Monthly Archives: November 2011

American Lysenkoism

Without differences, there are no unique perspectives. Without unique perspectives, there is no innovation.

So says an ad for Lockheed Martin, which features a photo of a Black woman and an Asian woman beaming over a model F-22 fighter jet. It’s not clear if their evident pride is from the weapon these multicultural Vulcanettes have apparently forged, or from their invention of “innovation” itself. The ad concludes:

One company. One team. Where diversity contributes to mission success.

“Diversity” figures prominently in American business and government. A recent release from General Patrick J. O’Reilly of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency, entitled “We’re Diverse and Mission Ready,” cites “diversity” as an agency priority: “Our inclusive workforce consists of a balanced cross-section of individuals working in various disciplines. Together, they enable us to advance all facets of our engineering and acquisition responsibilities.”

That settles it: We’re in the grip of Trofim Lysenko’s legacy. Continue reading

The Race IQ ‘Blackout’

To paraphrase Ta-Nehisi Coates of The Atlantic: “I proclaim my proud ignorance of the research, have no understanding of statistics, and in addition to a frothing leftist bias, I sport a racial chip on my shoulder the size of New York state, but I still don’t believe race exists.”

Here’s Mr. Coates’s article, which is a frank admission and stubborn refusal to accept this research.

Daily reading and open thread

A.W. MacCrinnan reviews Tito Perdue’s new novel The Node, which might make a good stocking stuffer.

Srdja Trifkovic delivers a paper entitled “Multicultural vs. Stereotypical” at the conference”Russia and Europe: Issues of Contemporary Journalism,” Paris, November 24, 2011. (A must read.)

Gregory Cochran notes how academic political correctness diverges from reality.

Patrick J. Buchanan argues why we should care if whites become a minority.

Thomas Fleming discusses how unsurprisingly the pro-democracy movements in the Middle East are becoming anti-Western.

Henry McCulloch writes why mainstream Christian leaders are wrong to support the Third World invasion of the US.

Blogger Generation5 ponders what Americans can learn from Southern secession.

James Kirkpatrick reviews Lars von Tier’s new movie Melancholia.

John Anderson, Brenda Walker, Patrick Cleburne, Dennis Mangan and even (the often boorish) Rush Limbaugh all discuss neocon Newt Gingrich’s treasonous support of the Third World invasion of the United States.  Peter Bradley notes Newt Ginrich’s blatant support of anti-white affirmative action policies.

Washington Watcher writes about how the left and neocon right ganged up on Russell Pearce.  James Kirkpatrick notes what Pearce’s defeat says about “movement conservatism.”

Chris Brand notes how Darren Scully, the Mayor of Naas, spoke the truth about race relations in Naas and was lynched by his own party.

The most PC article on Thanksgiving: Ron Rosenbaum’s “The Unbearable Whiteness of White Meat” (HT: SS)

Classics Corner:

Sam Francis:  “When The State Is The Enemy Of The Nation


Roy Beck: “Study Says Gingrich Amnesty Bigger Than ’86 Blanket Amnesty

Mark Krikorian:  “Newt Gingrich Plan Would Mean More Illegal Immigrants

Randall Burns:  “Gingrich’s Immigration Proposals: Statesmanship—Or Class Warfare On American Workers?

Ian Flelcher: Newt Gingrich, Pseudo-Intellectual Free-Trade Kool-Aid Drinker

Ian Fletcher

At least one Republican presidential candidate (Roemer) is actually good on trade issues. At least one (Romney) may be at least o-kay if he really means what he says.  At least one (Cain) is an odd mix of very good and very bad. And at least one (Perry) seems to be just naïve and corrupt on the subject.

But I have yet to report on a candidate who is proactively, deliberately, ideologically wrong on trade as a matter of high principle.

Until now.  His name is Newt Gingrich.

Gingrich is, of course, already familiar to Americans from his unhappy stint as House Speaker in the mid 1990s, a stint which ended up disappointing both Democrats and his own Republicans.  Republicans, of course, abandoned him as leader in 1999 after he led his party to the worst-ever  Congressional loss by a party not in control of the White House.

And there was all that nastiness in 1997 about  allegedly using tax-deductible charitable donations to fund a non-charitable college course he taught—and of then lying about it to the House Ethics Committee. Was he innocent? Well, the House voted 395-28 to fine him an unprecedented $300,000 as part of a deal to avoid a full hearing, if that helps the reader any.

Gingrich seemed, as recently as a year or so ago, to have been relegated to well-paid has-been land—decorated, of course, with the polite fiction of his being an elder statesman of the party.

During this earlier career, Gingrich racked up a record of supporting every major wrong move on trade issues the United States has made in recent decades. To wit:

·         In 1993, he supported the North American Free Trade Agreement. (Which wasn’t even enough, according to him.  He wanted to eventually add Chile to the deal with the aim of eventually expanding it to cover the entire New World.)

·         In 1994, he  voted for creation of the World Trade Organization and American membership.

·        In 1998, he supported Most Favored Nation (now  known as Permanent Normal Trade Relations) status with China.

Gingrich has been openly contemptuous of American sovereignty when it comes to trade.  He said, in testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee in June 1994,

I am just saying that we need to be honest about the fact that we are transferring from the United States at a practical level significant authority to a new organization. This is a transformational moment. I would feel better if the people who favor this would just be honest about the scale of change.

This is very close to Maastricht [a key European Union treaty], and twenty years from now we will look back on this as a very important defining moment. This is not just another trade agreement. This is adopting something which twice, once in the 1940s and once in the 1950s, the U.S. Congress rejected. I am not even saying we should reject it; I, in fact, lean toward it.

Gingrich’s naiveté with regards to America’s most formidable economic adversary, the People’s Republic of China, is astonishing. The following PBS interview excerpt is almost painful to read, pure Thomas Friedman fantasy:

INTERVIEWER: Was it a good thing to allow China to become an open trading partner?

NEWT GINGRICH: Absolutely…Trade increases the likelihood that you and they will engage in win-win activities. The difference between politics and trade is that in politics I may take something from you to give to somebody else, even though you don’t want to lose it, so I raise your taxes. I charge you a fee. I confiscate your farm. In a free market you only do the things that make you happy in order for me to get the things that make me happy, and if we’re not both happy the trade doesn’t occur. So free markets dramatically lower the friction of human relationships and increase the relative pleasure and the relative success of human relationships. The more the Chinese and Americans [sit] down together to create more wealth, the happier they’ll be with each other, the less likely we’ll have conflict.

No concept of state capitalism at all. No concept that under state capitalism, capitalism strengthens, rather than disciplines, the state.  No concept of mercantilism, or the idea that trade can be practiced by foreign nations as rivalry, with a deliberate agenda to weaken the U.S.

Gingrich doesn’t seem to have wised up since, either.  If one consults his current campaign website’s section on jobs and the economy, there is no mention of trade issues. I guess they’re just not that important, despite a $500 billion-a-year trade deficit. The closest he comes to trade issues is to suggest some policies to “strengthen the dollar.”  While I’m sure the use of the word “strengthen” may make some conservative hearts beat faster, a strong dollar is actually something that has been inflicted on us by Chinese currency manipulation, it is a bad thing, and we need to go in the other direction if we ever expect to balance our trade.

How did Gingrich end up with these appalling ideas?  I can’t plumb his personality, but one of his worst liabilities, on a personal and political level, is his astonishing pseudo-intellectualism.  Intellectually pretentious politicians are a dime a dozen in, say, France, but they are quite rare here, so he stands out for this. As a PhD and former history professor, he seems to instinctively believe that his thoughts go on a higher level than other politicians.

This is a recipe for disaster.

First, intellectuals rarely make good politicians. It’s just a different skill set. A historian can spend a lifetime pondering a question and then give a carefully hedged and nuanced answer. A politician must vote Yea or Nay today. A physicist can discover a theory than only a dozen other people in the world understand, win the Nobel for it, and deserve it.  A politician in a democracy must think and act in ways that millions can understand.

This doesn’t mean politicians shouldn’t be smart, but it does mean that they generally shouldn’t be intellectuals.

It’s no accident that we haven’t had a decent intellectual president since Teddy Roosevelt, who could have gotten tenure teaching history at any university he wanted and whose naval history of the War of 1812 is still a standard work on the topic. The Founders’ generation had a lot of highly intellectual political figures. But that’s unsurprising, as this was a time when the ideology this country is based on was new, so it took genuine brains to understand and fight for it.

What’s even worse is that Newt Gingrich isn’t even an actual intellectual so much as a pseudo-intellectual.  He’s not somebody who has mastered an actual intellectual discipline and takes seriously the idea of intellectual discipline—that is, thinking not however one might wish, but in accord with certain canons derived from objective reality.  He’s more somebody who just loves ideas. Especially big ideas. I am told his staffers used to joke about having a whole filing cabinet labeled “Newt’s ideas” and a file folder labeled “Newt’s good ideas.” There’s a gaseousness, a love of big for the sake of big, a preference for the intellectually flashy over the boring truth, that runs through what he writes and says.  And it’s thus no surprise he’s so hot for globalism, this being one of the biggest, flashiest, most gaseous ideas since the death of Marxism.

America has already had one go at being the lab for Prof. Gingrich’s speculations; we don’t need another.

Ian Fletcher is Senior Economist of the Coalition for a Prosperous America, a nationwide grass-roots organization dedicated to fixing America’s trade policies and comprising representatives from business, agriculture, and labor. He was previously Research Fellow at the U.S. Business and Industry Council, a Washington think tank, and before that, an economist in private practice serving mainly hedge funds and private equity firms. Educated at Columbia University and the University of Chicago, he lives in San Francisco. He is the author of Free Trade Doesn’t Work: What Should Replace It and Why.

Frum’s less than mea-culpa

Rod Dreher over at TAC wanted critiques on David Frum’s latest piece of work. He also admonished us to be nice to Frum. Here’s my response:

“Rod, I apologize in advance but it is hard to critique a work of Frum’s without, at the very, very least, some mild form of irritation. I believe the main reason for this is his ability to take specific arguments, critiques and ideas made by writers of publications and journals and blogs he would generally regard with disdain or disgust and pass them off as his own and then, at the very same time, attack such people viciously for what he doesn’t agree with them upon and then try to “banish” them, or marginalize them, from the general debate on the basis of these disagreements.

Continue reading

Another Anti-Paul Article at American Spectator: Ron Paul’s Foreign Policy is “Submissive”

This one is by Aaron Goldstein. Aaron is an interventionist and generally moderateish, but is usually thoughtful. He loses all thoughtfulness here however and reverts to silly interventionist boilerplate. He resorts to name-calling and simple-minded guilt by association. I think AmSpec just posts one of these anti-Paul pieces whenever they need to drive up their page views. The very sensible James Antle must be embarrassed by all this.

It’s funny how often interventionists frame the non-interventionist position using terms like “weak” and in this case “submissive” (that’s nice), but it is the interventionists who are ruled by fear. I really do not need a lecture on masculinity from people who think we are going to be invaded by Muslims and forced to bow to Mecca unless we “fight them over there.”

Book Review: Into the Cannibal’s Pot

Into the Cannibal’s Pot – Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa, Ilana Mercer, Seattle: Stairway Press, 2011.


RSA-USA—Beloved, Benighted Countries

By Derek Turner, Alternative Right, Nov. 19, 2011

Ilana Mercer is a well-known controversialist on the American right, who writes a deservedly popular WorldNetDaily column and somehow finds time to maintain both a website and blog.

Her views are probably best described as paleo-libertarian. The book’s provocative title, which probably cost her potential readers, is borrowed from Ayn Rand, but the author tempers capitalist principles with respect for national identities and cultural traditions. Unusually amongst conservatives, she combines Israelophilia and dislike of Islam with trenchant opposition to American military adventurism. Unusually amongst libertarians, she is an outspoken critic of current US immigration policy as subversive of social order as well as fiscal responsibility. She has now turned her sights on her former homeland of South Africa – both for its own sake and because she feels its tenebrous present contains urgent indicators for America.

The author was born in South Africa, the daughter of a rabbi, but the family had to leave in the 1960s because of her father’s anti-apartheid outspokenness. They decamped to Israel, before the author moved back to South Africa in the 1980s to start a family. She was (and is) against apartheid; she recalls having tea with Desmond Tutu and being on the Grand Parade in Cape Town in 1990 to witness Mandela’s release. From there she went to Canada and eventually the United States.

[Continue reading....]

Articles for your consideration

From J.J. Jackson at Liberty Reborn “OWS Protesters-Find-Willing-Media-Dupe-to-Bring-Back-Tea Party-Comparison”

From SARTRE at BATR: “The Irrelevance of the Republican Party”

Also from SARTRE: “A True Greek Tragedy: The Odyessy of the EU”

An interesting book review in TAC: “Republicans and Christians: A Marriage of Convenience?

From Justin Raimondo at Lew “Obama Plays the China Card”

Our friend Chuck Baldwin will be running for Lt. Governor of Montana

This is a good story about upcoming cancellation of the NBA season and why it will happen.

And from Front Porch Republic: “Debating Conservatism: An Old Mistake in a New Inquiry”



Religious liberty may well be a struggle which defines 21st Century politics

Homosexual rights activist Jonathan Rauch wrote an essay recently in the Advocate (refer to by Rod Dreher at TAC) waring his fellow activists not to push their luck or take absolutist stands when it comes to forcing religious institutions to recognize homosexual marriages:

OPPRESSIVE? Gays as oppressor? Am I kidding? The irony is rich. Nothing gays have ever said or done to our opponents comes close to the harassment and stigmatization that homosexuals have endured (and, among the young, often still do endure). Still, gay rights opponents have been quick, in fact quicker than our side, to understand that the dynamic is changing. They can see the moral foundations of their aversion to homosexuality crumbling beneath them. Their only hope is to turn the tables by claiming they, not gays, are the real victims of oppression. Seeing that we have moved the “moral deviant” shoe onto their foot, they are going to move the “civil rights violator” shoe onto ours. So they have developed a narrative that goes like this: Gay rights advocates don’t just want legal equality. They want to brand anyone who disagrees with them, on marriage or anything else, as the equivalent of a modern-day segregationist. If you think homosexuality is immoral or changeable, they want to send you to be reeducated, take away your license to practice counseling, or kick your evangelical student group off campus. If you object to facilitating same-sex weddings or placing adoptees with same-sex couples, they’ll slap you with a fine for discrimination, take away your nonprofit status, or force you to choose between your job and your conscience. If you so much as disagree with them, they call you a bigot and a hater. They won’t stop until they stigmatize your core religious teachings as bigoted, ban your religious practices as discriminatory, and drive millions of religious Americans right out of the public square. But their target is broader than just religion. Their policy is one of zero tolerance for those who disagree with them, and they will use the law to enforce it. At bottom, they are not interested in sharing the country. They want to wipe us out.

Rauch may be wise to urge restraint but he may also be talking to a brick wall. If situation he describes is true (and it probably is) then it is a general truism of human nature that the victors don’t take the time to pick the vanquished up off the ground, dust them off and say “good fight my friend”. No, they generally want to kick them while their down and continue beating them until they are annihilated. And if this becomes the case (and with ideologues it usually is) then the situation Rauch fears (They are going to move the “civil rights violator” shoe onto ours) will take place.

Indeed it already has begun: witness the Obama Administration’s attack on Catholic organizations trying to fight human trafficking on nothing more than pure ideological grounds. Such questions already being debate in Europe where free speech clashes with bigotry and medievalism on a daily basis in the banlieues of modern European cities. These same concerns arose during the health care debate. What it shows is the culture wars, instead of subsiding with the passing of the 1960s generation, will continue to burn hot well into the 21st Century. And it’s not just Catholics or fundamentalist Protestants Rauch should be fearing. He should be fearing a Muslim dominated suburb like Dearborn, Mich. looking the other way if homosexuals are stoned according to Islamic law. Or perhaps feminists should fear the latest in burqa fashions walking down the street in the same community. Or perhaps they’ll fear prearranged marriage contracts with are perfectly routine in some Asia and African cultures and would a ban on female circumcision hold up in court if was done on religious grounds?

As opponents of homosexual marriage have warned once you let this genie out of the bottle there is no practice which cannot be outlawed if supported by either egalitarian or religion masking itself as egalitarianism. Rauch knows full well, even if he doesn’t quite say it, the cultural contradiction of liberalism (brought about in large part by the immigration to this country such persons refuse to limit) where discrimination can very well be backed up by cultural tolerance. Adopting decentralized rather than absolutist models may well be the way to go but it requires persons used to thinking in terms “BE LIKE US OR ELSE” to give it up. Easier said than done.

Herman Cain: Race more important than conservatism

“I’m an American first, black second, conservative third.” ~ Herman Cain

Cain is onto something. While conservatism has become an abstract ideology (a la movement conservatism and neoconservatism), concern for one’s own people is grounded in blood and ancestry. What could be more concrete and visceral?

Still, there remains a double standard. Imagine if Mitt Romney said: “I’m an American first, white second, conservative third.”  European Americans are not allowed to care for their own.

Progressive, Neocon, whatever – it’s all Big Government

We’ve been arguing for some time (see here and here) that there’s no philosophical or practical difference between the “Progressive” and Neocon agendas. Oh, how good it feels to see someone from the left validate that message. Here’s Glenn Greenwald:

As I pointed out just yesterday, many Democrats not only passively acquiesce to Obama’s continuation of core Bush/Cheney Terrorism policies, but enthusiastically cheer it as proof that they, too, can be Tough and Strong (manly virtues demonstrated by how many human beings their leader kills from afar). So here you have Think Progress heaping praise on Obama for seizing what is literally the most radical power a President can seize: the power to target — in total secrecy and with no checks or due process — their fellow citizens for execution: specifically, assassination-by-CIA.

And check out this killer quote from Greenwald’s article, one that every pro-war “conservative” should read and deal with:

It took Ron Paul — whom every Good Progressive will tell you is Completely Crazy and Insane — to point out to the GOP the rather glaring inconsistency between, on the one hand, distrusting government authorities to run health care, but on the other, wanting to empower the President to kill whomever he wants with no transparency or due process.

This is the trap grass-roots, patriotic Southerners have fallen into. They cheer on “the troops,” no matter the mission, and submit to everything DC wants, from the Patriot Act, to illegal searches in airports, yet can’t comprehend why our liberty is slipping away, minute by minute.

The Newt Surge?

Please say it isn’t so. The “conservatives” attempt to find a candidate other than Romney to coalesce around has sunk to a new low. Newt continues to surge in the polls. Bachmann came and went. Perry came and went. Cain came and went and came and went again. Santorum never came. Now they’re seriously considering Newt? I don’t know what to say.

Putting aside Newt’s personal baggage and just looking at policy, Newt personifies everything that is wrong with modern “conservatism.” Newt appeals to many movement types because he has a ready policy for every problem. If the liberals complain about some problem they want the government to fix, then the Newts of the world are there with a counter proposal for a government fix for the same problem that attempts to throw some bone to the “free market.” This has nothing to do with principle and nothing to do with conserving anything. It is a way to provide cover to timid “conservatives” who are afraid of being caught in a debate with liberals without some policy proposal to fix whatever the issue of the day is. Is there a problem with inner-city poverty. Well then we need enterprise zones. Is there a problem with poplution. Well then we need a market in carbon credits. Is there a problem with the uninsured? Well then we need an insurance mandate and subsidies. Etc. etc. etc.

I would gladly take Bachmann, Cain, Perry or even Santorum before I would take Newt. Newt is insufferable. Please make this stop. If Newt is the nominee then I will be forced to decide if I should slash my wrists or gouge out my eyes. Or maybe the government could give me a subsidy then I could shop on the free market for the wrist slashing service of my choice.

Ron Paul Third Party

Just as sure as one can be of the sun rising in the morning, one can be sure the political media will ask Ron Paul if he going to make a “third party” bid for the White House. Some media commentators seem obsessed with this possibility largely because he’s done it once before in his first bid for the White House as the Libertarian Party nominee.

Which is precisely he’s being sincere when he says he doesn’t want to do it again because he know how hard it it is to get on the ballot in all 50 states, (even with a mid-major party nomination) how hard it is to raise money and how hard it is to get media attention (you’ve think you’ve seen blackouts now?). Ron Paul knows all of this which is why he keep saying he has “no intention” nor plans of doing so.  Apparently some journalists have forgotten the meaning of the word “no”.

So why not take no for an answer? My guess is many in the political media would love to see such a run if only to enliven a Obama-Romney snoozefest if that’s what it came down to and perhaps some sympathetically see an independent campaign as perhaps the best means of getting Paul’s message to the voters even if even if the facts show he’s gained for more attention for his views running for the GOP nomination than he ever would as an independent.

Still, this will be Ron Paul’s last campaign and while it is in a stronger position and far better organized than it was at this time four years ago, the fact his poll numbers remain consistent but stagnant while charlatans, fools, and the “Not-Ready-For-Prime-Time-Players” that make up the GOP Presidential candidate field leap ahead of him the polls of likely Republican voters as the media’s “flavor-of-the-month” indicate an old truism about dogs and dogfood. If they don’t like it, for whatever reason, they will not eat it no matter how much money you put into advertising, product marketing and development.  And an independent campaign is also tempting when the first poll of such a match-up (Obama-Romney-Paul) showed Paul at 18 percent to start off with. Not bad.

But if Paul were to make such a jump it cannot be an “independent campaign”. It cannot be a vanity run or the act of a spoiler. It can’t be something forgotten about years later like John Anderson in 1980 or Ross Perot in 1992. For his last campaign Ron Paul has to leave something substantial behind, especially for the many young persons who support him. It has to be an actual campaign of a third party, meaning that Ron Paul will have to create a new major party as his legacy, not just another minor one.

For this to happen several standards (and very high standards) have to be achieved to make this new party both feasible and credible. They are as follows:

1). Paul has to average 15 percent of the vote in GOP primaries and caucuses and probably win a state or two. Anything less will not cut it for voters outside the party with the base first and foremost. Gaining eight percent in Iowa for example in the caucuses would make such a bid pointless.

2). Such a party must included elected officials, which means Sen. Rand Paul has to be a member along with Congressmen like Walter Jones Jr. or Justin Amash or Mike Lee. Any non-major party bid puts Rand’s political future at risk and if he’s not a part of the new party, it doesn’t work.

3). It has to include more persons than just disgruntled Republicans. Bringing along Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich for example would give it more credibility to a broader swath of voters and encourage others who aren’t cultural Republicans to join. U.S. political parties are not parliamentary parties and never were intended to be. They were meant to be factions of voters to be brought together by a few uniting issues.

4). It needs at least three or four guiding principals all of its members can agree with.  And these can be ideological or cultural or what have you. But it needs a centrifugal force to keep the party together. The Reform Party, the last attempt at building a third major party, failed because no one could figure out what those principals which united a quite diverse group ranging from Pat Buchanan to Lenora Fulani.  Instead the divisiveness within the party became a battle for power and with it control a huge pot of Federal matching funds which turned a lot of people away from it.

What those principals would be I’m not going to speculate too much on. Certainly a broad belief in civil liberties, decentralization, End the Fed,  localism, changing U.S. foreign policy and reducing the military-industrial complex would be a start. I think a such party could stand on a platform which reduces the size of the federal government and allows for power to the people where they live to determine their own lives is one a party like this could stand upright on. A party which respects the regional and cultural differences within the country instead of the “BE LIKE US OR ELSE!” mentality of modern liberals and conservatives might entice voters who have said time and time again in polls they want another major party to vote for.

Such a party probably wouldn’t win in 2012  but if it could emerge with a good stable of public office holders and spend the next four years organizing and increasing its strength, making itself ready for 2014 and 2016, then such a party could establish itself with a significant section of voters not strongly tied to either party. These are big “coulds” but given the current upheaval in world and the U.S., voters would certainly be more attentive to such a message than they were in the more placid mid and late 90s when the Reform Party floundered.

If you don’t believe Ron Paul completely closed on a third party campaign, maybe it’s because he’s of a similar mind: No more vanity campaigns, no more campaigns with pure ideologically based parties. The only third party run for the White House worth making is a run that actually goes somewhere.

Is the Republican Party trying to throw the election?



Do the Republicans really want the White House in 2012? If they do, they have a funny way of showing it.

Two of its major contenders for the nomination are practically wallowing in their unelectability. Class clown Rick Perry is either a genetic goofball, or prepares for presidential fashion shows (they’re not debates!) by getting higher than a kite – there’s just no other way to explain this. And Herman (“You’re so Cain”) Cain must be the most arrogantly ignorant candidate for president ever (“Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan”).

But there’s always Mitt Romney, some say. Yeah, the liberal who’s inspired a growing conservative movement within the Republican Party to stop him from winning the nomination.

Last night was good for the Republicans, at least in the South. In Virginia, Republicans now control the governor’s office and the legislature. Republican Phil Bryant won his bid for governor of Mississippi.

So I wonder – is the Republican strategy to focus on its base in the South, let Obama win, and allow him to further alienate conservatives as he tries to consolidate and expand his leftist agenda? The backlash could be so vigorous that the shellacking of 2010 would look like a day at the beach.

We are indeed living in interesting times. (For background on the “winning by losing” strategy, read this and this.)

UPDATE # 1: Obama Back to Even With “Generic” Republican Candidate:

President Obama now essentially ties, 43% to 42%, a “generic” Republican candidate when U.S. registered voters are asked whom they are more likely to vote for in the presidential election next year. This marks a change from October and September, when the Republican candidate was ahead, and underscores the potential for a close presidential race in the year ahead.

UPDATE #2: And as for what we can expect from a second Obama administration, I refer you to a political analyst who’s as good as any other so-called expert, Chris Rock. (Warning: language!)

Herman Cain and the North American Union

“we must build North America as a globally competitive strategic system with 600 million people…encompassing the United States, Canada and Mexico”

Herman Cain, Washington Times, 11/4/2011

Glenn Beck proved he doesn’t read his own books, as he listed Herman Cain as a, by his description, conspirator looking to overthrow the American Constitutional government in favor of a North American Union.

Page 281, An Inconvenient Book.

There was talk on the Ron Paul Forums that Cain actually hadn’t attended and that this shouldn’t be a line of attack, and there was  a battle on Wiki to remove his name as an attendee.  No one in the “rightwing press” will actually just ask him–not that it matters anymore, as this recent editorial in the Washington Times is beyond satire.

Soak that one in, “we must build North America”.

Hope my old friends from FredThompsonForum and ElectionInk might get a laugh, anyway.


Herman Cain

With apologies to Carly Simon

You stunned the Republican party like you were mimicking Ol’ Trent Lott
Your hat strategically tossed into the ring
You said you’d give it your best shot
You had one eye on hawking your new book as you stirred the presidential pot
Republicans dreamed you’d be their Obama,
You’d be their Obama, and …

Herman Cain, they’ll probably run a ticket without you,
Herman Cain, I’ll bet they’ll run a ticket without you,
Don’t you? Don’t you?

You had me several debates ago when I could still believe
Well you said your flat tax would knock ‘em dead
But Santorum said your plan’s naïve
And you said some things that made me think you’re not really what you say
I had some dreams, they were mud on my pizza,
Mud on my pizza, and…

Herman Cain, they’ll probably run a ticket without you,
Herman Cain, I’ll bet they’ll run a ticket without you,
Don’t you? Don’t you?

Well I hear you went up to Las Vegas and got ridiculed for 9-9-9
Then you rode your campaign bus to New Hampshire
And prematurely flashed a victory sign
Well you’re where you should be in the polls
And if you’re not you’re in
Some restaurant convention with a female employee
Female employee, and …

Herman Cain, they’ll probably run a ticket without you,
Herman Cain, I’ll bet they’ll run a ticket without you,
Don’t you? Don’t you?

Pious racial indignation over Cain’s offenses

I don’t often post articles from the petulant Leonard Pitts, but his thoughts on how Republicans continue to defend neocon Herman Cain echo mine:

[T]hey scream in pious racial indignation when Cain is asked questions he doesn’t want to answer.

A “high tech lynching,” said blogger Brent Bozell.

“Racially stereotypical,” sniffed Rush Limbaugh.

“I believe the answer is yes,” said Cain himself when asked on Fox if race was the cause of his woes, adding honestly, if hilariously, that he has no evidence whatsoever to back that up.

If you didn’t know better, you’d think Cain was some hybrid of Emmett Till and Kunta Kinte. Nobody knows de trouble he’s seen.

Perfect! “Anti-Racism” in the DC Empire is the equivalent of “Socialist Liberation” in the old Soviet Empire, providing idealistic cover for the regime’s oppression at home and intervention abroad. Embracing the approved ideology demonstrates one’s loyalty and nobility. So pervasive is this ideology that Jeffrey Dahmer, who was a homosexual, murderer, necrophiliac, and cannibal, felt obligated to make clear he didn’t murder and eat people because of their race.

The Ultimate Good is easily weaponized for political debate. The Establishment Right accuses those who don’t support their agenda of perpetual war of racism. Any villain who objects to US taxpayers handing over $3 billion a year to wealthy Israel MUST be “anti-Semitic.” And because some Occupy protests have denounced Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, apologists of the Establishment Right gleefully use the same accusation against Occupy Wall Street protesters.

The tragedy of this is that “racism” is a Marxist term, and using it as an accusation legitimizes the evil philosophy that created it.

Presidential Candidates Crossing the Pond

There was a minor controversy over the last month as Ron Paul accepted a meeting with a visiting Marine Le Pen (at her request, allegedly to discuss the gold standard.)   Marine Le Pen is running for President of France, as the leader of the French party, Front National.

They met for about 10 minutes on Thursday; Human Events seems to be the only one on the Right that reported it; here is the Roll Call story.

Compared to the mixed reaction, with plenty of support, Geert Wilders receives, Marine Le Pen is nevertheless, beyond the pale and apparently not worthy of mention by what passes for an American Right.

But it does appear the real concern, as the more Leftist political outlets were pulling their hairs out–see, Ron Paul is a rightwinger!—is the Rightwing Press doesn’t want that notion to be considered.

If we do a get a rightish flavored Third Party next year, it’s worth noting that after meeting with Paul, Le Pen was off to see the Occupy folks.



When Alvin Greene won the Democrat Party nomination for Senate, I suggested perhaps the word “Greene” encouraged Leftists to vote for him.  I wonder if the polls that show Cain as the leader for the Republican nomination are driven by left-over nodes created for McCain?


The Bandwagon Effect

I know of this woman in Madison who is one of the few prominent conservatives in town. She  has won some elections to local boards but never a bigger one than that and had become something of a perennial candidate. I recently heard she took a job in the Gov. Walker Administration, working somewhere in the bowels of the bureaucracy. Upon reading this in the news it struck me that its amazing for all the angst about government on the Right that Right activists often times find themselves eventually working for the state more often than not.

And if you realize this you’ll realize why some prominent “conservatives” (and why there will be many more) are endorsing Mitt Romney. Below is mentioned Ann Coulter and it should be pointed out former U.S. Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell also offered an endorsement.

Now ask yourselves why would someone who continually blames the GOP establishment for her loss in Delaware last year endorse a candidate who is the epitome of that establishment?  Well, what does Miss O’Donnell do for a living, besides her “activism” ? She’s not a farmer, a businesswoman or metal fabricator, so far as I can tell. No she pretty much concerns herself with politics and political activism. You’ll find a lot of people like that and both sides of the political equation, people who make politics their living. Oh, some might have law degrees so they can still work in the legal profession, others are journalists who can fall back on writing books or news columns if times get tough. But for most its politics and nothing but.  Once upon a time we called such people ward bosses. Now they work out of Washington or state capitol office buildings working on their email lists or raising money for their work.

But activism is not exactly a racket one can get filthy rich from. You find yourself dependent on other people i.e other people’s money and when you have to ask for other people’s money, they tend to have certain ways they want it spent. Not only that, if you work on a campaign and lose well, its SOL when it comes to the post-election job market. You’ll be lucky to wind up a janitor in some think tank’s office building.

So the O’Donnells and the Coulters are placing their bets on Romney not just because they think Mitt is going to eventually win but, in O’Donnell’s case at least, they might well expect something for it. Maybe a political appointed post in the Interior Department for example. Indeed, what better way to try out your ideology than in the halls of power itself? Even though a year ago you though jobs like the one you occupy should be eliminated to save taxpayer money. Then you find out taxpayer supported jobs are a much steadier working gig than having to beg for crumbs for your little activist group  from some rich financier. And you can only get those kinds of job if you come and support the candidate who you think is going to win right away. As in ancient Gaul, all the tribal chieftains are equal but except for the last one who arrives last when the chief calls them together. Hesitating and waiting sometimes get you nothing. A candidate knows his loyal supporters are the one’s who endorse them early before bandwagon leaves the station.

If you wonder why even under Republican and so-called conservative occupation of the White House or Congress or even the statehouse the bureaucracy is never reduced there’s your answer. What would we do with all the activists and failed candidates  if there were no government jobs to reward them with? Where would they go? The soup kitchen? OWS? They have to go somewhere. I would hope they’d go back to the farm as Washington did after the war, but where’s the money in that?