Because the security of Beloved Leader is more important than that of Arizonans.
Speaking ex cathedra, Charles Johnson has condemned those “wingnuts” who claim the present Commander-in-chief’s policies are weakening the United States:
We are playing with dynamite by demonizing our president and dividing the United States in the process.
What, then, would His Lizardship say about a book entitled, “How the Obama Administration Threatens Our National Security”? As one reviewer summarized:
Dr. Hanson’s latest book, How the Obama Administration Threatens Our National Security, illustrates the peril that America’s leftist, superficial commander-in-chief has produced. Both President Obama’s ignorance and ideology now endanger the nation’s autonomy along with the world’s peace.
Problem is, the author, Victor Davis Hanson, is a Neocon chickenhawk who scurried to Johnson’s defense when the Lizard King denounced patriotic Americans who’d supported the Neocon’s foreign policy, but, in the aftermath of those wars, rejected their globalist domestic policies.
As I wrote at the time, Hanson and Johnson understood the real aims of the Neocon Wars, which was to put Americans in the service of the global democratic revolution. News flash: America is part of the same globe as Iraq and Afghanistan.
What happens now that Hanson slams Obama for insufficient bloodthirstyness? All eyes are on the Lizard King.
Miss Oklahoma is a “huge believer in states’ rights.” You go girl!
Miss Oklahoma was asked a question about Arizona’s immigration law by a Hispanic judge. Note that his question is booed by the audience. The judge then asked the audience to wait for the question which ultimately was whether this is an issue best handled by the states or the feds? He clearly thought asking the question that way would lead to the feds as the answer, but it backfired on him. Also note that while the audience response to her answer was mixed, her supporters seemed to clearly outnumber her detractors.
The politicization of these contests is shameful. Remember last year’s winner was asked about gay marriage and got in PC hot water when she failed to give the designated PC answer. Trump, who now owns the pageant, should ban political questions from future events.
Former RINO and current Democrat, Arlen Specter, is about to lose his primary and is getting hung out to dry by Obama. Ha ha. It couldn’t happen to a better scoundrel.
Sore loser Robert Bennett is threatening to run as a write-in candidate. Bet that bailout vote, that the PTB didn’t even need you on, isn’t looking so wise and thoughtful now, is it? And he slanders TEA Partiers in the process.
And newly independent Charlie Crist is trending down in the polls since leaving the GOP.
Self-identified conservatives throwing their weigh around in the GOP is a hopeful development. Let’s just hope we end up with more Rand Pauls than Marco Rubios.
People who follow this site probably think they know how this post is going to go. As an immigration restrictionist you think I am going to bemoan the fact that an immigrant is representing the United States as Miss USA. And while that is a potential concern, that’s not where I’m going with this.
The Miss America and Miss USA pageants have long been plagued by affirmative action selections, and this may be another one, although I find this winner quite attractive. Not that the winner is ever ugly, but their hair and make-up is often so done up they look cartoonish. I have always thought the winner looks a lot better when she shows up on the morning shows a few days later looking more normal.
But my point is this: I’m glad a Middle Easterner won because maybe it will make all the chest thumping, war mongering “just bomb ‘em all” interventionists think twice before calling for the bombing of the next villain of the moment Middle Eastern Country.
Recently I was e-mailed (or Facebooked or something) a website that had a bunch of pictures of good looking Iranian women, with the underlying message being something like “Hey testosterone addled keyboard warrior, look what you want to bomb.” As a Christian I don’t condone ogling scantly clad women or even beauty pageants for that matter, but I do recall thinking at the time “Maybe this will change the mindset of a few saber rattling interventionist types,” seeing as how we are always reminded about which head men do their thinking with.
In times of war there is always an effort to dehumanize the enemy. This is much in evidence on belligerent pro-intervention websites. In order to call for the indiscriminate bombing of people on the mere chance that they might be a threat to us and not recognize this as anything other than barbarism, you can’t imagine that the enemy is a human being just like you. They have to be transformed into irredeemable maniacal sub-human crazies. And it is easier to imagine them as something less than human if they look different than you, wear different clothing and practice a different religion. (Just look at the vilification and dehumanization of Germans and Southerners, some residual of which still informs the consciousness of many today, and Southerners and Germans weren’t even a different religion or race.) (Also this is not a plea for religious pluralism. Practitioners of non-Christian faiths should be looked upon by Christians as souls in need of salvation, not targets to be bombed.)
Maybe, just maybe, it will be harder for Keyboard Warrior Boy to dehumanize someone in his mind if he at the same time thinks, “Gee, their women are kinda hot.”
(In the linked article Miss Fakih says that her family practices both the Muslim and Christian faiths however that works. Many people are not aware that Lebanon used to be a predominately Christian country.)
College graduates this spring are entering into a terrible job market this spring, many with degrees that may not mean much when it comes to finding that well-paying job that will provide the money to get them out of debt.
This situation is finally waking up many to the realization that perhaps there are too many kids in college and that the emphasis that was put on kids getting degrees or spending on education for the past 30 years or so has led to a world of college graduates working as shift manager at a big-box store.
The linked article made this very good point:
“Ohio University economics professor Richard Vedder blames the cultural notion of “credential inflation” for the stream of unqualified students into four-year colleges. His research has found that the number of new jobs requiring college degrees is less than number of college graduates.
Vedder’s work also yielded something surprising: The more money states spend on higher education, the less the economy grows — the reverse of long-held assumptions.
“If people want to go out and get a master’s degree in history and then cut down trees for a living, that’s fine,” he said, citing an example from a recent encounter with a worker. “But I don’t think the public should be subsidizing it.”
No they shouldn’t. And if U.S. wants to revive its industrial economy, it’s going to need m0re trained engineers, millwrites and welders than MBA because persons holding those jobs are in their 60s and want to retire but can’t because their are hardly any young persons in such fields because they’re all off college vying for MBAs and English majors to land that great paying job. The problem is, a lot of good paying jobs go unfilled chasing jobs that are becoming more scarce now thanks to globalization and technology.
What the Great Recession has exposed is not only a house-of-cards economy built on debt and credit, but also one out of wack in terms of priorities and needs.
Here is a highly philosophical article on secession from Timothy Baldwin. Unfortunately he invokes Lockean Contract Theory without saying so in so many words. Needless to say, someone who uses the handle Filmer, doesn’t have much use for Lockean Contract Theory, but I find increasing talk about secession to be a hopefull sign so I will pass the article along. Baldwin the Younger, like his Dad, is generally right on about most things, and he has been all over the secession issue. He has a book on the way that I look forward to reading.
The Weekly Standard has done a lot to promote and defend Sarah Palin, not because the neocons are impressed with her and her homely ways (seemingly to impeccably cosmo), but because they see her as someone, like Bush II, they can manipulate and use a Palin Administration as their meal ticket back into power.
So when Bill Kristol, their current neocon Godfather spoke at recent American Enterprise Institue (AEI) Dinner (The Irving Kristol Dinner no less) honoring Gen. David Petraeus (The Irving Kristol Award!), he made some interesting remarks according to news reports:
“The late Mr. Kristol’s son, Bill Kristol, noted in a tribute to the award’s three decades of honorees that none has ever gone on to become president. He then added to applause and laughter, “Perhaps this curious and glaring omission will be rectified.”
How many neocons still take their cues from Kristol still remain to be seen but I think it’s safe to safe to say that without Kristol, Palin would still be back in Alaska as governor. So he is still influential with many power brokers. That he dropped this line about Petraeus may signal he’s shifting his presidential hopes (even if his track record is less-than-stellar) to someone not only close to other neocons like Kagans, but one probably more acceptable to a broader base of Republican voters. The neocons read polls too and they see Palin is not exactly the most popular person in the room. Perhaps a general with political savvy can unite the neocons with the Jacksonian voters they need to win. They also see the same polls showing no one a front-runner for the GOP nomination, the perfect environment for a candidate to come in suddenly from off stage and sweep the field. Petraeus may be coy about Presidential aspirations, but they bare watching, especially with the always plotting and scheming neocons on board.
The White House is likely to delay the withdrawal of the first large phase of combat troops from Iraq for at least a month after escalating bloodshed and political instability in the country.
And I thought the reason for staying was that the invasion of Iraq was such a sparkling success, no one wanted it to end.
Things that make you go hmmm…. As I have said before, I am not a “birther” if that means I think Obama was born in Kenya, but I am an anti-anti-birther. I think hysterical anti-birtherism is similar to public anti-BNPism. It is a way for conservatives to attempt to rid themselves of taint by vocally denouncing some group they see as even more socially toxic than they are.
I do, however, think Obama is hiding something. His multitude of unreleased records makes me suspicious. I don’t know what he is hiding, but why would someone want to take on a second social security number which is a crime?
Anyway, read the article before you react.
From Richard Spencer at AltRight:
Elena Kagan became Dean of Harvard Law School without issuing much of a paper trail. She has, however, written extensively on the subject of “hate speech.” Take these passages, for instance, from her 1993 article in the Chicago Law Review, “The Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography after R.A.V.” (Vol. 60, number 3/4, summer – autumn 1993).
Here’s her argument boiled down to its essence: Kagan supports the idea of banning speech she doesn’t like (particularly if it “perpetuates and promotes [racial and gender] inequality”); however, she realizes that if you do this, it makes you look like you some 1st Amendment-disrespecting tyrannt (“viewpoint discrimination”). She thus suggests labeling speech she doesn’t like as “harmful,” “fighting words,” or as not a “contribution to social deliberation” in order to help usher in a more equitable society through government censorship.
Here are shining examples of Lindsey Graham and John McCain’s “future Republican voters”:
Our discussion of the British National Party and the problem that many conservative Southerners might have with European style nationalism has prompted an interesting discussion. In America, true federalism, devolution, states’ right and secession are almost always associated with conservatism. But ethnic devolution and separatist parties in Europe (and even Canada) are almost entirely left-wing. Why is this?
Prof. Donald Livingston has commented on this. Historically in Europe, it was Communists who often talked of self determination and attempted to foment ethnic discontent against “oppressors.” Their reasons for doing so were disingenuous. They really didn’t care about indigenous peoples and just wanted to weaken the powers that be in the service of the greater revolution, but they still were behind these movements nonetheless. Those influences are still apparent today.
This also explains why “right-wing” elements in Europe often view devolution and ethnic separatism hostilely. Think Franco for example. They see separation as weakening the whole and see the separatists, often rightly so, as left-wing agitators.
Patrick Cleburne, “A Justice Kagan: Deadly threat to Free Speech”
Richard Spencer, “The Original Social Justice” [On Kagan]
Richard Hoste, “Is McCain Mad at Mexicans?”
Rob Sanchez, “Grieving Mother Praises [Arizona's] SB 1070”
Thomas Fleming, “Getting Real III: Bribability Without Liability”
William Quirk, “How Do You Make $100 Million Per Day?”
Vox Day, “The revoluciónary is right” [Cal. teacher calls for anti-white revolution]
Paul Belien, “The Euro Project’s Knockout Flaw”
Fjordman, “Democracy and Universalism”
Richard Rahn, “Switzerland as an Example for the World”
Old Rebel, “Stand With Arizona”
Paul Gottfried, “Putting Whitey in His Place”
Patrick Cleburne, “Kagan: Bad News being recognized“
Ed Meese et al say we need too revive the old Reagan doctrine of ”peace throught strength.” Someone needs to tell these movement “conservative” dinosaurs that it is no longer the 1980s, and we are no longer fighting a Cold War. Do they still were Izod shirts and Members Only jackets as well?
We are broke. We cannot continue to play the role of world policeman, and to believe we can is delusional. You cannot have limited constitutional government at home, but unlimited government policing the world abroad.
I am becoming more and more convinced that people like Meese don’t even believe this nonsense themselves. They are too smart to actually believe there is some existential military threat facing America. I am coming to the conclusion that these guys are simply acting as mouthpieces for their paymasters in the military industrial complex.
Immigration restrictionists should celebrate, instead of bemoan, all these pro-immigration, anti-Arizona rallies that are springing up. They can’t seem to help but discredit themselves and make our case for us. Waving foreign flags, disrespecting and banning the US flag, and ranting about how the US stole the West from Mexico and the coming revolution are not exactly a winning PR strategy. Diversity is not our strength. As all these things demonstrate, diversity is divisive.
Svante Pääbo at the Max-Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany has released some findings that may well change our view of human evolution. In fact, this finding could prove to be one of the most important finds of this century.
What did he find? That non-African humans have Neanderthal DNA. New Scientist reports:
“Any human whose ancestral group developed outside Africa has a little Neanderthal in them – between 1 and 4 per cent of their genome, Pääbo’s team estimates. In other words, humans and Neanderthals had sex and had hybrid offspring. A small amount of that genetic mingling survives in “non-Africans” today: Neanderthals didn’t live in Africa, which is why sub-Saharan African populations have no trace of Neanderthal DNA.”
What are the implications of such a find?
No one knows exactly, but it certainly could push back the date for the evolutionary separation of Europeans and Asians from Africans. Some have speculated it might account for:
- the physical diversity of Europeans (hair color, eye color, etc.)
- brain adaptions that gave non-Africans certain survival advantages (e.g. higher IQs)
- the ability of non-Africans to survive in colder climates
Steve Sailer notes these Neanderthal genes “probably aren’t neutral or junk genes, which would tend to disappear over the last 1,000 or so generations. They are probably useful genes that give some Darwinian advantage or advantages in some environments.” Speculating on the cold-weather thesis, Sailer notes:
[These genes] might be cold weather adaptations. For instance, one reason slavery faded out quietly in Northern states after the American Revolution was that slaves weren’t all that profitable because their immune systems weren’t attuned to cold weather diseases. As I wrote in VDARE in 2003:
Indeed, as Brandeis historian David Hackett Fischer pointed out in his famous Albion’s Seed, these racial differences had an enormous impact on the history of America. He notes that the cold climate of colonial Massachusetts:
“proved to be exceptionally dangerous to immigrants from tropical Africa, who suffered severely from pulmonary infections in New England winters. Black death rates in colonial Massachusetts were twice as high as whites’ – a pattern very different from Virginia where mortality rates for the two races were not so far apart, and still more different from South Carolina where white death rates were higher than those of blacks. So high was mortality among African immigrants in New England that race slavery was not viable on a large scale, despite many attempts to introduce it. Slavery was not impossible in this region, but the human and material costs were higher than many wished to pay. A labor system which was fundamentally hostile to the Puritan ethos of New England was kept at bay partly by the climate.”
Whatever implications this finding may bring, it will probably underscore the fact that there are significant differences between Africans and non-Africans. The genie is out of the bottle.
Andrew Bacevich is reviewing Eric Miller’s new biography of Christopher Lasch. The review itself is helpful and informative. I came away thinking Christopher Lasch is someone whose ideas I should get to know better. But the first eight paragraphs that serve as intro to the review are masterful.
Every time I read Bacevich I come away thinking he is one of the few public intellectuals who gets it, and gets us. Not that there aren’t others who get it and get us, they just generally aren’t allowed into the rarefied category of public intellectual. I don’t know how he gets away with it. I don’t know if Bacevich is an ideological (for lack of a better word. No Kirk lectures needed.) paleoconservative, but it is easy to detect a broadly conservative disposition, and I detect a certain Catholicness. So why the liberals give him a platform is puzzling. Since he is most often critical of Republican foreign policy and is also critical of the reduction of conservatism to a defense of capitalism, maybe they haven’t quite picked up on the fact that he isn’t one of them. But he isn’t the type of conservative who criticizes other conservatives (Frum, Brooks) who liberals love to promote either. Their critique of conservatism is from the center. Bacevich’s critique, as best as I can tell, is from a more authentic right.
Anyway, read the review. Bacevich makes a point that I have been makingfor years. American politics is dominated by a very tightly defined center. All the fretting and hand-wringuing about the extremes dragging their respective parties to the fringe is all about maintaining the status quo and getting all those uppity middle Americans with their silly ideas to shut up and go away. Best to leave that governing stuff to the big boys. I have never seen this dynamic expressed better than Bacevich does here.
*I am not very familiar with Foreign Affairs Journal. It promotes itself as a journal that argues the “big ideas behind U.S. foreign policy” and give air to divergent opinions. Since foreign policy on both “sides” is dominated by the shared assumptions of internationalism and interventionism, this is probably a good thing and is perhaps the reason they give Bacevich a platform. But the fact that they also give Jamie Kirchick headline billing makes me wonder just how credible they are. Kirchick is a go to PC enforcer which is one of the most powerful weapons the Establishment has for keeping intellectual dissent in check.