He’s informed, he smart, he’s disciplined, and he’s wise enough not to slime people when all he has to do is stand aside and let them slime themselves:
Oh, and about that 97% study, it’s so bogus.
Happy New Year! Okay, it’s not quite the new year, but I hope to usher it in for you with a lengthy and satisfying list of things to read as you see in 2016. Because I have so many things to share, I’ll strive for brevity, but I make no promises in that regard:
It’s going to get worse before it gets better — the foreign policy edition
The astute Lee Smith is not sanguine about 2016, at least not when it comes to America’s foreign policy. He warns that Obama Unbound will mean things will get a lot worse overseas, especially in the Middle East. The thing is, Obama’s not even pretending anymore. He’s just acting out his agenda here and now, which is to withdraw America entirely from the Middle East, once he’s successfully marginalized the Sunni powers, strengthened Iran’s reach, and weakened Israel.
It’s going to get worse before it gets better — the Second Amendment edition
Obama is planning to use his executive powers to limit American’s constitutional right to keep and bear arms. You might want to start writing checks immediately to your favorite Second Amendment group to make sure to stop that plan in its tracks.
And no, I don’t want Congress involved. Rather than asserting the Second Amendment, the Republicans in Congress will enact some stupid law that theoretically stops Obama but, in fact, makes it appear that Obama actually has the power to limit the Second Amendment. Congress doesn’t need no stinkin’ law to assert the Second Amendment — and Obama doesn’t have any actual power to block it.
For an exceptionally lucid explanation of the unalienable self-defense principle underlying the Second Amendment, I recommend Charles C.W. Cooke’s article explaining precisely why sane people want a firearm — and why it’s been a hallmark of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence for centuries:
To peruse the explanatory strictures of the Founders’ era is to discover just how seriously the right to protect oneself was taken in the early Anglo-American world. Writing in his 1768 Commentaries on the Laws of England, the great jurist William Blackstone contended that “self-defence” was “justly called the primary law of nature” and confirmed the Lockean contention that it could not be “taken away by the law of society.” In most instances, Blackstone observed, injuries inflicted by one citizen on another could wait to be mediated by the “future process of law.” But if those “injuries [are] accompanied with force . . . it is impossible to say, to what wanton lengths of rapine or cruelty outrages of this sort might be carried, unless it were permitted a man immediately to oppose one violence with another.”
When it comes to un-American, nothing beats Progressives trying to shelter a bad idea:
I did it again — I let my inbox get out of hand, so much so that I woke up this morning to discovery over a thousand unread emails in the email accounts for which I’m responsible. Going through them isn’t my favorite activity (too much guilt about emails I inadvertently ignored and too much stress about decisions I have to make), but I do find lovely links and comments that I view as buried treasure. This round-up, therefore, is a treasure-hunt edition.
Yo, Obama! History hasn’t happened yet.
I great disliked Obama’s oval office address. One of the lines that irritated me most was this one: “My fellow Americans, I am confident we will succeed in this mission because we are on the right side of history.”
History, of course, refers to the past. Obama is using a nonexistent historical reference point to predict the future, and then using this prediction to justify inaction. (This is very similar, of course, to the whole “climate science” joke, which uses falsified historical data and computer programs that cannot factor in all future possibilities to predict the climate future, and then takes this Garbage-In/Garbage-Out data to justify costly action.)
Some months ago, my friend Patrick O’Hannigan sent me a post he’d written about the way in which the Left misuses the concept of history. It seems singularly on point now that the President has used a hypothetical future history to justify his passivity when faced with one of the most consequential, and existential issues of our time:
We’re 11/12 of the way through a rather challenging year. I wonder what the last month will bring, not to mention the remaining 12.5 months of Obama’s presidency. Well, the future will be what it will be. Let’s use this round-up, which I compiled with a friend’s help, to focus on the present:
JFK’s assassination killed America
The 1950s had its economic ups and downs, its worries about a nuclear future, its Red scares, its Jim Crow/Civil Rights face-off, etc., but overall the 1950s was defined by its boundless optimism. People, including Democrats, believed that America was a wonderful, world-saving country, and that the future held immeasurable promise. In other words, the general outlook was a complete 180 from the dislike Progressives feel for America and the despair with which conservatives view it.
George Will says that Kennedy’s assassination did this. What Will adds to this bromide is important. It wasn’t Kennedy’s actual death that wrought the change, he says. Instead, in order to avoid admitting that a communist killed their hero, Democrats had to savage America:
Three days after the assassination, a Times editorial, “Spiral of Hate,” identified JFK’s killer as a “spirit”: The Times deplored “the shame all America must bear for the spirit of madness and hate that struck down” Kennedy. The editorialists were, presumably, immune to this spirit. The new liberalism-as-paternalism would be about correcting other people’s defects.
Hitherto a doctrine of American celebration and optimism, liberalism would become a scowling indictment: Kennedy was killed by America’s social climate whose sickness required “punitive liberalism.”
The bullets of Nov. 22, 1963, altered the nation’s trajectory less by killing a president than by giving birth to a destructive narrative about America. Fittingly, the narrative was most injurious to the narrators. Their recasting of the tragedy to validate their curdled conception of the nation marked a ruinous turn for liberalism.
Punitive liberalism preached the necessity of national repentance for a history of crimes and misdeeds that had produced a present so poisonous that it murdered a president. To be a liberal would mean being a scold. Liberalism would become the doctrine of grievance groups owed redress for cumulative inherited injuries inflicted by the nation’s tawdry history, toxic present and ominous future.
That’s as scathing an indictment of the Leftist mindset as one can imagine, as well as a sad eulogy for the end of the American dream at the hands of the people who claimed most to represent that dream.
Inspired by Marie Kondo’s advice that true organization begins with throwing out everything that is neither useful nor sentimental, I am continuing to plow through every nook and cranny in my house. This is the first organization system that’s made sense to me, which is why I haven’t already given up and relapsed into my usual vaguely tidy-looking mess. My mind is also a vaguely tidy-looking mess, but it’s still yielded these interesting links:
Ignore people who tell you Cruz is divisive and uncooperative
According to those rooting for candidates other than Ted Cruz, he’s an arrogant blowhard who won’t play well with others. In fact, Cruz’s work history proves that the opposite is true:
At the FTC, Cruz’s agenda could have been written by Milton Friedman.
Cruz promoted economic liberty and fought government efforts to rig the marketplace in favor of special interests. Most notably, Cruz launched an initiative to study the government’s role in conspiring with established businesses to suppress e-commerce. This initiative ultimately led the U.S. Supreme Court to open up an entire industry to small e-tailers. Based on his early support of disruptive online companies, Cruz has some grounds to call himself the “Uber of American politics.”
Moreover, and perhaps surprising to some, Cruz sought and secured a broad, bipartisan consensus for his agenda. Almost all of Cruz’s initiatives received unanimous support among both Republicans and Democrats.
Ted Cruz a consensus-builder? He was, at the FTC.
Read the rest here. Cruz has the chops to make the best kind of President: True conservative values, love for America, phenomenal intelligence, and the ability to work and play well with others.
Only conservatives are paying attention
In an attempt to deflect attention of Muslim depredations in Paris, the Left and its foot soldiers (all of whom seem to be my Facebook friends) immediately attacked Americans and other Westerners for failing to pay attention to a bombing the day before in Lebanon (an ISIS v. Hezbollah bombing, so it was Horrible People v. Horrible People). I eventually got tired of commenting on their posts to the effect that I have been paying attention to all of these attacks, primarily because they are all different manifestations of a single radical Islamic entity, and I’ve been trying to get everyone to pay as much attention as I do.
Emma Kelly says what I was too polite to say explicitly to these Leftists: The reason you didn’t know about these other attacks isn’t because the newspapers didn’t report them, it’s because you weren’t paying attention.
I’ll add something that Kelly didn’t, though: You weren’t paying attention because American and European media outlets don’t want you to see that Islam is a problem, so they report on these incidents, but downplay them. Meanwhile you get loud noise about Ben Carson’s alleged lies, Hillary’s brilliance, Republicans’ meanness, Donald Trump’s hair, and Kim Kardashian’s pregnancy.
I got a hysterical message in today’s email from the DNC. It shrilled that Donald Trump is a terrible threat, in significant part because he thinks climate change is a hoax. As you know, I too think that the notion of apocalyptic anthropogenic climate change is a hoax, based upon some very specific reasons. These are the top three:
(1) All of the major climate change predictions have proven false, with the most recent failed prediction being the one about the shrinking Arctic ice cap — which is growing.
(2) In order to keep the narrative going, climate “scientists” have had to falsify data, with everything from false hockey stick charts to falsified NOAA information.
(3) Al Gore is worth $300 million, $299 million of which he made in the last 15 years shilling for climate change, shouting his doom and gloom prophecies with all the fervor of a televangelist robbing old ladies of their life savings.
Al Gore, of course, isn’t the only one who’s made it rich thanks to the Climate Change gospel. In true “follow the money” fashion, it’s apparent that America taxpayer money is keeping afloat a vast infrastructure of so-called academics and all-too-real politicians, all of whom spend the majority of their time shuttling this money back and forth between each other, while issuing strident demands that the taxpayers cough up ever greater amounts.
What fascinates me, of course, is the way in which the falsified data and the failed predictions have no effect whatsoever on the true believers, a vast majority of whom populate my real-me Facebook page. No matter how many times you put before them hard science about failed predictions and falsified data, they just plow relentlessly forward shrieking like harpies that climate change will soon end the world unless the United States continues to enrich con men and dictators.
Remember, remember, the fifth of November, with gunpowder, treason, and plot. We see no reason why gunpowder treason should ever be forgot. And today, in honor of the holiday celebrated in a once great nation, I offer you myriad links hinting that, absent brave action, we may find ourselves going down before the Leftist and Islamist gunpowder, treason, and plot that we’ve both cultivated and invited into our comfortable first world nations.
The way in which government embrace of climate change perverts science
It’s long, but you won’t regret a minute of the time you spend reading Matt Ridley’s accessible, fact-rich, cogent analysis of the way science has become corrupt in its pursuit of government money directed at climate change:
So much to share with you (23 separate articles at last count) and so little time. I’ll therefore get right down to business and you might want to give yourself some time to review all these fascinating articles at your leisure:
Another pundit figures out Cruz might be the man
I’ve made no secret of the fact that I support Ted Cruz, and have done so since he took a stand on Obamacare. Ross Douthat (whose writing I respect) has suddenly realized that those of us who support Ted Cruz might be on to something.
Ted Cruz makes sense on taxes
Certainly Ted Cruz’s flat tax plan ought to help people realize that he’s offering genuine change for the better, not just platitudes and painful socialism. Heck, you’d think that all Americans would support a candidate who wants to deep six, or at least severely de-fang, the IRS and, in doing say, make our tax system fairer and make doing business in America more tempting for both American and foreign corporations.
Daniel Greenfield waxes eloquent on the heckler’s veto that is Islam’s stock in trade
After clearing his throat about the Obama administration’s despicable pandering to Palestinian terrorists, along with its sickening chastisement of Israel (this from an administration that would never dare blame the victim if a drunk woman walked naked through a biker’s bar), Daniel Greenfield gets to the real point, which is the fact that the West lets the mere threat of Islamic anger paralyze it.
The world’s one billion Muslims, whose delicate emotions are always infuriated by something, enforce an Islamic status quo in which no non-Muslim dares to violate the Muslim superiority complex.
Some might say that the billion Muslims are just looking for things to get angry at… but that would just make a billion Muslims angry.
When buildings fall or buses blow up, when people are stabbed, shot or exploded by the unofficial representatives of the bilious billion, we go right past the crime to the anger that motivated it. “Why do they hate us?” becomes the question and Muslim anger becomes the pivot of national security policy.
Since Muslim anger causes violence, we stop terrorism by tiptoeing around anything that might make them angry. Minor things mostly like freedom of speech or freedom of religion. If you’re a Coptic Christian who makes a YouTube video about Mohammed, you can be sent to prison when some of the moderate Muslim Brotherhood/Al Qaeda locals murder four Americans while shouting, “Allahu Akbar.”
After weeks of brutal Muslim murders, Kerry has gotten Israel to reinforce a ban on Jews praying at the holiest site in Judaism because it offends Muslims. Next up, maybe Jews will be restricted to the seventh step of the Cave of the Patriarchs again. Because that was the “Status Quo” under the Muslim conquest.
As my lengthy quotation in this “quick hits” round-up reveals, Greenfield’s article falls into the must-read category.
Bill Whittle is always good. A furious Bill Whittle is even better — and Bill Whittle is mighty angry as he looks at illiberal “liberals” who blame guns for the societal diseases they’ve created, diseases whose outbreaks take the form of angry, vindictive, fatherless boys who need desperately to make all men in the world finally pay attention to them. These are boys and young men, moreover, who are constantly being told that their innate manly virtues, things such as physicality, energy, and loyalty, are disgraceful flaws that lead to rape and murder, and that must therefore be eradicated so as to create the next generation of purer, more womanly man. (I, of course, believe those virtues must be channeled into becoming sheepdogs who protect society.)
Please watch the video (and share it if you can). Then, when you’re done, stick with me for a few more thoughts I have on the subject:
I’ll begin with adding a few more common denominators to the shooters, other than physically or emotionally absent fathers: First, when one removes from the equation (a) Muslims, (b) the Roseberg shooter who was apparently a registered independent, and (c) the Charleston shooter who was unaffiliated, for almost 20 years now the shooters either have been Democrats or have come from homes that were strongly Democrat. The lesson to be drawn, of course, is that Democrats should be banned from having guns.
Second, it appears that, with the exception of the Muslim shooters, all or most of the shooters them have been on some form of drug, whether they were self-administering illegal drugs or getting treated with a cocktail of ADHD and depression drugs. This doesn’t necessarily mean that the drugs themselves are the problem. It may indicate, however, that these troubled young men should have been taken off the streets, rather than stuffed with pills and moved through the system.
Third, because the shooters who weren’t Democrats, unaffiliated, or Independents have all been Muslims, the gun grabbers might want to tailor their grabs so that, in addition to Democrats being denied guns, Muslims are denied them too. Just saying….
I am open-minded about most of the Republican candidates, but I’ve moved beyond that with Ted Cruz. I really, really like Ted Cruz, and have done so for some time. Watching him oh-so-politely destroy the President of the Sierra Club when the subject is the actual science between climate change is . . . well, delightful:
Incidentally, more astute political observers than I have come to the same conclusion that I came to a few weeks ago: namely, that Ted Cruz is practicing a slow and steady strategy to the White House.