon, and eventually to erase, your fellow Americans.

Whether a particular city or college or State should keep monument X is a local issue, that I won’t have an opinion on. But the overall push to remove the Confederate monuments is disturbing: it’s a push for ignorance and incivility. Forgetting the past, that’s the ignorance. And having only one side matter (yours) – that’s the incivility.

So, lefties: Be careful what you ask for. I will leave you with Charles Barkley’s perspective:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6bQZDCCmZw[/youtube]

And Diamond and Silk’s perspective.

#FakeCNN and their #FakeLincolnQuote

by

From Mollie Hemingway at The Federalist. On July 4, CNN Politics tweeted this:

Let the people know the facts, and the country will be safe. — Abraham Lincoln

As if it endorses CNN’s fake approach to the news. Problem: The quote is fake. It’s not from any of Lincoln’s speeches or letters.

After Lincoln’s death, someone reported a conversation (also known as hearsay) in which Lincoln might have said this:

I have faith in the people. They will not consent to disunion. The danger is, they are misled. Let them know the truth, and the country is safe.

Maybe CNN meant that quote; but note how they got it wrong (or deceptively edited it?). Or there’s another quote which, some years later, a writer attributed to Lincoln:

Let the people know the facts, let them see the danger; but let every effort be made to allay public fears, to inspire the masses with confidence and hope, and, above all, to frown down every attempt to create a panic.

Translation: Lincoln would be against CNN spreading fake, false, phony stories of Trumprussia collusion.

As Hemingway puts it:

Insofar as a hearsay quote should ever be tweeted out or inscribed in walls, at least it should be accurate. Particularly when it’s about “truth” and “facts.”

When I use a quote, I google it first to make sure. It takes two minutes. Except that, if I misremembered it, then I have to submit to reality and re-shape the post. I’m a minor blogger and I do all that. But CNN couldn’t be bothered. They live on a higher plane. (cough)

UPDATE: The New York Times isn’t much better. They recently mistook a parody site as a source of North Korea government quotes. [Read more…]

How America’s largest cities voted

by

Commentor TnnsNe1 did some research. Thanks! I didn’t realize, until the moment I saw it, that I had been wanting to know.

From ESPN: “If you are a city in America, you are a racist city,” (Michael) Smith stated.

So, I did a bit of research (all figures by county) on the election results. Here are the results for the 15 most populated urban areas:

NYC Clinton 82%
LA Clinton 72%
Chicago Clinton 84%
Houston Clinton 48%
Philadelphia Clinton 82%
Phoenix -Trump- 48%
San Antonio Clinton 54%
San Diego Clinton 57%
Dallas Clinton 61%
San Jose Clinton 73%
Austin Clinton 66%
Jacksonville -Trump- 48%
San Francisco Clinton 85%
Indianapolis Clinton 58%
Columbus Clinton 60%

Emphasis added (because I just didn’t see, when I first read it). We can re-order it by Clinton’s percentage:

San Francisco 85%
Chicago 84%
NYC 82%
Philadelphia 82%
San Jose 73%
LA 72%
Austin 66%
Dallas 61%
Columbus 60%
Indianapolis 58%
San Diego 57%
San Antonio 54%
Houston 48%
Phoenix under 48%
Jacksonville under 48%

Given the premise that a vote for Hillary was a vote for the worst human being in that 4-way race, my guess would be that people are

  • reasonable in Phoenix, Jacksonville, Houston, San Antonio.
  • And less so in San Francisco, Chicago, New York City, Philadelphia, San Jose, Los Angeles.

I’m not shocked that California has many of America’s less-reasonable people.

Finally, I must point out that this is exactly why the Framers created the Electoral College: so that America’s large cities – what with their numbers, kraziness and groupthink – would not have an overpowering influence in choosing the President (nor in the Senate).

My evolution on the topic of “war”

by

Just speaking for myself. After 9-11, I supported the war in Afghanistan because:

  • Killing al Qaeda terrorists seemed like a good idea, and the Taliban was harboring them.
  • It was only one war.
  • It was legal. (Congress authorized it. As did the United Nations, explicitly.)

A couple years later, I supported the Iraq war because:

  • Killing al Qaeda terrorists seemed like a good idea, and Saddam had begun to harbor some who had just fled from Afghanistan, like Zarqawi.
  • Whether or not Saddam Hussein had ready-to-go WMD, getting him and his thugs off the world stage seemed like a good idea.
  • It was only a second war.
  • It was legal. (Congress authorized it. As did the United Nations, more or less.)

By 2008, both wars seemed almost to be won. Their endings were in sight. But then a strange thing happened.

America elected a feckless socialist (Barack Obama) as President. He promised indeed to end the above two wars. But he didn’t. He messed up our winning positions; meaning the wars dragged on.

Even worse, he started more wars. All were illegal (not authorized beforehand by Congress). All were disastrous.

  • His (and Hillary’s) Libya war destabilized all of northern Africa and eventually drowned Europe in “migrants”.
  • His Ukraine coup (and the war/tensions that followed) was an unprecedented and deliberate rattling of the Russian bear’s cage, re-opening the Cold War that had been won in the 1980s and settled in the 1990s.
  • His Syria war fueled the rise of ISIS in Iraq. (Since ISIS and the Syrian rebels overlap quite a bit, aid to the Syrian rebels quickly becomes ‘de facto’ aid to ISIS.)
  • His Saudi friends’ war in Yemen is no help to anyone.

For the first time in U.S. history, we were at war every single day of someone’s 8-year presidency. And his preferred successor (Hillary Clinton) wanted to extend those wars. The U.S. has “achieved” an Orwellian state of Continuous War. That’s bad.

Ever read Thucydides? Athens – the progressive, open, commercial-democratic society of that era – failed. Basically, she over-extended herself in too many wars. She couldn’t afford them – whether financially, militarily, politically or morally. I don’t think we can, either.

Sometimes it’s better to retreat and retrench, and patriotic to advocate for it. If you catch me striking a different tone on our wars than I did 5-10 years ago, that’s why.

We should shore up our borders and defenses, our infrastructure, our industry, our national finances, our energy independence, and our commitment to liberty, here at home. We can probably still keep our commitments to Europe, Japan, Korea and Israel (which means I’m no isolationist). But, apart from the historical commitments just mentioned, we should accept a multi-polar world order and NOT look for wars to get into.

In my opinion. Please feel free to criticize or to state yours, in the comments.

Book Review: John Ringo, ‘The Last Centurion’

by

‘The Last Centurion’  by John Ringo was a frequent recommendation over at the AOSHQ Sunday Book Thread. (Yes, Morons can read.)  I received a paperback copy as a Christmas gift and finished it off about a week ago. The book takes place in the not-too-distant future (2019) in a world that has been hit by three catastrophic events. 1. A devastating plague caused by a mutation of the Avian Flu kills off somewhere between a fifth and a quarter of the population. 2. The onset of a mini ice age resulting in massive crop failures. 3. Hillary Clinton is President of the United States.

OK, she’s not actually called ‘Hillary Clinton’ in the book, but it’s totally Hillary Clinton.  And her response to these crises is absolutely believable in the vein of ‘Never let a crisis go to waste.’ The disruption in oil supplies leads her to undertake a Chavista-like nationalization of the oil companies. The crop failures and impending food shortages leads her to nationalize agricultural companies and farms; which are distributed to left-wing cronies. By 2020, she has used her emergency powers (granted by a Democrat majority Congress and upheld by a leftist majority Supreme Court) to shut down all opposition radio and TV networks, and throw her Republican opponent in prison.

But that’s all background. The plot is about an Army Captain and his company who have been left behind in Iran as the USA withdraws all forces from around the world to deal with its domestic problems. He has to, somehow, get his men home. Their fight across a war-plague-and-famine ravaged Middle East forms the journey of the novel.

So, was it any good? I’m not a big fan of the first-person narrative style, but I got past it. I liked the cultural, sociological, and political observations, and the way Ringo used the crises as a way to demonstrate how they would play out. The battle scenes were kind of perfunctory. Maybe it’s because I’ve been laboring for almost a year to get a battle scene ‘right’ in my own writing that I felt his could have used a bit more clarity and detail. But I can recommend it, and I’m at least going to check out some of his other stuff.

The Fall of the American Empire

by

Regular readers are aware of this blogger’s opinion that the United States in its current form is fiscally and socially unsustainable, that the eventual disintegration of the USA is a historical inevitability. Kurt Schlichter — citing the Roman Empire as an example — thinks I’m an optimist.

Obama is the poster child for the ruling class’s decline. He is poorly educated – internalizing your commie prof’s clichés and lies does not make you educated even if your degree says “Harvard” – and utterly without any personal investment through service to his country (Obama in the military? That’s a laugh. Do they make camo mom pants?). Of course he has no respect for our norms and customs – he does not know anything about them and he has no personal investment in them. He has no business running anything, as he has amply demonstrated during perhaps the most damaging presidency since James Buchanan’s.

And then we have Donald Trump, who cares nothing for norms and customs and embraces raw power much as Obama and the left do, only he promises to protect the interests of a different constituency. Trump is a vulgar fool milking phony populism for power, best understood as a particularly tacky Graachi. Unlike them, Trump is both ignorant and a coward, but like them, if he does get elected president, he will be cut off at the knees by the patricians of the establishment.

Hillary Clinton is an even more anti-Republic candidate. Like Trump and Obama, she cares nothing for anything but power. Another sub-par mind trading off her degrees from a half century ago, this unaccomplished, bitter harridan lacks the wisdom to chart a course that avoids aggravating our society’s already gaping wounds. Instead, she’ll pour salt into them for no reason other than her own delight at asserting power, gleefully poking at normals with initiatives like forcing women to accept men into their bathrooms and trying to disarm the law-abiding. Inevitably, she will be stunned when she finds her actions greeted by a reaction she cannot control, and the American Republic will disappear as her rule by power is replaced by her opponents’ rule by power. Oh, we may get a good emperor or two along the way, but history tells us how this story ends.

Read the whole thing.

How the Left Observes the 4th of July

by

The Democrat Leftists at Vox-dot-com think the War for Independence was a bad idea, because slavery.

The main reason the revolution was a mistake is that the British Empire, in all likelihood, would have abolished slavery earlier than the US did, and with less bloodshed.

Also…

Finally, we’d still likely be a monarchy, under the rule of Elizabeth II, and constitutional monarchy is the best system of government known to man.

Yes, the Democrat Left is very much in love with the idea of a hereditary monarchy and institutional ruling class.

b0ef3f0669fec82d24b0193391ccb592

The Democrat Leftists at Think Progress suggest that the founding fathers are unworthy of veneration, and should be replaced with a selected group of radicals, communists, and affirmative action cases. Racist eugenics-enthusiast Margaret Sanger makes the cut, of course. Racist “populations we don’t want too many of” Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg makes the cut. Environmentalist whackjob Rachel Carson, whose junk-science book “Silent Spring” led to the deaths of millions of human beings (mostly Africans, Latin Americans, and Southeast Asians) after DDT was banned.

Our country is currently governed and socially dominated by people who hate it.

What ARE the aims of Obama’s foreign policy?

by

Victor Davis Hanson published a memorable piece in the National Review last week entitled “America as Pill Bug.”  The pill bug or the roly-poly bug is one that turns itself into a ball when it feels threatened.  Hanson writes:

That roly-poly bug can serve as a fair symbol of present-day U.S. foreign policy, especially in our understandable weariness over Iraq, Afghanistan, and the scandals that are overwhelming the Obama administration.

On August 4, U.S. embassies across the Middle East simply closed on the basis of intelligence reports of planned al-Qaeda violence. The shutdown of 21 diplomatic facilities was the most extensive in recent American history.

Yet we still have over a month to go before the twelfth anniversary of the attacks on September 11, 2001, an iconic date for radical Islamists.

Such preemptive measures are no doubt sober and judicious. Yet if we shut down our entire public profile in the Middle East on the threat of terrorism, what will we do when more anti-American violence arises? Should we close more embassies for more days, or return home altogether?

Hanson makes an excellent point about the way the Obama administration’s closure of embassies is likely to be viewed in the Arab world and around the globe.  Although, as Jeff pointed out in a post last week, the administration may have ulterior motives–by trying to create a distraction–by closing the embassies in this manner, the reality is that the interpretation of the administration’s actions by our international foes is likely to proceed in a manner similar to that Hanson envisions in his article.

Hanson looks at the example of Libya and Syria to illustrate that the administration’s “lead from behind” strategy is not working, and that it appears to be counterproductive:

Instead, the terrorists are getting their second wind, as they interpret our loud magnanimity as weakness — or, more likely, simple confusion. They increasingly do not seem to fear U.S. retaliation for any planned assaults. Instead, al-Qaeda franchises expect Americans to adopt their new pill-bug mode of curling up until danger passes.

Our enemies have grounds for such cockiness. President Obama promised swift punishment for those who attacked U.S. installations in Benghazi and killed four Americans. So far the killers roam free. Rumors abound that they have been seen publicly in Libya.

Instead of blaming radical Islamist killers for that attack, the Obama reelection campaign team fobbed the assault off as the reaction to a supposedly right-wing, Islamophobic videomaker. That yarn was untrue and was greeted as politically correct appeasement in the Middle East.

All these Libyan developments took place against a backdrop of “lead from behind.” Was it wise for American officials to brag that the world’s largest military had taken a subordinate role in removing Moammar Qaddafi — in a military operation contingent on approval from the United Nations and the Arab League but not the U.S. Congress?

No one knows what to do about the mess in Syria. But when you do not know what to do, it is imprudent to periodically lay down “red lines.” Yet the administration has done just that to the Bashar al-Assad regime over the last two years.

Hanson sees the Obama administration’s foreign policy as a disastrous replay of the Carter doctrine, once again illustrating Glenn Reynolds’ frequent observation that a replay of Jimmy Carter is simply the “best-case scenario” for Obama.

While I believe Hanson is right in his characterization of the big picture and the likely consequences of Obama foreign policy, I’d differ from him in seeing Obama as being as feckless and weak as Carter.  I’d maintain that Carter’s foreign policy was guided by a number of naive precepts about the nature of the world.  At least during the years of his presidency, I’d contend that Carter “meant well” in the way the phrase is commonly used to describe a hopelessly incompetent bumbler who seems incapable of recognizing his own shortcomings.  Likewise, early in the Obama administration, Tammy Bruce started referring to Obama as Urkel, the nerdy, awkward, inept kid from the TV show “Family Matters” who had an uncanny ability to mess up almost everything he touched.  That certainly is one narrative for what Obama is doing in the world of foreign policy, but I’m not sure it is the right one.

As I contemplate Obama foreign policy, though, particularly in the Middle East, I find myself thinking more and more that although incompetence might be the simplest explanation, it might not be the best or the right one.  I see no good intentions in the administration’s domestic policy, so why should its foreign policy be exempt from charges that it is motivated more by malevolence to the United States and its role in history than by a supposed set of “liberal” ideals?

This is an administration that seems bent on alienating all of our historical allies as quickly as possible, while taking it easy on our geopolitical foes.  Obama seems to want our allies to view us as unreliable and untrustworthy while making sure our enemies view us as weak, indecisive, and either unable or unwilling to use force to protect our interests or to enforce our stated policy goals.  If there is a better explanation of the administration’s ultimate foreign policy goals, I’d sure like to know what it might be.