Archive for the ‘Democrats’ Category.

The Peasants Are Revolting

Watching events unfold this election year is proof that the Chinese saying “May you live in interesting times,” is a curse. 2016 is an extremely interesting time in American politics, and with each passing day I’m convinced that once this election is over things will never be the same thanks to Donald Trump.

Trump’s success has spawned a cottage industry of political navel-gazers trying to figure out how this brash and egotistical real estate developer commandeered the grassroots of a major political party. Dan Balz of the Washington Post writes, “At the core of Donald Trump’s political success this year are the grievances of a sizable and now vocal block of disaffected voters, many of them white and working-class, and a Republican Party that has sought and benefited from their support while giving them almost nothing tangible in return.”

Funny how that happened. Starting in 1994 the GOP faithful elected a Congress who was supposed to implement a “Contract with America” to lower spending. Instead what they elected was a bunch of neophytes who immediately started acting like Democrats feeding from the trough, throwing a bone to the rank and file by attempting to impeach a sitting president over his infidelity to a woman they all hated anyway. In 2000 the GOP grassroots do what they are told and elect an establishment candidate – who then goes on to start a war that his father left unfinished, blowing a hole in the budget almost as wide as any crater in Iraq.

But they do as they are told and re-elect him in 2004. And they do as they are told again in 2008 before revolting in 2010 by electing a bunch of Tea Party firebrands who… sidle up to the trough just like their Contract with America forebears did 16 years previously. The party elites are professionals at co-opting rebels, and the GOP’s did absolutely nothing to improve the lot of the grassroots. Instead their economic prospects continued dwindling as the GOP majority cut deal after deal with the Democrat minority and their liberal president.

The GOP grassroots voted for GOP candidates and found the men and women they elected to Congress were Democrats in all but name. It’s as if the Democrats had controlled Congress as well as the presidency since 2008. The Democrats push to flood labor markets with illegal aliens to boost union membership and their own party’s roster, and the GOP - beholden to the same corporations bankrolling the Democrats needing cheap labor – agree. Meanwhile American citizens watch these illegals take their jobs and drive down the wages of those they don’t.

Now some of the GOP elite are claiming they are going to vote for Hillary instead of Trump, something they had warned Trump against doing when they hoped he would flare-out last Fall. Why this may seem shocking for them it’s no surprise to the Republican Party faithful; they understand the GOP elite has been Democrats all along. At the very least it undermines their past arguments that any Republican is better in the Oval Office than any Democrat.

The GOP peasants are revolting and they have chosen as their leader the only man willing to voice their concerns. For years they have sought a fighter who would take a punch from the Democrats and hit back twice as hard. They finally found him in of all places, Donald Trump. The New York Times reports, “The problem, for figures like Mr. Forbes and Mr. Romney, is that Mr. Trump’s supporters seem profoundly uninterested at the moment with the image, expectations or traditions of the Republican Party, according to interviews with more than three dozen voters, elected officials and operatives. They are, in many cases, hostile to it. “I want to see Trump go up there and do damage to the Republican Party,” said Jeff Walls, 53, of Flowood, Miss.” Perhaps Mr. Romney would have won the election of 2012 had he hit Obama then as hard as he’s hitting Trump now.

The GOP elites are feeling the people’s pitchforks at their hindquarters, but the ultimate goal is for the champion of the grassroots to take power and represent their interests and address their concerns instead of serving the same Wall Street/Silicon Valley masters as the Democrats.

On the surface the Democrats are gleeful, watching their sworn enemies implode. But talk to a supporter of Bernie Sanders about how they feel about their candidate’s treatment by the DNC. See how they feel about being told to “get into line” and support Hillary Clinton, a woman whose income from a single speech to investment bankers puts her among the top 1% of Americans. A Bernie supporter must be feeling the Bern watching a known pathological liar like Clinton promise to redistribute the wealth from the very people who made her the wealthiest first lady in history. If Clinton sinks like Romney this Fall, perhaps 2020 will be the year the Democrat grass roots grab their pitchforks and unleash terror on their own party elite. But they have plenty of time to gloat until then.

Any party that treats its members as poorly as the Republican Party deserves revolution or death. In a healthy democracy people need to elect representatives who actually represent them. If a party cannot meet that demand, then it deserves oblivion. The GOP elite should be afraid, very afraid. It deserves to feel a bit what its rank and file have felt for decades.

Donald Trump: The Great Uniter

If Facebook posts are anything to go by, then Donald Trump is the great uniter of politics. There is little difference between the Trump posts of my Lefty/Democrat friends and my Conservative/Republican friends. Both groups hate him with equal fervor, though the Lefty/Democrats show more schadenfreude about it. A misplaced glee, if you ask me, given their candidate stands a good chance of FBI indictment.

Since When Did Democrats Care About White Blue Collar Workers?

A liberal friend shared the meme so I thought I’d alter it a bit to reflect reality.

Trump or Trompe-l’œil?

The more bad press on the Left and Right that Trump gets the more I like him. Mark Cunningham, writing at the New York Post, claims that Trump has found a new way to win.

Many other blue-collar folks struggle on OK. But they know they’ve got huge problems that just don’t get talked about — and anyone who does raise them gets denounced and then ignored.

Until Trump.

America hasn’t been great for the working class for decades — which is why “Make America Great Again” is a great slogan for a guy who’s talking tough on the problems that blue-collar Americans (and more than a few middle-class folks) see as killing them.

And getting attention — unbelievable attention — even as he breaks all the “establishment” rules.

As a registered Republican I hate the GOP establishment almost as much as my liberal friends do. I think the RNC and the RINOs in Congress and the Senate are happy to be the Loyal Opposition, trading the White House to the Democrats in exchange for their fiefdom on Capitol Hill. They don’t want to win; they don’t want to change anything in this country. They like the status quo, and don’t care whether their constituents are struggling to survive seeing their jobs shipped overseas while workers flood into the country to take those that remain, joining the Democrats in calling them red-necks and racists. Then every 4 years they’ll don their Kabuki masks and pretend about how the Democrats are so evil and every Republican must vote for the RINO they’ve selected to be their congress-critter, then put up the weakest candidate they can find to run for the White House to keep their Democratic friends happy.

Trump is like a rock thrown by the GOP grassroots through the Establishment’s window. Or maybe a grenade. Either way it was something that needed to be done. The divide between the party elite and the rank and file had grown too great.

Trompe-l’œil, French for “deceive the eye”, is a painting technique that displays a three dimensional scene on the flat surface of the canvas. Is Trump “deceiving the eye” with his new-found conservatism and bragged about leadership skills, or is he capable of being a decent president? Is he a true leader or an American Berlusconi who wants to throw bunga bunga parties with the jet-set crowd instead of govern? I really don’t know. But it’s fun to watch the GOP leadership squirm like a bag of weasels.

Peak Bernie?

So far Bernie Sanders has tied Clinton in Iowa (surprise) and won New Hampshire by a 3-2 margin (not a surprise). Nevada is up next, and the last poll taken in December gave Clinton a formidable lead. Following that is South Carolina, and recent polls there have Clinton “beating Bernie Sanders soundly,” as NPR cheerily puts it.

Are we at peak Bernie?

I believe so. Sanders fires up the grassroots and college students but primaries and caucuses  are insider affairs. Clinton allies are well-placed throughout the states and barring an unforeseen miracle, Sanders will lose Nevada and South Carolina by significant margins even without Clinton’s lock on superdelegates. Queue the “comeback kid” storylines fed by her operatives to the sycophant media and Hillary will be back on track to her coronation.

I haven’t added a “Bernie Sanders” category to this journal yet and given the cunning and fortitude of the Clintons I doubt I will have reason to.

Why I Could Live With President Sanders

As a libertarian and registered Republican, to say I’m disappointed with the GOP’s current crop of presidential candidates is a mild understatement. I pretty much hate them all. My top choices were Gov. Scott Walker (first to drop out) and Sen. Rand Paul (latest casualty). If Trump or Cruz become the GOP candidate there is only one scenario in which I will vote for either of them:

If Hillary Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee.

I don’t have a long history of Hillary bashing the way some on the Right have. 8 years ago I even said some nice things about her. But the woman simply doesn’t know how to tell the truth. She’s a pathological liar, and one that deserves prison for her handling of top secret data on her unsecured server, and ostracism for her role in wrecking Libya and sentencing an ambassador and his security detail to death – and covering up with lies by blaming it on a video afterward. She also exemplifies the crony capitalist, taking millions from Wall Street banks including Goldman Sachs then portraying herself as being soulmates with Occupy Wall Street. As the British newspaper columnist Tim Stanley for the Daily Telegraph writes, “Her politics is the politics of identity, narrowed down to a very specific constituency: she’s selling herself as the hope of everyday rich white women who want to be president.”  There is only one thing worse than a Trump presidency in my view and that’s a Hillary presidency.

Which brings me to Bernie Sanders. Sanders is a self-avowed “democratic socialist”, a form of government more akin to those found in Nicaragua, Ecuador and Bolivia than in the United States. Sanders has spent his entire life espousing socialism. He has not lied about it, nor has he hidden it the way Hillary has hidden her ties to Wall Street. Sanders is a socialist, and if you don’t like it, you don’t have to vote for him.

While I don’t like his economic policies, especially now when I’m preparing to finalize my taxes whereby the Wife and I send an extremely large portion of our labor earnings to the Federal and State governments, I’m less averse to his social liberalism. If you want to revolutionize American economics, the Presidency is not the place to do it. Congress controls the country’s purse strings, and there is no way his socialist economic policies would see the light of day in a Congress dominated by Republicans.

It’s often said that Libertarians combine the fiscal conservatism of the Republican Party with the social liberalism of the Democrats, but it’s been a long time since either party came close to either stereotype. The Republicans under Bush spent like Democrats during their 8 years in power, 6 years of which they held control of Congress as well as the White House, and today’s Democratic Party is the party of censorship, gun confiscation, and state interference into the private lives of its citizenry.

It’s worth noting that until very recently Sanders wasn’t a member of the Democratic Party. His stances on social issues are much more libertarian-friendly than the woman appearing on Reason magazine’s cover next to the title, “Hail to the Censor! Hillary Clinton’s Long War on Free Speech.” Would a Sanders presidency be all that bad for libertarians?

Andrew Kirell, writing at The Daily Beast, doesn’t think so. In his piece The Libertarian Case for Bernie Kirell quotes Reason.com editor Nick Gillespie saying, “You could do worse than having Bernie Sanders in the White House,” he admitted. “The things that he would be able to direct in the White House would accord with libertarian values. Being a commander-in-chief, he would minister our foreign policy much differently than Obama or Bush; he would be much more likely to change the scheduling for marijuana, which the president can do; and he’d be in a much better position to push criminal justice reform.” Gillespie later responded on Reason.com’s website, writing “Suffice it to say that noting you could do worse than Sanders is not an endorsement.”

Unfortunately libertarians don’t have many choices this round, but isn’t this pretty much the SNAFU case every 4 years? When’s the last time you absolutely loved either candidate? I don’t think I’ve ever felt the thrill up the leg that Chris Mathews felt for Obama in 2008. I’m suspicious of any candidate who inspires such emotional charge.

But the truth is I think America would be better off under a President Sanders than it would be under a President Clinton or Trump. At the very least it would give both parties time to shake out the crazies so that in 2020 America would have saner choices than those offered by either parties today.

Why I Hope Joe Biden Will Not Run for President

Update: And he’s gone...

Here is my sole reason for hoping Joe Biden will not run for President: He would likely win.

The GOP has been expecting Hillary to be the Democratic candidate since 2000, and the party is completely focused on taking Clinton down over the next 13 months. Her weaknesses are well known. Her record as Secretary of State is a shambles, stretching from the failed (and mistranslated by her own team) Reset Button with Russian, through Benghazi and culminating in the crossing of red lines in Syria by the Assad regime and the birth of ISIS on her watch. Clinton strikes the American public as being about as authentic as a cheap jewelry sold on late night cable, and her stands on the issue are about as changeable as an airport windsock.

The reason the GOP has some many candidates is not because Hillary is a strong candidate, it’s that so many Republicans see a once in a lifetime opportunity to reach the White House and create their own dynasties the way Bush and Clinton have done over the past 30 years.

Vice President Biden entering the race would change everything. One must remember that one reason Biden was added to Obama’s 2008 ticket was to provide “gravitas”, and to the average voter the VP still has that. While Clinton’s acolytes have done there best to portray Biden as a bumbling lightweight, the truth is that the only reason why they’ve gotten away with it is Biden has had no reason to fight it. A run for the White House would change that. Suddenly we would be reminded of his decades of experience in the Senate. Name a Senate committee and chances are he chaired it. Biden’s experience would make Hillary’s forgettable record as a senator and her contemptible record as secretary of state look like the disaster it is. Compared to the experience of the political lightweights of the GOP’s current crop of candidates Biden would tower above them all. Add in the sympathy factor for the recent loss of his son Beau to brain cancer, and Biden would present the GOP with a serious fight.

As a small “l” libertarian the GOP comes closest to matching my politics, and it’s in my best interest to see it win the presidency for one simply reason: the nomination of Supreme Court justices. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the Constitution, and from supporting hate speech laws to repealing the 2nd Amendment the Democratic Party has gone beyond the “Insane Party” moniker used by the GOP to becoming the “Evil Party.” How else to characterize the Obama Administration’s repeal of due-process for male college students accused of on-campus rape and its goal to stop citizens from being able to protect themselves by criminalizing gun ownership, the Democrat Party’s drive to force Americans into a health care system that benefits no one but malpractice attorneys, government bureaucrats and insurance company profit margins, and the party’s support for open borders that drives down the wages of the working poor and middle class in its quest for a permanent majority?

Then there’s the idiotic policies Biden himself has championed. As Nick Gillespie at Reason.com points out in his article “Just How Bad Would Joe Biden Be as President? Really F*cking Bad,” a Biden presidency would be a disaster for those of us believing in individual liberty. Biden is a drug warrior who views marijuana as a “gateway drug,” and who masterminded the RAVE Act of 2003 that made concert promoters liable for drug use at their shows. Biden also co-sponsored the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 which made it harder for debtors to declare bankruptcy and discharge their debts. This legislation was bought and paid for by the banking industry, a supporter of Biden since the economy of his home state of Delaware is dominated by the banking industry.

So what is libertarian about letting debtors escape their debts? My mother, a self-made woman who spent her life in direct sales, viewed bankruptcy as legalized theft. But what Biden’s reform did was to force the Federal Government to become the enforcement arm of the banking industry. Banks could lend with impunity without fear of losing their money because the State would use its monopoly on violence to guarantee that debt. Just another instance of the Democratic Party siding with Wall Street, although Biden’s not as well connected to Wall Street as the Clintons.

It is my belief that Hillary Clinton deserves jail time more than she deserves her party’s nomination for the presidency. It is therefore in the GOP’s best interest that she stays the Democrat frontrunner. VP Joe Biden’s entrance in the race would make a GOP loss more likely in 2016, and for that reason I am hoping that he stays out of the fray.

The Razor Celebrates 14 Years (of Disgust)

14 years ago I bought an available domain name for Occam’s Razor, created a few HTML pages in the Dreamweaver editor, and figured out how to upload them, all because I felt that I had to express myself. There was grief and anger from the World Trade Center site, still a smoking heap of rubble and ash, and while my anger flamed white hot for the men who murdered thousands of innocents, they were not the focus of my writing and were incidental characters in my first published essay, “Rohrschach Test for the Left.” Instead that essay, and The (Occam’s) Razor that I slowly built around it, was inspired by the self-delusion and self-hatred of the politically correct Left that justified the attacks in the days immediately after the attacks.

Coming of age in the 1980s I was subjected to PC dogma in college, and watched it infect the Left that I identified with at the time and gradually change the American Left from a grassroots labor-based ideology rooted in classical liberal thought into an elitist derived identity-based movement we find today. This Left had little to do with the government programs that kept my family alive during the Depression or helped my father find a job after the War, but the draft-dodging elites of the 1960s who had prospered in the Ivory Tower and become ascendant by educating an entire generation of policy makers derived not from the working class but from the Bourgeoisie.

There was no shared experience between working class leftists like me and the leftists that controlled the college campuses at the time. They saw me as a “Reagan Democrat” and I saw them as arrogant, narrow minded fools who had been cocooned for so long from reality that they had no concept what the real world was like. The jump from America’s college campuses to the government by this elitist-derived Left was first attempted in Howard Dean’s candidacy of 2004, and was resurrected by his takeover of the DNC the eventually lead to the election of Barack Obama.

Obama is one of them. He was picked from Academia and pushed into increasingly higher levels of power by academics or their powerful acolytes in government. Obama represented them completely. For a group that is nearly all white but ashamed of their skin color (known euphemistically as “white privilege”) he was a minority. But unlike minority politicians like Jesse Jackson he had been educated by them and shared their belief that America is the root of all evil in the world, and that our nation could only be saved by a repentant America apologizing to the world for our sins, embracing our enemies, and dropping our allies who supported our evil doing.

Starting with his Apology Tour in 2009 Obama did just that, following it up with the “reset button” with Russia, an extended hand to Iran and rude gestures towards American allies such as the UK and Israel. He then let Iraq fall into Iran’s hands and ignored what he once called the “good war” in Afghanistan. He put into practice exactly the foreign policy the elitist Left had been demanding for years, using the power the Constitution grants to the Executive to achieve its aims, but was stymied by domestic opponents from putting into place their domestic agenda.

Today they control not only America’s campuses but they control our government, and worse, our military. If America is the root of all the world’s problems, why are the problems getting worse without American involvement? Shouldn’t they be getting better?

America is not the root of all evil in the world no matter how many books Chomsky writes or how many professors say it is so. America created a prosperity and peace unseen in the world since Augustus Caesar ruled 2000 years ago. Pax Americana was not perfect, but it did create an order that allowed smaller nations to prosper. The ranks of the world’s middle class grew under Pax Americana in ways that the average ancient Roman, 95% of whom lived in abject poverty, would marvel at. It also allowed the freedom of an elite to coalesce around an idea that would eventually lead to its demise.

Today a morally and economically bankrupt Russia invades any territory it desires without consequence. In the US a wealthy elite rigs the economic system against small business and the working class. A group of jihadis too radical for al Qaeda now hold sway over the very territory purchased through American blood a decade ago. Red-lines crossed in Syria and a “leading from behind” effort in North Africa results in failed states, creating a tsunami of refugees in Europe.  China extends its territory and influence without constraint. A decade ago the sound of North Korea rattling its cage would have made the headlines. Today it barely warrants mentioning.

14 years ago I saw the enemy and it was us – or rather the Left that I had once considered myself part of. At the time I was determined but hopeful that 9-11 would shake the Left off of its anti-American foundation, but it didn’t. And the results are self-evident.

I’ll admit I am pissed. Leftist ideology was always so naive and lacking in detail. The world could have been so much better if we had kept the levers of power from them, but we failed and now everyone from the retiree living on a pittance thanks to near-zero interest rates to the Iraqi Christian trying to stay alive in her homeland pays the price.

Happy anniversary.

19 Questions for Hillary

Ron Fournier writing at the National Journal has a must read this week, “Sorry for What, Hillary” that provides a list of 19 questions that Hillary Clinton should answer regarding the usage of her private email server. Here’s a taste:

9. Ever hear of Thomas Drake? He’s the former seni­or Na­tion­al Se­cur­ity Agency of­fi­cial in­dicted un­der the Es­pi­on­age Act for keep­ing an agency email prin­tout at his home that was not marked as clas­si­fied. He pleaded guilty to a mis­de­mean­or. Why do you and your aides keep sug­gest­ing that it mat­ters wheth­er or not your emails were marked clas­si­fied?

Read the entire thing.

Hillary for Prison 2016

Hillary For Prison 2016

Bernie Sanders has surged to the lead in New Hampshire and is filling his venues to overflowing. The FBI has possession of Hillary Clinton’s email server and will presumably pull every last byte of email residue from its hard drives. They’ve already found extremely top secret satellite intelligence that is assumed to have fallen into Russian and Chinese hands. Remember, she has yet to give a full accounting as to why she operated a personal server in the first place which itself was against the law. Now highly classified intelligence was found on it, and worse, the server was completely open to the internet for 3 months.

Hillary Clinton should be done.

Now if only Jeb Bush was too…

 

The Grey Lady’s Onion Breath

Sen. Marco Rubio is not my favorite GOP presidential contender. I much prefer Scott Walker, who sits on a throne made of the skulls of his enemies, and Gov. Rick Perry, who can reprise the role of Reagan after Obama’s Jimmy Carter.  But the New York Times just can’t seem to stay away from the Senator.

Last week it published a hit piece handed to it by the liberal activist group American Bridge. This week it’s Rubio’s money troubles including, gasp, the fact he bought “$80,000 luxury speedboat” with proceeds from a book advance.

Now I don’t know much about boats because I learned when I was a kid from the experience of my electrician brother-in-law that BOAT stood for “bust out another thousand”. Boats to some people are like donuts are to others. They are irresistible but bad for you. And I immediately recognized that $80k won’t get you a luxury anything let alone a boat. And sure enough it turns out it wasn’t a luxury speedboat but a fishing boat.

Oh and he leased a $50,000 Audi. Note that he didn’t buy it, he leased it. Wow! Big spender who can afford a $400/month lease payment. Hillary Clinton could buy, not lease, 6 of those for a single speech at UCLA. Of course she doesn’t drive so she has no need for them.

The Onion regularly runs non-stories like “Dad Wants to Show You Where Fuse Box Is,” and “Longtime Coffee Shop Employee Thought Customers Would Care More About His Last Day.” By running stories that should be headlined “Marco Rubio’s Wife Has a Lead Foot,” and “Marco Rubio is Middle Class” the Grey Lady might want to consider popping a few Tic-Tacs to rid itself of onion breath.

Islamic State A Leftist Nightmare

One of the most troubling aspects of our culture, one that separates our time from those previous is the assumption that Evil does not exist. This assumption is rooted in the logic of moral equivalence that lays at the heart of current leftist thinking which views that all actions are a matter of perspective, that whether something is good or evil completely depends on the perspective of the individual.

Such a belief could only become widespread during a relatively peaceful and prosperous time after World War 2 after the evils of the Holocaust and Japanese militarism were exposed and defeated. In the post-war era bad things continued to happen to good people, but it was much easier to ignore them. Meanwhile “Nazi” as an epithet became so overused as to lose all of its power, and every murder has become a “holocaust.” As the horror of true evil fades into history, it has been much easier to deny its continued existence.

The success of Islamic State presents a challenge to the moral relativist. Mass media has made clear the nature of IS. Beheadings. Rape. Slavery. It’s difficult to argue Evil doesn’t exist when you have Twitter and YouTube trumpeting the latest atrocity. Of course that hasn’t stopped the Left from trying. Sen. Bernie Sanders blames Bush for Islamic state, which is ironic considering the entity didn’t exist until the beginning of Obama’s second term. Expect more rewriting of history instead of soul searching from the Left as Islamic State grows. It’s a lot easier and less-threatening to one’s belief system than facing the reality of IS.

Islamic State is the epitome of leftist nightmares although the Left is unaware of this because of its blindspot towards Islam. If Islamic State were a rising, land-owning Christian cult the Left would be using every means at its disposal to fight it and destroy it. But the Left continues to view Islam not in religious but in political terms, assuming that the basis of IS is political grievance with the West which the Left itself shares.

Islamic State draws its power and reason for existing straight from religious teachings centered on the Koran. They cannot be rational actors in the way the Left and their current standard bearer in the White House want them to be. It’s ironic that the ideology dedicated towards multiculturalism and seeing the world from different points of view cannot see the world from the Islamic State’s perspective. IS is on a divinely inspired mission, and consequently it sees the world in binary terms: the Righteous doing the will of god, and those standing in the way of the establishment of divine rule on earth.

But eventually one can ignore reality for only so long before it reasserts itself, and there is every indication that Islamic State has the means and the wherewithal to stick around and won’t be wished away. With each new atrocity it will become more difficult for the Left to maintain its worldview denying the existence of Evil. How will the Left handle it? Will it disassemble or will it drop much of the naive and morally bankrupt dogma at its core to reform around sound principles reflecting reality?

As an ex-Leftist myself, I’m not holding my breath.

Best Argument Against Electing Hillary Clinton

Name her accomplishments.

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

Shoutdown

We’ve lived under the Obama administration for 6 years, 2 months. During that time we have witnessed a world turned upside down, one where our allies are treated like our enemies and our enemies are courted. Alliances that can be measured in lifetimes have been ignored, such as the “special relationship” with the UK. Others like Israel have been actively undermined. Even the Canadians have suffered at the hands of this administration as it has pivoted to China and kept the Keystone Pipeline mired in indecision and red tape.

Russia annexes the Crimea, the first territorial annexation in Europe since the Third Reich. It assassinates and jails the critics of its leadership. It invades Ukraine and even shoots down an airliner full of Europeans without consequences. Russian propaganda broadcasts throughout Russia unopposed, developing an ultranationalism straight from a work of fiction or video game. Critics of this coddling are accused of Cold War era thinking, and the administration continues to engage with the regime even as the US people view it as the single greatest threat.

The Obama administration leaves Biden to negotiate the status of forces agreement with Iraq, wasting the blood and treasure expended during the Bush administration. Any physics student or poli-sci major can tell you that nature abhors a vacuum, so Iran takes over in the East and an Islamic Death Cult rises in the West. An ignominious Vietnam-like defeat would have been preferable as Obama wouldn’t have been able to interfere in the region as he has done so. No love letters to Iran and certainly no attempt to overthrow the only friend we have in the region.

Leading from behind a harmless loon is attacked in Libya, leading to a failed state in Libya and the death of our first ambassador in two generations. What difference does it make? Evidently none because there are no consequences for the man in the White House or his Secretary of State minion who orchestrated the affair, the latter of whom is measuring the Oval Office for drapes as the 4th Estate gives her a standing ovation.

In 2008 I worried we had elected Carter. It turns out we elected Nixon instead, although one with a press who would call modern-day duo of Woodward and Bernstein racist. When Nixon went to China the Right had no fear that he would sell out our country to the Communists, a political fact that made it into of all things a Star Trek movie. There is no such comfort with Obama’s obsession for a nuclear deal with Iran. The Mullahs can write any deal they want, chanting “Death to America” all the way to the Bomb.

The Obama administration took power, sneering at the apparent ignorance and failures of the previous administration. Yet this supposedly bright and intelligent group of people have done some incredibly stupid things, mistakes so bad they can only be made by extremely intelligent and ignorant people. Boko Haram in West Africa, al-Shabaab in East Africa, ISIS in North Africa and the Middle East, Iran and Pakistan in Middle East and Central Asia, Russia in Europe and Asia, China in East Asia, Cuba, Nicaragua, Argentina and Venezuela in Central and South America. All these actors are stronger in the world today than they were 74 months ago. America and its allies are all weaker thanks to the efforts of this narcissist and his administration.

Can America survive the next 22 months, and if it can, will it have any allies left?

 

Concensual Incest Puts Progressives on Slippery Slope

I support gay marriage on the principle that the Government should not be in the marriage business. To me marriage combines two unrelated components: a legal contract for asset accumulation/division plus a religious component that creates a moral contract between two people witnessed by the religious community. Marriage is one of the last vestiges where Religion and State are intertwined. The government controls marriage licensing, determining who can and cannot marry, and requires a religious ceremony to finalize the contract. While two atheists can have a completely secular marriage in which the religious ceremony is replaced by a Justice of the Peace witnessing the exchange of vows, the State will not recognize a completely religious ceremony, where vows are exchanged in a religious context but the newlyweds refuse to obtain a marriage license.

While Western countries have removed barriers to the issuing of marriage licenses to homosexuals, movement by religions to recognize such marriages has been glacial by comparison. The Roman Catholic Church, most Protestant sects, mainstream Jewish sects and all of Islam refuse to recognize gay marriage. Part of the success of the Gay Rights movement has been due to the equation of gay marriage to the American Civil Rights movement of the 20th century, particularly the state laws that prevented interracial marriage and the attitudes supporting those laws that the Civil Rights movement overturned through non-violent protest.

One of the arguments employed by supporters of traditional marriage was that by legalizing same-sex unions, Society is placed on a slippery slope whereby other non-traditional practices such as polygamy and incest become the next in line for legitimacy. Samantha Allen confronts this challenge in her piece “Consensual Incest is Rape.” In the article Allen, who supports gay marriage, takes issue with the attempt by those calling for the decriminalizing of incest between consenting adults to hitch their issue to the gay marriage movement in the same way the gay marriage movement attached itself to the civil rights movement. Referring to a pro-incest blogger, Allen writes, “Pullman tries to boost his marriage equality credentials by also promoting the legalization of same-sex marriage but a more apt description of affairs would be that he wants to hitch incest to the same-sex marriage wagon. In his post “Gay Marriage and Incest in the US,” he tries to link same-sex marriage with incestuous marriage by saying that both take place “between consenting adults,” they “don’t hurt anybody,” they are both “subject to discrimination,” and that there is “no rational reason” for their prohibition. “Gays and lesbians do not choose their orientation and people do not choose the parents to whom they are born,” he adds, in a staggering leap of logic.”

Unfortunately Allen’s argumentative skills are lacking in the piece. She is unable to muster a defense against writer Keith Pullman, whom Allen refers to as  “adult incest advocate” except by using the words “staggering leap of logic.” I have not visited Pullman’s website nor do I have any interest in his arguments advocating the legalization of incest, but I find it interesting to see supporters of gay marriage who base their arguments on civil rights squirm when the same arguments they used are turned against them to justify practices which they find as heinous as the religious find gay sex. Allen concludes her piece stating flatly, “Supporters of incest are not part of the marriage equality movement,” but does little to explain why that’s the case.

In her article Allen’s sole weapon that separates gay marriage from incest is power. She quotes incest survivor McKenzie Phillips, ““[T]here really is no such thing as consensual incest due to the inherent power a parent has over a child,” she said. “So I wouldn’t necessarily call it a consensual relationship at this time,” although a year earlier she described sex with her father John Phillips as just that on Oprah. Allen quotes psychotherapist Robi Ludwig on Phillips’ incest, “But you can’t say it’s consensual, because there’s always a power imbalance when it comes to a parent and child,” even when both parent and child are both adults.

It’s no surprise that Samantha Allen resorts to the issue of power, since Leftist thought is based on the assumption that the unequal distribution of power underlies all conflict. In fact the imbalance of power between the sexes is one reason why traditional Feminism has been opposed to marriage. Since men always had more power in our society it was impossible for women to be treated fairly in marriage. It’s only recently that feminism has evolved to accept marriage, and usually only within the context of gay marriage.

But power is a poor choice against incest. It fails to address the issue of incestuous siblings, for example, who lacked the “power imbalance when it comes to a parent and child,” yet I doubt that Allen would support incestuous marriage between adult brothers or a brother/sister pair with equal power. By using power imbalance to ban marriage between parent and child, the usage of the term implies that marriages require a balance of power. Since power can take many forms this opens up a whole new arena for restricting marriage.

Leaving aside the issue of the subjectivity of power (Who defines it? The State? The marrying parties themselves?) this usage of the power c0uld ban marriages between adults of differing financial backgrounds, since the wealthier party in a marriage would have more power than the poorer one. It would ban marriage between adults of different ages, since an older, more experienced partner would conceivably have more power than a younger less experienced one. Alternately the younger person in such a relationship could have more power since youth is valued more highly in our society than age, putting the older spouse at a disadvantage. Finally the imbalance of power would ban all marriages between whites and minorities since white privilege by definition gives the white person more power than the minority.

The result of this would be laws banning marriage between whites and non-whites, between social classes, and between those of different ages. Congratulations Ms. Allen, you’ve recreated the restrictions of Victorian England or the the American South prior to the 1970s.

The only way for a progressive to avoid the slippery slope that ends up undermining her argument supporting gay marriage is to give up on the concept of traditional marriage entirely and take the libertarian view. There any number of adults of varying sexes can have contracts, and the age of consent becomes the line at which a child is recognized as being old enough to be a partner in a binding legal contract. Religions are then free to continue to marry as they see fit. If a Mormon sect wants to marry one man to multiple women, so be it. Similarly if the Catholic Church refuses to marry two women it is free to do so because of religi0us freedom. The role of the State then becomes the enforcer of contracts, a role that it has had throughout history and one that does not come into conflict with religious and personal freedom.

The problem for progressives like Ms. Allen is that they seek to expand the role of the State in people’s lives, the opposite of libertarians. While a libertarian believes the government should be limited and as small as possible, the progressive views government as a tool to create a society based on progressive ideals. There is little difference between progressives on the Left and conservatives on the Right in this regard, since both see the State as a means to their different ends. This is why government ballooned under Reagan in the 1980s and Bush in the 2000s, just as it has grown under Obama over the past 6 years. It also explains why progressives have encouraged censorship and curtailed basic freedoms such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion under Obama just as the conservatives did under Reagan in the 1980s.

But keeping the government in the marriage business will present logical dilemmas such as incestuous marriage or polygamy, making sure the ground beneath the feet of progressives is icy and sloped. Advocates for such unpopular views simply need to follow in the footsteps of the progressives and wait for legal cases and popular opinion to swing their way. In the meantime those on the Right including libertarians such as myself will enjoy watching progressives like Allen rocket down the icy slope.