Gay Patriot Header Image

Rep. Chaffetz is done

After 8 1/2 years of being a rising star in Congress (and sleeping on a cot in his office), Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) is quitting. A few weeks ago, he announced his resignation effective June 30. Sharyl Atkisson has a profile on him.

I’m sorry to see him go. As Chair of the House Oversight Committee, Chaffetz has done a lot of good work to investigate Fast and Furious, the Obama IRS abuses, Hillary’s abuses, and more. I’m a fan of Judicial Watch and time and again, Chaffetz’ face pops up in their stuff as one of the good guys.

He hasn’t given one, overarching reason for quitting. Mainly he keeps it vague, saying it’s a decision that he and his wife made together. Surely the nastiness of Washington has played into their decision, in more than one way.

On a political level, Chaffetz is frustrated with the Trump administration’s lack of transparency and inability to change things:

The reality is, sadly, I don’t see much difference between the Trump administration and the Obama administration. I thought there would be this, these floodgates would open up with all the documents we wanted from the Department of State, the Department of Justice, the Pentagon. In many ways, it’s almost worse, because we’re getting nothing, and that’s terribly frustrating and with all due respect, the [new, Trump] Attorney General [Sessions] has not changed [things] at all. I find him to be worse than what I saw with [Obama AG] Loretta Lynch in terms of releasing documents and making things available. I just, that’s my experience, and that’s not what I expected.

He goes on to characterize Washington Republicans as timid, and to express relief at not having to spend his weekends on political fund-raising anymore.

In defense of President Trump and AG Sessions, one could note the extreme “war zone” atmosphere in Washington at this time, in which the so-called “Trump administration” consists mostly of several thousand Obama holdovers who want to bring down their new President and are doubling down on all their old tricks.

But having noted that, I have to side with Chaffetz. Surely, AG Sessions could intervene with the bureaucracy to release documents that the Obama administration had stonewalled on. And the way forward in Washington is radical transparency: releasing as much information as possible, about as many bureaucratic, legal and political developments as possible.

Trump, and We The People, do not benefit from continuing the old Washington game. In fact, Trump will not survive if he lets it continue; and We The People benefit from smashing it. Smashing it means shining a light on what all the cockroaches, in both parties, have been up to. Thank you, Rep. Chaffetz, for having tried.

Oliver Stone making sense?

Color me shocked.

YouTube Preview Image

His new series, _The Putin Interviews_, is controversial – meaning that the Left hates it, because it doesn’t tell them exactly what they want to hear. A couple of articles on it:

  • Rolling Stone, 10 Most WTF Things We Learned From Oliver Stone’s Putin Interviews.

    Pans the series – splutters with outrage over Stone lobbing too many softball questions and bad-mouthing Hillary Clinton as a war-mongering neo-con – but covers some interesting tidbits along the way.

  • Forbes’ take. Along the way, they go into some of the hacking / cybercrime issues, and the fact that the U.S. has interfered in Ukraine elections in a manner FAR beyond anything the American Left fantasizes with TrumpRussia.

Left and Right, we should be willing to watch these Putin interviews, if only on the principle of “Know your enemy”.

President Trump should fire Special Counsel Mueller

In the Watergate scandal of 4 decades ago, there were actual crimes at the heart of it.

  1. Five men, working for President Nixon’s campaign, broke into the other side’s headquarters to steal files and set up wiretaps.
  2. They were exposed and suffered consequences; but the consequences needed to reach up to Nixon as well, because he had known/approved their actions on some level, and lied to the nation (in denying his knowledge).
  3. In addition, the Nixon administration had spied on (and/or harassed) domestic opponents through the FBI, CIA and IRS.

In Bill Clinton’s impeachment 2 decades ago, there were actual crimes at the heart of it.

  • His conducting an affair with Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office, while disgraceful, was not a crime.
  • But then Clinton and Lewinsky committed perjury – Lying while under oath, in sworn depositions in another matter (Paula Jones’ lawsuit). Also, they asked others to commit the crime of perjury. That’s what “obstruction of justice” looks like.

In both cases, there was something real to investigate and punish. In President Trump’s present situation, there isn’t. Trump’s only “crime” is that he won the election.

We already know because the Obama administration (like the Nixon administration) used the intelligence agencies against its domestic opponents. The Obama administration surveilled the living daylights out of the Trump campaign – using any excuse they could they could think of, “oh this is just incidental to surveilling someone else” – then carefully “unmasked” and circulated the data. That’s precisely why we have been treated to so many leaks to the media, these last several months, about who-met-when-with-whom.

And they’ve turned up nothing. There’s nothing there. No collusion with Russia. We know already.

The only other thing that Trump MAY have done (because we still have only one side of the story), is if he hurt the feelings of James “Leaker” Comey by expressing a polite “hope” that Comey wouldn’t prove to be a ridiculous butthole toward General Flynn. Big. Deal. Even by Comey’s account: No, Trump didn’t suborn anyone to wrongdoing.

As such, Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation into these matters is a waste of time and resources that would be much better spent investigating the crimes of the Obama administration. Not only the spying and other harassment of domestic opponents, but also the Obama administration’s collusion with Hillary Clinton in covering up (or failing to prosecute) her many crimes; such as the Clinton Foundation pay-for-play corruption, Hillary’s willful and large-scale security breaches (that should have been prosecuted and weren’t – why not?), and more.

The purposes of Special Counsel Mueller are entirely political.

  1. Have a monkey on Trump’s back, instead of Obama’s and Hillary’s backs where it belongs.
  2. Have a monkey on Trump’s back, so that he will be unable to accomplish his campaign promises (infrastructure rebuild, tax reform, Obamacare reform, immigration / The Wall, smashing ISIS).
  3. Throw 1,000 lawyers at Trump and his key associates, so that eventually they will trip up in some “process” crime of not having responded with utter perfection, every time.

That’s how the game works. You just keep adding lawyers until you create a problem. Humans are forgetful, sloppy and flawed by nature. If you add enough lawyers, you are 100% guaranteed to catch someone in some inconsistency, eventually. It doesn’t matter whom you’re looking into. In this way, you can subvert or reject the result of an election.

If Trump were to fire Mueller, the controversy would be enormous but a lot of people would understand. Now including myself.

Under present circumstances, it would be reasonable and just. Let the Democrats demagogue their violent, insane “base” about it, and let the other half(-plus) of the country get on with the grownups’ business.

UPDATE: A prediction from Newt Gingrich that before it’s over, we’ll need a Special Counsel to investigate the Special Counsel.

Kabuki theater

Figuring out what’s happening in Washington – under the surface, with the Deep State factions – is a guessing game. Highly uncertain. Of course I don’t “know anything”, in the sense of having sources. I read the tea leaves as best I can, and I guess.

When President Trump unexpectedly did a huge Saudi arms deal, I had a feeling that former FBI Director Comey’s testimony would then turn out as a net win for Trump. What’s the connection? Hard to explain. I’m going to say some stuff now which could easily be crap; feel free to shoot it down in the comments, or to add your own ideas.

(more…)

Paris Agreement Sucked – No One Should Want It

Yesterday I wrote a lot of text on this. Thanks to all commenters who made helpful additions.

Today I want to give the short version. With short sentences. For lefties.

  • The Paris Agreement did not control CO2. It let China, India and Russia do what they wanted. Oooh, Russia! Bad!!!!1!! Right?
  • The Paris Agreement did not control CO2. Even the UN scienticians agreed that it made almost no difference to their Global Warming projected temperatures.
  • The Paris Agreement was a krazy-bad deal. It made the U.S. almost the only leading country that has to wreck its workers’ lives and futures.
  • The Paris Agreement was a krazy-bad deal. It made the U.S. almost the only leading country that has to give away many tens of billions of dollars annually, to pay Third World kleptocrats to hold back their countries.

Hey lefties: If you didn’t know these things, I’m sorry you’re so gullible.

I bet you’re gullible enough to think CNN or WaPo “fact checkers” are real, and not just fellow lefties trying to keep you on the plantation.

And, one more time: If Paris “imposes nothing on us” or is non-binding – then why should withdrawing from it be a crisis?

Think. If it’s true that any party can blow it off (note IF) – then it’s worthless, in yet another way.

The meaning of Trump’s presidency

With America’s withdrawal from the Paris climate accord, another piece of the puzzle is in place. I think I’m getting a Big Picture.

For a myriad of reasons – economic, financial, demographic – we have been moving into a multi-polar world. As opposed to a world where the U.S. is the one, super-wealthy super-power.

Like an oncoming glacier, the shift is very slow – but unstoppable. I’ve been contemplating it for years – and sometimes discussing it on the blog, as in my old posts (that I keep meaning to update) on the gradual decline of the U.S. dollar as the world’s central currency.

Trump is ahead of this shift, and left-wingers are behind it.

Despite their anti-American attitudes and railing against “white supremacy”, left-wingers take great comfort in the idea that the U.S. is the world’s one, super-wealthy super-power. In many a discussion, when I’ve tried to warn a liberal friend how policy X must inevitably undermine the U.S. position in the world, he or she smirks – yes, smirks – and says “But we will always be on top, because of reason Y.” (We have the best military, the best universities or tech research, Hollywood / the most seductive culture, control of the Internet or SWIFT payment system, whatever.)

I think their belief is basically infantile.

  • The child needs to fantasize that the parent is super-capable and benevolent and will always be there for her, no matter what.
  • And a malicious / narcissistic child fantasizes about being able to dish out endless tantrums and torture on the parent – without damaging the child’s life in any way.

Likewise, the left-winger needs to fantasize that the U.S. will always be the one, super-wealthy Super Mommy And Daddy – no matter how many rocks, bombs or burdens they (the left-wingers) throw at the U.S.

Which brings us to the Paris climate accord. It doesn’t do much of anything good. Just a couple big, bad things.

  1. Uphold left-wing fetishes – environmental extremism, statism, globalism – thus demonstrating leftie supremacy; and
  2. Drain the U.S. of wealth – in the form of payments for the Green Climate Fund, tens of billions of new aid to India and other countries, even more burdens on industry and U.S. energy, etc.

Withdrawing from the Paris agreement is so upsetting to left-wingers because it reverses both of those. Now, what is Trump’s rationale for withdrawing?

  • He thinks the U.S. is already responsible environmentally, and will continue to be.
  • He thinks we need to think a bit more about ourselves. We need to mine our own coal. We need to bring back manufacturing jobs. We need to NOT pay into the Green Climate Fund, billions of new aid to India, etc.
  • Meanwhile, the agreement lets China, India and even Europe burn coal and increase their CO2 emissions. That makes no sense. The agreement puts the U.S. at a senseless disadvantage.

Trump’s actions are consistent with, and helpful in, a multi-polar world where the U.S. stops being the Supreme Mommy and Daddy and instead, “gets real” about what the U.S. needs in order to be a good place to live for U.S. people.

He said it in January – “America First” – and now he’s carrying it out. That, and restoring the Constitution (at least a little). Because withdrawing from Paris de-fuses a constitutional bomb. (As will ending the Obamacare insurance-buying mandate, when they finally get around to that.)

Leftie reactions are telling: It’s the end of the world, the U.S. has “resigned as leader of the free world”, Germany’s Angela Merkel now leads the free world, etc. It’s exactly the tantrum you would expect them to throw – if they had an infantile attachment to an idea of the U.S. as the one, super-wealthy Super Mommy and Daddy, upon whom they could inflict any torture or burden that they pleased.

Trump is turning out to be the Bad Mouth Man who will end it, at least partly. And that’s good.

Flashback: Hillary’s Big Russia Deal

…in which Our Brrrrrrrrave Gal approved the transfer of 20% of the U.S. ongoing supply of uranium to Russian control, while taking millions in Russian- and/or deal-related donations.

I’m following this New York Times article from April 2015:

…the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, [took] over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal…brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain…

At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.

…the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States…the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among [them] was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

At the time, both Rosatom and the United States government made promises intended to ease concerns…Those promises have been repeatedly broken, records show…

Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown. [ed: Riiiiiight.] But the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation’s donors…

The article continues with pages of details. One tiny sample:

The path to a Russian acquisition of American uranium deposits began in 2005 in Kazakhstan, where the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra orchestrated his first big uranium deal, with Mr. Clinton at his side.

…several months later, Mr. Giustra had donated $31.3 million to Mr. Clinton’s foundation.

Did the Clintons hide some large donations, possibly showing consciousness of guilt? Yes. Example:

To judge from [Clinton] disclosures…the only Uranium One official to give to the Clinton Foundation was Mr. Telfer, the chairman, and the amount was relatively small: no more than $250,000, and that was in 2007, before talk of a Rosatom deal began percolating.

But a review of tax records in Canada, where Mr. Telfer has a family charity called the Fernwood Foundation, shows that he donated millions of dollars more, during and after the critical time when the foreign investment committee was reviewing his deal with the Russians.

By the way, I didn’t know that “While the United States gets one-fifth of its electrical power from nuclear plants, it produces only around 20 percent of the uranium it needs, and most plants have only 18 to 36 months of reserves…”

Exit questions:

  1. Why would NYT publish such an article? Why in April 2015? On whose hidden agenda?

    To be clear: I’m glad they gave us the info. But NYT is usually pro-Hillary. Why would they do something that undercuts her? Because Schweizer’s book was about to come out anyway?

  2. Why has no Special Counsel ever been appointed to look into all this?

UPDATE: Do the Clintons profit personally from the Clinton Foundation? (more…)

How To Fight The Establishment Propaganda Machine And Win

That’s the title of an article by Caitlin Johnstone which I came across. She seems more lefty/Democrat than me and I don’t endorse her every notion. Still, she seems populist and has some interesting notions. To start:

…the single best way to take down the oligarchy is by aggressively and relentlessly attacking its propaganda engine.

Johnstone sees “the oligarchy” as more about corporations than about Big Government’s politicians and bureaucrats; while I’m the reverse. But at least we agree there is an oligarchy.

The elites who manipulate your government are more vulnerable now than ever before and they know it — the solution just isn’t in politics, it’s in media…old propaganda systems which have been used to lull Americans into accepting the establishment narrative are wielding less and less influence…

So what can we do? We make them fight our fight. If they’re a shark and we’re a tiger, we make them fight us in the jungle…

1. Increase public distrust of the mainstream media.
…Imagine if [people] knew that CNN has been trotting out a seven year-old Syrian girl with an extremely popular fake Twitter account and making her recite scripted lines in order to manufacture consent for another regime change invasion…The Bana Alabed psy-op is the single most transparent piece of war propaganda that I have ever seen in my life, and we should be talking about it constantly, because they really left themselves exposed with that one.

I think Johnstone is talking about changing the frame. “Bana” was indeed Syria war propaganda. I mentioned it awhile back, but didn’t go far enough. The Resistance Chicks (2 populist-moderate, Christian sisters from Ohio) show Bana literally reading a script while the CNNwhore plays along and pretends it’s real.

When you expose Bana, putting her into a new (and 100% truthful) frame as a propaganda pawn, CNN’s power dissipates.

To continue – I won’t quote it all, but this gives you an idea of the rest of Johnstone’s eight points:

2. Shatter the illusion of normalcy.
…These [media, CNN-type] predators use their trusted, ubiquitous presence in the lives of the public to convince them that everything [bad] that’s happening is normal…It’s normal for your country to be bombing sovereign nations every single day and have hundreds of military bases all over the world…It’s normal that all these politicians seem to do pretty much the same things once elected despite campaigning on very different platforms. It’s normal for elected officials to lie. It’s normal for your government to have the ability to spy on you….We need to snap mainstream America out of this lullaby of normalcy. We need to be the caring friend who tells them that it’s not normal for their boyfriend to be violent and controlling…without the spell of normalcy, the whole thing falls apart.

3. Shatter the illusion of unanimity.
4. Stay loudly politically active.
5. Hold a grudge. [i.e., keep bringing up stuff / reminding people]
6. Always be attacking. [the oligarchy’s / media’s “normal” consensus]
7. Find the others. [telling people “Nah, you’re not crazy — I see it too.”]
8. Have fun. “We have the opportunity to be basically wizards, fighting the word-spells these bastards are casting on the sleeping mainstream and screaming ‘You shall not pass!'”

As always, I’d encourage you to Read The Whole Thing, and/or to share your thoughts.

More Obama-NSA abuses

Yet another story that should be all over the media, but I haven’t seen it much. (If you have, let me know.)

Why wouldn’t it be covered? I find that it reflects great discredit on the Establishment (both political parties, Deep State and Controlled Media). As I started to say yesterday, they have ways to decide what you’re going to hear about. For as long as they can, they will bury stories that don’t fit their agenda.

To review some background:

  • Under the 4th Amendment, the government isn’t supposed to spy on U.S. people without a court-ordered warrant.
  • “The FISA Court” is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 “to oversee requests for surveillance warrants against foreign spies inside the United States by federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies.” (Wiki)
    Note, foreign.
  • But FISA Court hearings are secret and only the government and the court judge are present, like a kangaroo court. The adversarial system is abandoned.
  • As such, FISA tends to be very lenient to the government. Over time, they have created a secret body of law that gives the government sweeping powers to do domestic warrantless surveillance under an alleged “special needs exception” to the 4th Amendment.
    • One example – In 2013, Edward Snowden leaked a FISA order that requires phone companies to provide a daily, ongoing feed of everyone’s phone call data to the NSA. Super invasive!
  • Even so, FISA isn’t toothless and doesn’t approve everything – as you shall see. They need to preserve respectability, at least in their own eyes.
  • FISA judges are appointed solely by the Chief Justice of the United States. In this regard, Establishment Republicans control the FISA court.

That’s just background. Now for the news, as reported by John Solomon and Sara Carter at Circa.com.

Under President Obama, the NSA secretly conducted years of surveillance and searches on Americans that not even the secret, super-lenient FISA Court would approve.

The National Security Agency under former President Barack Obama routinely violated American privacy protections while scouring through overseas intercepts and failed to disclose the extent of the problems until the final days before Donald Trump was elected president last fall, according to once top-secret documents that chronicle some of the most serious constitutional abuses to date by the U.S. intelligence community…

The Obama administration self-disclosed the problems at a closed-door hearing Oct. 26 before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that set off alarm…

The normally supportive court censured administration officials, saying the failure to disclose the extent of the violations earlier amounted to an “institutional lack of candor” and that the improper searches constituted a “very serious Fourth Amendment issue,” according to a recently unsealed court document dated April 26, 2017.

The admitted violations undercut one of the primary defenses that the intelligence community and Obama officials have used in recent weeks to justify their snooping into incidental NSA intercepts about Americans.

Circa has reported that there was a three-fold increase in NSA data searches about Americans and a rise in the unmasking of U.S. person’s identities in intelligence reports after Obama loosened the privacy rules in 2011.

Officials like former National Security Adviser Susan Rice have argued their activities were legal under the so-called minimization rule changes Obama made, and that the intelligence agencies were strictly monitored to avoid abuses.

The intelligence court and the NSA’s own internal watchdog found that not to be true…

The American Civil Liberties Union said the newly disclosed violations are some of the most serious to ever be documented and strongly call into question the U.S. intelligence community’s ability to police itself…

RTWT. Naturally, the NSA is scrambling to reassure people that it has fixed the problem. Riiiiiiiight. And Susan Rice didn’t lie and none of the surveillance data was ever misused against Obama opponents or improperly unmasked. Riiiiiiiight.

To people who understand civil liberties and limited government, all this is a huge deal that shows how far out of control the U.S. “intelligence community” (Deep State) has gotten. Chris Farrell at Judicial Watch compares it to President Lincoln’s suspension of habeus corpus during the U.S. Civil War.

Where is the Special Counsel on this?

Or the media coverage? Bush’s NSA did some illegal surveillance in the 2000s – and in 2005, was duly slammed by The New York Times. A large kerfuffle. “But that was then.” It served the interests of someone powerful – someone in deep alliance with, or control of, The New York Times – to weaken Bush. Not so much with Obama, eh?

See the FISA Court’s declassified order spanking the Obama administration, here. By the way, note how large sections of the relevant law and dockets are blacked out, showing how the FISA system has created secret law that the citizens aren’t supposed to know about. That’s horrible.

Also from Circa: Comey’s FBI was neck deep in the abuses.

The FBI has illegally shared raw intelligence about Americans with unauthorized third parties and violated other constitutional privacy protections, according to newly declassified government documents that undercut the bureau’s public assurances…

How the Establishment uses “special counsels”

The Obama administration used the IRS to target their domestic political opponents. AND they used the intelligence agencies as well (“unmasking”, “distributing” and leaking data from the U.S. surveillance apparatus) to target U.S. opponents.

Why has no special counsel ever been appointed, to investigate all that?

Or the Clinton Foundation corruption?

Or the innumerable classified-info leaks of recent months, many likely to be from Obama holdovers in the government?

Trump-Russia has been Fake News from minute one. My first reaction when a special counsel was appointed there was “Fine, let them spin their wheels on nothing”. That was too sanguine of me. It is indeed bad, for a couple of reasons.

First, as it is a witch hunt, they will keep looking until they entrap somebody in the Trump administration into a “process” crime. A la Scooter Libby, in the Plame affair. He ended up in jail, even though it was Richard Armitage who had illegally leaked Plame’s name.

Second and probably more important, it consumes DOJ and FBI resources that could and should be used to look elsewhere. And that’s the point of the thing. Democrats want to make sure no one will look at their horrific scandals.

Having a special counsel on the comparatively scandal-free President Trump, instead of themselves, is a huge coup. As in, coup d’etat against a lawfully elected President.

UPDATE: We could also talk about other types of investigation, such as complaints to the House Ethics Committee. Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch asks, “Why the double standard?” against Rep. Devin Nunes.

  • Rep. Devin Nunes chairs the House Intelligence Committee. He blew the whistle on the Obama administration’s illicit “unmasking” of surveillance data. Democrats responded by filing an ethics complaint on him.
  • Rep. Adam Schiff, ranking Democrat of the same committee, has been all over the media for months, possibly leaking classified information (or at least confirming leaked info, improperly). Judicial Watch filed an ethics complaint on him.
  • Guess Which the Ethics committee is acting on? And why?

I’ll say why: This is how the U.S. power structure works. By manufacturing (or at least spreading) one narrative; burying another. What you hear about, from investigations and the Controlled Media, is decided behind the scenes. Someone decides which thing you’ll hear about, and they decide because they have the hidden political power and it suits their agenda.

In this case, the House Ethics committee is run by Establishment Republicans. As such, they’re part of The Swamp; they are bedfellows to Democrats and the Deep State. Nunes sinned by bringing out a (true) story that strengthens Trump’s position. They would rather intimidate, mislead or weaken Trump into “playing ball”.

With every Deep State investigation and every Controlled Media “narrative”, you should ask: Why this one, not that other one? And why now?

(NB: Added and rewrote a lot, after first publication. Will stop now.)

The New Civil War

For the last 100 years – and, especially for the last 8 years under President Obama – more and more Americans have become feckless dependents of government.

They may be rich, middle class or poor. They may depend on government benefits, or on special favors written into our laws and regulations. Or they may be politicians and bureaucrats and government workers, deciding the fates of other people and taking paychecks a good deal larger than what most of them could get in the private sector. They may be journalists taking cash payments from the CIA, or billionaires with extensive government contracts.

And they are indeed feckless. They gladly believe and spread the most ridiculous things on zero evidence. For example, they choose a criminally dishonest politician (Hillary Clinton) to be president. When she doesn’t quite win the election, they gladly believe and spread rumors that the guy who did win is a Russian spy – on zero evidence, again – and chant “F*ck [him]!” at important political conventions.

On the other side are ordinary Americans who more-or-less believe in God, common sense, and supporting themselves through work. Again, they may be rich, middle class or poor. They choose 2 business people in a row to be president. The most recent one might not be a great role model in some ways, but at least he says sensible things in a forthright, unafraid manner. When he wins the election, he sets himself to the task of reviving America’s economy and manufacturing base – only to be undermined by the vast army and bureaucracy of the feckless government dependents, spreading their nonsense.

It’s a mortal conflict. And one side knows it: the feckless government dependents. Because America is fast reaching the point where it can’t afford to support them any longer. They, the cancer, are about to kill the host. They, the cancer, must be controlled and cut back – so that the rest of America can survive, and perhaps revive a little.

They, the feckless government dependents, know it deep-down. And, being out-of-control like any late-stage cancer, they are desperate to deny it and to continue a system – their own system – that promises to extract every last drop of life and treasure that can be extracted from normal Americans.

It’s Producers vs. Looters. Understand that the Producers are people of all classes and walks of life. Likewise, the Looters are people of all classes and walks of life.

And so we arrive at the political struggles of the last seven months. President Trump isn’t perfect. I did not support him. I still don’t support him, whenever and wherever I may disagree with him. But, somehow (and although I never wanted it), he became a leader for the Producers – or at least for the opponents of America’s looting, criminal Establishment. Imperfect Mr. Trump is the president we’ve got. And the vast army and bureaucracy of the feckless government dependents are determined to destroy him.

Thus the endless, utter nonsense they spew each day. I’m not sure what to do about it. I know that supporting Trump blindly will not help. But tolerating nonsense will also not help.

The only thing I know how to do, that might help in some tiny way, is to keep telling the truth as I see it unfolding around me.

Or posting links.

Schlichter sums it up well: “Someone came to Washington who wasn’t part of the club, and that’s intolerable. So they are desperate to expel him, and by extension, us. Every day will be a crisis, every action he takes will be the worst thing that has ever happened, and every step towards keeping his promises a crime.”

Each day, let us dedicate ourselves anew to rejecting the nonsense. And to offering truth, in its place.

Against ethnic identitarianism

First, let’s catch up on some lingo. Nathan Damigo, the guy who punched Moldylocks, founded something called “Identity Evropa” (meaning European). I visited the website and I did not find any statements that call for white supremacy; only for white/European identity.

Think of it this way. We have accepted identities such as African-American, Latino-American, Asian-American, Jewish-American, etc. In general, those identities don’t intend full-on Black or Latino or Asian or Jewish supremacy. They may sometimes achieve special privileges (for example, quotas or differing standards for the alleged races). But the majority of people holding to those identities don’t intend anything like a hard apartheid (or internment camps, etc.) for the other identities. In that sense, they usually aren’t “Black supremacists” or “Latino supremacists” or “Asian supremacists”, etc.

Damigo and company seem to be saying, we can get along with those identities but let’s have one for whites, too. They reject the term “white supremacists”. In the Rebel Media interview linked above, Damigo describes himself as a “white identitarian” and says that hysterical claims about his being a Nazi, a racist, etc. are just “anti-white hate speech” to shut down conversation.

It may sound almost reasonable until you remember that all identity politics are harmful. These guys are going in the exact wrong direction. They are doing a “Me, too” on racial identity politics. Like the others, they offer a cheap identity – “join the fraternity”, says their website. A San Diego Union-Tribune article says:

[As a Marine in Iraq, Damigo] saw firsthand the conflicts between the country’s ethnic and religious groups. “I said, ‘This is dumb. Why don’t … each one of them have their own country and they can all express themselves and … they’re not, you know, fighting with each other,” he told the Los Angeles Times in December.

In other words: Damigo might not want to harm or subjugate the other identities; but he thinks that both the Middle East and America should be even more ethnically-divided than they already are. Not good.

I believe in a melting-pot, American identity based on America’s founding principles of Human Freedom under Limited Government and the Rule of Law. Yes, the Left has pulled us all away from it with cheap, divisive identity politics. So let’s restore it.

When I come across identity-politics material of any kind (white, black or otherwise), the word “stupid” keeps popping into my head. I’ve been thinking about why that is. First, here is how I define the term. Interactions between 2 parties will have one of four outcomes.

  • I win, you win: That’s smart.
  • I win, you lose: That might be justice; if it’s not, then it’s predatory on my part, masochistic on your part.
  • I lose, you win: That might be justice; if it’s not, then it’s masochistic on my part, predatory on your part.
  • I lose, you lose: That’s just stupid.

With identity politics, everyone loses. Even the hucksters who gain financially from it are still losers – because they’re hucksters. If it’s stupid when Blacks or Asians or Latinos do it – and I’m afraid that it is – then it is equally stupid when whites do it.

All identitarians oversimplify their group’s history, and Identity Evropa is no exception. Their materials highlight Western civilization with majestic Greco-Roman-appearing figures next to slogans like “Let’s become great again”, “Serve your people”, “Discover who you are”, “Protect your heritage”. Fine. I like greatness and heroic art. But these guys seem unaware that Jesus was a Mediterranean Jew, and that the Greco-Roman civilizations (I dare not say “races”) were highly mixed, with a good deal of Mediterranean, Semitic (Phoenician), African and European heritage together.

They seem to forget that *culture is culture*. It isn’t about ethnicity, or tribe, or race, or genes, or color. It’s ideas; principles; the arts; laws and legal practices; philosophy; sciences; means of production and trade; food; ethics; things that can be adopted by anyone, of any ethnicity, at any time.

I am a Western supremacist. That is: I think that the Judeo-Christian-Greco-Roman-Lockean/Enlightenment civilization, while not perfect, is better than the others; it has the most elements from which an ideal civilization could be built. And I want to spread those good elements, by example and persuasion, to all ethnic groups (in America and the world).

It’s about the ideas/principles, and the individuals everywhere who may hold them. I couldn’t care less about the survival of *any* ethnicity as such. Ethnic identity is a sideshow, a rabbit hole where everyone loses, if we keep going down it.

And sorry Mr. Damigo, but if it does turn out that you’re one of those people who dwells on racial categories and uses them to pre-judge your fellow human beings: then yes, at that point you would be a racist. If you don’t want to wear that shoe, kindly make sure it never fits.

Some Questions That Need to Be Asked

Posted by V the K at 7:19 am - April 22, 2016.
Filed under: We The People

YouTube Preview Image

2016 “Dangerous Faggot” of the Year: Milo Yiannopoulus

If you are not following this guy, you should be. His resolution for 2016 is Total War on the Social Justice Wankers.

It’s now clear that progressives, lecturing the rest of us on how we ought to live from their bully pulpits in the media, academia and the entertainment industry, are terrified of the internet and don’t want to know what we have to say. Well, tough. In 2016, it’s time for the counterculture to go to war. Over the past year, I’ve seen people from all over the world stand up and fight back against the authoritarian, censorious world being built around us.

From video games to reddit to college campuses, we’re beginning to realise that there are more of us than there are of them. Our YouTube videos get more views, our fundraisers smash their targets, our numbers on social media eclipse theirs. And by the way: we see your hypocrisy. Social justice is always a cover for something, as the endless queue of progressives who get busted for being sex pests or worse continues to grow.

The public is getting sick of nasty, spiteful rants from people who pretend that their objectives are nice-sounding things like “diversity” and “equality” but who are really just bullies.

Post-shutdown, Obama approval continues downward trajectory

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 2:29 pm - October 17, 2013.
Filed under: We The People

The Republicans may have taken the biggest hit, but the Democratic president isn’t looking very good.

Screen shot 2013-10-17 at 11.21.55 AM

Does seem that since his initial election in 2008 the only way this guy knows how to get ahead is by denigrating the opposition.

Is the U.S. building the new ‘Berlin Wall’?

At Sovereign Man, Simon Black writes about the rising number of Americans who want to renounce citizenship – and the increasing roadblocks they face.

A massive 1,131 individuals renounced their US citizenship last quarter…Compared to the same quarter last year in which 188 people renounced their US citizenship, this year’s number is over SIX TIMES higher. Not to mention, it’s 66.5% higher than last quarter’s 679 renunciations…

While still embryonic, it’s difficult to ignore this trend– more and more people are starting to renounce their US citizenship…

So what’s driving it? Taxes…and the search for liberty…Particularly for people who spend most of their time outside of the United States and are constantly hamstrung by [U.S.] worldwide taxation and information disclosure[ rules], the burden for many of them has just become too much to bear.

The US government figured this out some years ago and began charging an exit tax…This applies to anyone whose average US tax liability over the last five years was about $150,000 (the equivalent of roughly $500,000 in taxable income in 2012 dollars), and/or has a net worth of at least $2 million on the date of expatriation.

More on the exit tax, here. But it’s not just for rich people; the U.S. government also holds back the poor:

Renunciation of U.S. citizenship was free until July 2010, at which time a fee of $450 was established.

Get it? If you marry your foreign boyfriend and move abroad and join with his people, it is going to cost you – even if you are both minimum wage earners. So decrees President Obama.

Past generations viewed renunciation as a human right. From Simon Black again (and quoted also in a U.S. government document, here):

…in the “[Expatriation] Act of July 27, 1868″, the United States Congress declared that “the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

In other words: Even if renunciation might be a mistake and/or unpatriotic, they thought U.S. citizenship should be your choice. But the current U.S. government does not; in addition to the roadblocks described above, we even get the occasional rumor of people’s applications for renunciation being denied outright.

I remember President Reagan in 1987 saying “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” that had been built to keep East German citizens *in* that country. I also remember left-liberals in the 2004 election cycle, promising they’d leave America if Bush won. (Few of them did, or none.) I wonder what they’d say now?

Gallup: Majority of Americans Oppose Obamacare

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 7:08 pm - June 27, 2013.
Filed under: Obama Health Care (ACA, Obamacare),We The People

As the full implementation of the 2010 Affordable Care Act nears,” writes Elizabeth Mendes of Gallup,

Americans remain wary of the law and of what kind of impact it will have on their family’s healthcare situation and the nation’s overall healthcare situation. Those without health insurance — a group that most benefits from the new law — are slightly more likely to see it as having a positive effect, but even they are not ardent supporters.

52 percent of Americans disapprove of the “Affordable Care Act,” with solid pluralities (47-34 and 42-22, respectively) believing it will worsen both the healthcare situation in the U.S. as well as that of their own family.

No wonder the “White House is working to recruit Hollywood stars for efforts to promote the healthcare reform law“. Wonder if they will do a better job selling the bill than the president himself has done.

Despite the Democrat’s years of salesmanship, only a handful of polls have shown the health care overhaul enjoying a plurality of popular support, with many, like this Gallup survey as well as those from FoxNews and CNN showing majority opposition.

H/t RealClearPolitics where their poll average has consistently shown more people opposing than favoring the legislation:

Screen shot 2013-06-27 at 4.06.34 PM

ADDENDUM:  Interesting to note how opposition to the policy has shot up in recent days.

Food for thought

Happy Memorial Day, er, weekend! And a big Thank You to GP commenter heliotrope for the following, which he posted as part of a longer comment, some ten days ago. I must warn that it’s not exactly cheery; but neither is the state of America these days.

In an environment of enabling corruption, these words are tested:

“Experience has shown, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.”
― Thomas Jefferson

“The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.”
― Tacitus, The Annals of Imperial Rome

“A man who has never gone to school may steal a freight car; but if he has a university education, he may steal the whole railroad.”
― Theodore Roosevelt

“Among a people generally corrupt, liberty cannot long exist.”
― Edmund Burke

“Power does not corrupt men; fools, however, if they get into a position of power, corrupt power.”
― George Bernard Shaw

“The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche

“Look at the orators in our republics; as long as they are poor, both state and people can only praise their uprightness; but once they are fattened on the public funds, they conceive a hatred for justice, plan intrigues against the people and attack the democracy.”
― Aristophanes, Plutus

“Might and wrong combined, like iron magnetized, are endowed with irresistible attraction.”
― Nathaniel Hawthorne, The House of the Seven Gables

“Why should he watch the hideous corruption of his soul?”
― Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray

“I will not let anyone walk through my mind with their dirty feet.”
― Mahatma Gandhi

Obama, Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder have made “not knowing” an art form. They learn of bad things by an occasional glance at the TV where the news is reporting it. That is the modus operandi of corruption. Unlike Ghandi, their minds are open to walking through by all manner of dirty feet, so long as there is no record kept or chain of evidence linking to them.

Americans may have reelected Obama, but they still want to repeal Obamacare

Poring over the details in Resurgent Republic’s 2012 post-election survey, I came across this telling tidbit:

Voters continue to support repealing and replacing the 2010 health care reform law.  By a 54 to 38 percent margin, with a nearly identical margin among Independents (55 to 38 percent), voters support repealing and replacing the President’s primary legislative achievement. Just a narrow majority of Democrats oppose repealing and replacing the law (51 percent, while 39 percent support repealing and replacing the law), while Republicans continue to support repealing and replacing it, now by a 70 to 24 percent margin.

Emphasis added (though headline was in bold in original).  The more we look underneath the topline of the Democrat’s narrow victory, the more we see just how hollow it was.  He won not so much because people share his ideas, his vision, but because they like the image his consultants had crafted.

Focus group disappointed with Obama, “cautiously ambivalent” about Romney

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 9:45 am - August 28, 2012.
Filed under: 2012 Presidential Election,We The People

Maybe a focus group reaction to this ad helps explains why Obama is not acting like a winning candidate:

Almost everyone in the group said they voted for Obama in 2008,” reports Scott Conroy of CBS NEWS, “but they were about evenly split between Obama and Mitt Romney in the 2012 race, with several still undecided.”

The group watched “more than a dozen negative TV ads funded by both presidential campaigns and outside groups”; a majority singled out the above spot “as the most effective ad of the current cycle.”  Via Mary Katharine Ham who notes that “only four of the 23 swing voters found ads from Obama and his allies more convincing than those from Romney and his allies.

The National Review’s Daniel Foster, who watched (what I believe was) this focus group in action, reported their reactions to the two major-party presidential candidates:

When asked to describe Romney in one word, they said things like “stiff,” “experienced,” “educated,” “accomplished,” “articulate,” “untrustworthy,” “a leader,” “successful,” “privileged,” “question-mark,” and “ethical.” A mixed bag, right? Sure, but look at what they call Obama: “narcissist,” “polarizing,” “trying,” “having hope,” “incapable,” “lost,” “polarizing,” “socialist” (!), and most damning of all, “disappointing.”

Starker still: Almost all of them voted for Obama in 2008. Almost none of them are committed to doing it again.

The Weekly Standaard’s Michael Warren, however, found that sentiment toward Romney was “cautiously ambivalent“: (more…)