February 10, 2016
2015 should have been warmer. This past year saw what is likelythe most powerful El Nino during the satellite temperature record. With a record El Nino, we should have experienced record high temperatures. Yet we didn’t.
A record El Nino resulting in less-than-record temperatures is another sign that global warming is not all that activists crack it up to be. Indeed, if a record strong El Nino cannot bring global temperatures back to the warmth of 1998, what can – and when will that be? 18 years after 1998, global warming still has not created the runaway warming we were told to expect."
NASA and NOAA have to doctor the historical record to make the claim of "warmest on record" that they so often breathlessly announce. Turns out they are wrong.
Women In Combat: Making A Virtue Of Weakness Gets People Killed
You may have seen this video that is making the rounds on Facebook. It was taken at an unidentified Army base. The scene is a 12-mile. Her total equipment load is about 35-lbs (that is the equivalent of four one-gallon containers of milk, by way of reference). That is the minimum standard and no one carries more than they have to. The march has to be completed within three hours. (These are the standards.) You can see her time on the clock near the end of the video.
These standards designate strength requirements for infantry as "very heavy” — meaning a soldier will occasionally have to lift more than 100 pounds, but frequently or constantly be capable of lifting more than 50 pounds. In reality, infantrymen carry anywhere from 60 to 120 pounds of gear in the field depending on their job, Army officials have said.
All-male ground combat units in the Marines were faster, more lethal and less injured than units with mixed genders, according to a Marine Corps study that looked at integrating women into all service jobs."All male squads, teams and crews demonstrated higher performance levels on 69 percent of tasks evaluated (93 of 134) as compared to gender-integrated squads, teams and crews,” according a summary of the report released Thursday.
February 09, 2016
American Thinker has a blog piece today by editor Thomas Lifson http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/02/haaretz_attacks_at_thomas_lifson.html ; In it, Lifson reacts to the "outing" of name of the hard left Stalinist kibbutz that Sanders stayed on in Israel - and the leftist newspaper Haaretz criticisms of both Lifson and Daniel Greenfield's expose at Frontpage Magazine.
Mr. Lifson left out a question about Sanders that I wrote in a piece at his very website a few years ago that is restated in my comment to today's Amer. Thinker, a point I thought well worth mentioning again.
My comment begins with a quote from the blog piece and then contains my reaction to that quote:
He argues that while from today’s perspective Sanders' history on the kibbutz may seem damning, it did not at the time, because all Zionists
know that Hashomer Hatzair made worthwhile contributions to the building of Israel, especially in the "pre-state Zionist military force, the
Haganah,” as well as its shock troops, the Palmach.....
This line about the Hashomer Hatzair and military forces raises the issue that I first raised in an Amer. Thinker piece years ago, namely, if Bernie was such a socialist kibbutznik, why didn't he join the Israeli Army and then do Reservist duty until his 50s in Israel? If he really believed in building a socialist state - instead of just posturing on television as an actor - then why didn't he enlist in the Israeli Army to be able to fight and defend his little Stalinist kibbutz utopia? Maybe it is because Bernie believes in socialism for the rest of us and elitism for himself as a member of the politburo. As George Orwell said in Animal Farm, "Some animals are more equal than others."
If Bernie would have joined the Israeli Army and worked his way up in rank, then today he might have been...the other Col. Sanders!
German climate scientists who are actively engaged with the media are far more likely to present findings confirming global warming theory and are conversely more likely to withhold results that cast doubt on the theory, a new research paper suggests. Here is the abstract:
Reference: Post, S. 2016. Communicating science in public controversies: Strategic considerations of the German climate scientists. Public Understanding of Science 25: 61-70.
Abstract In public controversies on scientific issues, scientists likely consider the effects of their findings on journalists and on the public debate. A representative survey of 123 German climate scientists (42%) finds that although most climate scientists think that uncertainties about climate change should be made clearer in public they do not actively communicate this to journalists. Moreover, the climate scientists fear that their results could be misinterpreted in public or exploited by interest groups. Asking scientists about their readiness to publish one of two versions of a fictitious research finding shows that their concerns weigh heavier when a result implies that climate change will proceed slowly than when it implies that climate change will proceed fast.
In other words, there is a correlation between global warming alarmism and how findings are presented to the public. It's as if there is an agenda among certain scientists.
I believe the accurate term is lying by omission...
As it will soon be known, in the bad old days of President Obama's second term, he used the Department of Justice (DOJ) to attack his most hated of political enemies: gun dealers. In Operation Choke Point, a gun dealer could wake up one morning and find that his or her bank has terminated their relationship; their payment processor would refuse to continue handling credit card payments and suddenly the things a legitimate business relied upon were inaccessible.
Those days are now closer to ending.
U.S. Rep. Paul Gosar (R- Ariz.) advanced an amendment to H.R. 766 which requires financial institutions to give notice before terminating accounts at the behest of the federal government. This requirement, along with H.R. 766 itself, shows tremendous promise in stopping this process of destroying financial relationships based on "reputational risk", as DOJ designated the Obama administration's enemies.
Gosar cited in a statement several Arizona businesses who themselves have been wrongfully impacted by Operation Choke Point. "Several Arizona businesses were victims of Operation Choke Point including a gun manufacturer in Phoenix, American Spirit Arms in Scottsdale and Secure Account Services in Lake Havasu City."
Gosar continued, saying "Operation Choke Point is a shameful example of the Obama Administration weaponizing federal agencies in order to hand pick winners and losers by intimidating financial institutions into implementing its political agenda. American citizens do not want big government to have the power to arbitrarily terminate their accounts at financial institutions based solely on ideological opposition to individuals or certain organizations. My amendment will increase transparency and protect consumers throughout the nation from lawless executive overreach."
The overall legislation, the Financial Institution Customer Protection Act (H.R. 766) is a product of Rep. Blaine Leutkemeyer (R-Mo.) and other co-sponsors effort to restrain Obama's Department of Justice, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and Consumer Finance Protection Bureau (CFPB), who collaborate to obstruct trade for untold numbers of American businesses. Why?
Because they offend the Administration's ideological purity against the sale of firearms and ammunition. Seldom has such an abuse of executive power been seen outside of banana republics, and has no place in in the United States.
Rick Manning, President of Americans for Limited Government praised passage of the Gosar amendment, saying, "ALG strongly supports Representative Gosar's common sense amendment to the H.R. 766 protecting customers of financial institutions by increasing transparency between them and the federal government. The federal government has no constitutional power to take actions against individuals with due process, and Gosar's amendment will ensure that if a financial institution does take any action against an individual or business terminating their account at the behest of the feds, it must notify the customer why it is doing so."
The bill has clear headwinds going into the Senate, as the Obama White House has already issued a veto threat and drawn the ire of Sen. Warren (D-Mass.), who alleges this bill will benefit white collar criminals.
While it most certainly should become an imminent priority of the Senate, it certainly shows foresight on the part of the House which has laid down the marker for 2017, giving the next President a path forward to undo damage of an Obama era abusive policy.
Congress has a duty to uphold its Article I responsibility and ensure that the Second Amendment, as well as the freedom to engage in commerce related to it, remain unobstructed by an Administration that shows contempt for the Constitution it's sworn to protect.
Dustin Howard is a contributor editor at Americans for Limited Government.
February 08, 2016
I have often called Global Warming the "Goldilocks Theory" because it so mirrors the children's fable; this one is too hot, this one is too cold, this one is just right. We;;///
Turns out that S. Fred Singer, climate science emeritus, came to the same conclusion.
From his article at American Thinker:
"So, I wondered, what is the significance of this 2⁰C number -- and I concluded that it is the "Goldilocks" choice. It turns out, 2⁰C is "just right" -- not too small, not too large.
Consider for a moment what would have happened if they had given a number like 0.5⁰C. People would have shrugged their shoulders and said, "Oh, we've already passed that threshold, and nothing has happened. So why worry?"
Or suppose they had chosen 5⁰C. People would have shrugged their shoulders and said "Oh, we'll never reach that temperature certainly not in this century or the next."
So now you see why 2⁰C was just the right choice. It is coupled, of course, with the prediction of some dreadful happenings, together with the recurring admonition that the apocalypse can be avoided if we only stopped using fossil fuels to produce energy."
Dr. Singer and I have had some very amiable coversations in the past, and he helped me expose a dubious commenter on the old Birdblog site. I wonder if he didn't pick up on the "goldilocks" bit from me?
I would hope so. It goes to show how a lone voice actually can make a difference in this world. Dr. Singer is a great mind and famous scientist and I am just some schlub muttering in a back alley blog, but it may be my muttering has made some difference, and will do so in the future as Dr. Singer's work bears fruit.
It's a nice thought.
Donald Trump promised to support extended privileges for homosexuals. Western Journalism gives the details:
"Trump was being interviewed by New England Cable News reporter Sue O’Connell, who identified herself as a lesbian. "When President Trump is in office can we look for more forward motion on equality for gays and lesbians?,” she asked.
"Well, you can,” Trump answered. "And look, again, we’re going to bring people together, and that’s your thing and other people have their thing. We have to bring all people together and if we don’t we’re not going to have a country anymore.”"
Now this is not an endorsement of gay marriage by Mr. Trump, nor is it really a promise to employ federal power to coerce societal change (what the lesbian in question wants) but rather is an innocuous statement of solidarity - and in many ways I can say I do not disagree with it. I too seek equality for homosexuals, meaning they should be treated like anyone else i.e. no more special privileges. It is outside of the scope and purpose of government to force acceptance of the gay lifestyle, nor to demand we celebrate it. That is what "forward motion" means to this woman who asked Trump the question.
Frankly, equality means being treated the same as everyone else. You cannot have equality while separating yourself as a special class. In modern America we have carved ourselves up into special groups to whom we extend special privileges, even demand them. That is not "forward motion on equality" but rather something guaranteed to foster resentment, bitterness, jealousy, and even hatred.
And that is why I hate Trump's "bring people together" reply; enforced togetherness breeds resentment and hatred. After decades of "inclusiveness" and multiculturalism we are now more divided as a people than ever, and it is the very thing which has been imposed from without that is causing this division. There are certain norms that define a society, and those norms are an absolutely necessary part of the human condition. Progressives see those norms as irrational and often oppressive, but the reality is they exist because people learned of their necessity through the school of hard knocks; society runs smoothly when they are enforced and poorly when they are not. People are expected to obey the norms voluntarily and to teach those norms to their children. If either of these conditions fail then the Law must impose obedience to these norms through force. This is the last, and least preferable, option, but it is necessary to maintain order and to promote the general welfare.
These norms are not just criminal laws but standards of decent behavior that ultimately fosters a spirit of inclusiveness - the very thing that the Progressives have attempted to artificially foster with civil rights laws and speech codes and whatnot. But the Progressives seek to change norms, to create new standards more pleasing to themselves. The result is the creation of "protected classes" and, since raw power is being employed to force behavior, a bitter power struggle ensues between the disparate groups. What would have shaken itself out naturally festers and poisons the relations of the different peoples involved.
Ferguson is a great example; decades of Progressive tinkering with the social fabric led to an explosion of protected peoples who feel aggrieved and reject the societal norms. As a result an unfortunate incident leads to rioting, looting, burning a town down, and ultimately destroying a wonderful community. This spread via the "Ferguson Effect" to the rest of the St. Louis area, and now STL is the most dangerous city in America and the 15th most dangerous in the world. Crime skyrocketed. All of this happened ultimately because of an enforced togetherness imposed by people who managed to worm their way into positions of authority.
But, but, but we have to have such legal coercion to right societal injustice! We have been hearing that for the better part of a century, but what is forgotten is that there was a real, bitter feud between those who understood that enforced unity would open festering wounds and those who wanted political power. Booker T. Washington argued vociferously for a bootstrap approach to civil rights; he believed that racial animosity would end if his people worked hard, made money, and basically shamed the white majority with their goodness. W.E.B. Dubois and the rest of the gang who founded the NAACP wanted the quick and easy way of seizing political power and using the might of the State to force change. This was nothing more than the change imposed by Lincoln and company during the Civil War - change imposed by the barrel of a gun. Much of the civil rights abuses stemmed from slavery being ended in just this fashion, and Washington understood that doing it over again would just open new wounds. But broad and easy is the way that leads to damnation, and America took the easy path, choosing to simply force people to rub elbows and treat each-other a certain way, instead of changing hearts and minds. As a result America has still not gotten past race, and the more we do the worse it gets. You cannot force people to like or love each-other.
That's why Trump's statement of unity rubs me the wrong way; unity has to be voluntarily chosen. Force people together and they will hate each-other.
Which is what the gay community has done to a large extent; they have forced America to accept them like it or not, rammed the whole thing down our collective throats. There is considerable spite in the way "gay rights" has been addressed in this country, and the endless struggle for "rights" is no longer a plea for a fair shake but rather a demand for special treatment. And instead of fostering tolerance it engenders anger and dislike. This is especially true insofar as homosexuality was always understood not as a lifestyle or culture but as an act, a behavior, and one that is ultimately destructive to society and the individual who practices it. Societies almost universally frown on homosexual behavior, and that is not irrational; people have seen the destructive nature of the practice. The traditional morality - the norm - said that we should discourage it for both the health of society and the benefit of the individual. But the Progressives know better - they always know better - and gentle dissuasion became vicious oppression, one that must be stamped out by law. The result is our society has become increasingly ill.
I'm not picking on gay people here. We should be tolerant of them, and approach them with the Christian love that is due everybody. Homosexuality is a sin, but no worse than any other sin, of which everyone is lousy with. Nobody should be casting stones.
But by the same token we should not be casting stones at "straight" people either. That has become the hip pastime here in post-modern America. Now if you suggest society is not served by embracing any sort of deviation from a societal norm you become de facto a bigot and evil person. You are ridiculed, condemned, ostracized, abused. For what? trying to maintain societal norms - the norms that form the glue that binds society together.
This is heterodoxy. This is anarchic revolution. The end result is people will despise each-other, society will fall apart as there is no longer any common shared values to hold disparate people together.
People have to live together, and it is the individual people who will solve the problems. Enforced friendship is no friendship at all.
Abraham Lincoln spoke of the "bonds of affection" of our people and worried about the strain. He never understood that in many ways that strain was imposed by the very thing he advocated - enforced affection. The North and South were a married couple, not a pair of conjoined twins. Instead of wooing his partner back, Lincoln chose to force her back into a rotten marriage. Was it any wonder America suffered from this? We suffer even today the bitterness of a forced marriage.
Nobody seems to learn this lesson.
Tunisia has constructed a 200 km fence to keep ISIS out. Gateway Pundit has the scoop;
"** Democrats say border fences won’t work.
Tunisia completed its 200 kilometer border fence and wall with Libya this month.
The wall will protect the country from ISIS fighters."
When Attila the Hun was rampaging across the ancient world, he moved his army east with the intention of invading China, ostensibly to use the Chinese empire as an engine of war against the Romans, whom he utterly detested (Attila was forced to live as a hostage to the Romans when he was young, a practice common in that era to enforce diplomatic agreements.) Attila's plan was foiled by a honking huge wall that stopped his Hun horde dead in their tracks. Finding no way around this great wall, Attila turned his armies back toward the West and left China alone.
Sure; fences don't work.
If they didn't work why have so many been built over the centuries? Why did Hadrian build one in Britain?
For that matter, why are prisons and secure government installations surrounded by fences and monitored by electronic surveillance? If they were so singularly ineffective prisons would simply be open spaces.
There was an old expression "good walls make good neighbors" which meant that a wall dilineated which is yours and which is mine, and enforced that ownership. If nothing else it makes it clear that there IS ownership. As things stand now in America, people think this country belongs to whoever wants it. We should at least stake our claim by building a wall.
John Locke argued that property in a state of nature belonged to whosoever took possession of it and improved it. A fence/wall does precisely that, and unless we claim our border we don't really have one.
The United States was saddled with abysmal zero-point-seven-percent economic growth for the last quarter of 2015. Average growth for the entire six-year Obama era a pathetic 2.2 percent per year. An embarrassing, minuscule 151,000 new jobs were created last month – many of them part-time, with lower salaries, benefits and job security. And President Obama wants us to believe this is progress, under a strong economy, thanks to his policies.
My article this week explores the harsh reality of our employment and economic situation … shows how the massive federal tax and regulatory behemoth is largely responsible … and explains how the Democrats’ obsession with "dangerous manmade climate change” will make matters much worse.
Obama’s 0.7 percent "solution”
Obama, Democrats and bureaucrats bury America’s future under more federal regulations
America’s abysmal 0.7% economic growth during the fourth quarter of 2015 meant the annual growth rate was an anemic 2.4% … and average annual growth for the six-year Obama era a pathetic 2.2 percent.
This is "dead last compared to six other recession recoveries since 1960,” Heritage Foundation economist Stephen Moore points out. The six averaged a robust 4.0% while the Reagan era recovery averaged a "sizzling” 4.8% over six years. That means the Obama recovery lost $1.8 trillion (in constant 2009 money) that would have been pumped into the economy under an average recovery, and $2.8 trillion under a Reagan-style rebound, Moore says, citing a congressional Joint Economic Committee analysis.
But job growth is "strong,” the White House insists, averaging 280,000 each of the last three months of 2015 (and a mere 151,000 last month). This deceptive claim hides the fact that 94 million Americans over age 16 are not working. The horrid 62.7% labor force participation rate remains the worst in decades.
Under an average post-1960 recovery, 5 million more Americans would be working today than actually are; a Reagan recovery would have 12 million more working now. Even an average recovery would have given every American an after-tax annual income $3,339 higher than he or she is actually getting today, the JEC calculates. That’s why tens of millions are on unemployment, disability and food stamps.
Many jobs created during the Obama era are part-time, held by people who want full-time work but cannot find it – and those part-time slots offer lower salaries, benefits and job security. That means family bread winners must work several jobs to make ends meet, often suffering the adverse health effects of increased stress and sleep deprivation: ulcers, weight gain, strokes, heart attacks, alcohol, drugs, suicide.
While the official jobless rate is 5.0% the real one is 10% or higher, since the official rate ignores those who have given up looking and dropped out of the analysis – or have entered the cash only, barter, pay-little-income-tax economy. Moreover, jobless rates for black and Hispanic Americans are much higher. The Wall Street Journal’s Dan Henninger notes that black unemployment is 9% in Texas, 12% in South Carolina, and 13% in Arkansas, again not counting those too demoralized to look for work.
What has gone wrong with the American economy and job-creating machine?
First of all, the Obama Administration has deliberately destroyed tens of thousands of jobs in the name of preventing "dangerous manmade climate change” and "fundamentally transforming” our energy, economic, social and legal systems – via its war on coal, oil, natural gas, manufacturing, and the vast majority of economic activities on government controlled lands in the western states and Alaska.
Entire communities, states and regions are being hammered. If these policies continue, millions more Americans will lose their jobs in the next few years.
Second, government has simply gotten much too big, powerful and unaccountable – at the local and state level, and especially at the federal level. It is not coincidental that five of the ten wealthiest counties in the United States are in the Washington, DC area. Members of Congress and 20% of federal bureaucrats earn well into six-figure incomes, while many lawyers and lobbyists working the legislative and regulatory hallways and back rooms earn millions annually.
According to carefully nurtured mythology, our "public servants” are more knowledgeable and altruistic than almost anyone in the private sector; and they are dedicated to finding and punishing miscreants who would routinely rob, cheat and pollute if it weren’t for the lawmakers and regulators. It does happen. But IRS, VA, EPA, Benghazi, Gold King, Flint, Michigan and countless other examples dramatize how false this narrative is – as do multiple studies by Congress, Ron Arnold, E&E Legal, myself and many others.
In far too many cases, the president and his regulators are arrogant, incompetent, negligent, abusive and vindictive. While they still employ the formal regulatory process (draft rules, comment periods, reviews and final rulemaking), they increasingly avoid it via executive orders, guidance memos, informal bulletins and other tactics that have equally effective regulatory impact. They also use investigations, tax exemption denials, tax audits, warning letters, land and property seizures, and selective arrests, fines and prosecutions, to compel businesses, nonprofits, political groups and individuals to kowtow to them.
Government agencies and officials routinely coordinate or collude with activist groups to develop and promote policies and regulations, often employing secret personal email accounts, off-site meetings that avoid transparency, and million-dollar payments to activists who rubberstamp and promote the rules. They exaggerate and manipulate data and studies to justify policies and regulations, while demanding larger budgets, more personnel, more power to control our lives, livelihoods and business operations.
And yet even shady, incompetent or blatantly illegal actions are shielded by colleagues, judges, laws, politicians and the media from any accountability, liability or penalty. And policies and rules arising from these questionable to illegal means are rarely overturned by the courts.
Large corporations and wealthy individuals can often survive, even thrive, under these conditions – especially if they secure mandates, subsidies and government-guaranteed loans for their products. They also use laws, regulations and bureaucracies to stifle competition. Small businesses cannot even read the mountains of laws and regulations, much less comprehend them or know they are in compliance.
* The Tax Code is 74,000 pages and 33 million words long, counting important cases and interpretations. America’s 35% corporate tax rate is the highest among all developed countries.
* The Code of Federal Regulations is 175,000 pages long and coupled with more than 1.4 million pages of ten-point-type Federal Register proposed and final rules published just since 1993.
* The 2015 Federal Register contained a record 81,611 pages. The 2016 FR will likely be even longer, as some 60 federal departments, agencies and commissions have more than 3,000 regulations in the pipeline, to implement and impose every remaining item on the Obama agenda.
* Over 4,450 federal crimes are embedded in those laws and regulations – and neither an inability to understand the complex edicts nor an absence of intent to violate them is a defense.
* Complying with all these regulations costs American businesses and families $1.9 trillion per year. That’s one-tenth of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product – $5,900 a year for every American citizen.
* EPA’s new 70 ppb ozone standard will likely put half of all U.S. counties out of compliance and close down transportation, housing and factory projects, for minuscule to imaginary health benefits.
* EPA’s Clean Power Plan will cost up to $73 billion annually in higher electricity prices, force states to shutter their coal-fired power plants, and destroy numerous mining, utility and factory jobs – to prevent a hypothetical and undetectable 0.018 degrees C (0.032 degrees F) of warming 85 years from now.
* The 2015 Paris climate treaty will cost some $484 billion per year for the next 25 years, just to replace carbon-based energy with wind, solar and biofuel energy, Bloomberg New Energy Finance calculates.
Now climate activists want EPA to use the Clean Air Act and Paris treaty to regulate and eliminate all vehicle, drilling, pipeline, landfill, gas-fired generator and other CO2 and methane sources, crippling our economy – and then still send hundreds of billions to developing countries for "climate reparations.”
But as climate scientist John Christy recently told Congress, the entire Obama climate agenda is based on computer models that do not work. "The real word is not going along with rapid warming” assertions, he emphasized. "The models need to go back to the drawing board.” And EPA’s rules need to be scrapped.
You may despise politics. But the politicians and bureaucrats are hot on your trail – and Democrats running for president would put Obama’s policies on steroids. (So would Michael Bloomberg). So get motivated, informed and involved – before our vibrant free enterprise republic is only a dim memory.
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death. © February 2016
A NOTE FROM TIM:
You know, it strikes me that this anemic growth is precisely what they want in the name of "sustainability". That term means o-at least in my mind - a state where there is no economic growth or, conversely, no major shrinkage. The goal of the Greens and the Progressive money managers is a state of stasis. This can only be possible if the population remains static and there is no increase in the standard of living. I think that is their goal, and that is the reason why so many Obama policies seem to lead in that direction
February 07, 2016
Here is a terrific essay about how the Canadian conservatives lost power in the last election - making the same mistakes the GOP is flirting with today.
From the Article:
"The Tories attempted to cater to non-conservative voters, to appeal to a broad constituency, to be liked, to be moderate, by softening the party's message and gutting many of its programs. Perhaps most obviously, they drew back from significantly defunding and at least partially privatizing our deep-left state-supported national broadcaster, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The CBC is a cultural Marxist production that never met a Conservative policy it liked.
No less catastrophic, the Conservatives failed to pass legislation to radically protect free speech across the country – legislation that would outrank our provincial kangaroo courts, known as Human Rights Commissions, whose mandate has been to prosecute individual citizens and groups on the flimsy grounds of "hate speech." Aside from the fact that leaving these provincial tribunals in place did not garner a single bit of support or sympathy from the social justice totalitarians,
The Conservatives also implemented half-measures on the subject of gun control, failing to fully disband the despised Gun Registry that makes it almost impossible for people to defend themselves against criminals.
Perhaps most damagingly, the Conservatives attempted to fight the election chiefly on the basis of fact and logical argument rather than engaging the passions and patriotic sentiments of the electorate. They were unable to rebut progressivist attacks portraying them as hateful, bigoted, backward, divisive, and exclusionary. They had no vision of Canada to offer that was not simply a less enthusiastic version of the feminist, multicultural, and "diverse" image championed by the other parties. In trying to play it safe, the Conservatives not only failed to dislodge Liberal and NDP voters from their political homes, but also alienated their conservative supporters"
Sun Tzu, the ancient Chinese military theorist whose collected works "The art of War" are a must read for anyone interested in war or it's civilian counterpart, politics, explained the folly of the modern Establishment thinking:
"When invading hostile territory, the general principle is, that penetrating deeply brings cohesion; penetrating but a short way means dispersion."
In other words, you have to go all-out in a fight or not fight at all. Generally a boxer who hangs on the ropes waiting for his opponent to tire from punching him will lose. The Canadian Conservatives did this, and it is the favored strategy of the modern GOP as well.
Yesterday I was listening to a local conservative talk show host, a gynecologist who moonlights in talk radio on the weekends. He was vociferously arguing for an approach to the elections based on "electability", that catch-all meaning we choose our candidate based on a current snapshot of polling data i.e. we kiss the behinds of the people too ignorant or lazy to form solid views on the future of our nation and our children. Randy Tobler, the host in question, was quite animated about this whole business, and he poured out a stream of Establishment talking points and media-approved political science claims. "The majority is moderate" Tobler argued "and so we must nominate the most conservative moderate". "Ted Cruz can't win because he is unlikable." "Donald Trump can't win because his negatives are too high." "We have to settle for the best candidate who can win." "Political science shows you have to tailor your message to the undecideds>' Blah, blah, blah!
The fact is, these are all lies that Dr. Tobler, a good man who means well, and the rest of the GOP Establishment have swallowed. They were designed to get the GOP to lose. I ask you, where has this strategy of moving to the middle worked? If there was any validity to it we would have had President Ford (actually elected), President Dole, President McCain, President Romney. The fact of the matter is no moderates have been elected to the Presidency in a long time on their own merits; Bush 41 ran as Reagan's third term and, when he showed he wasn't Reagan's third term, was turned out of office by a Democrat who in some ways ran to the right of him. Bush 43 actually ran as a conservative, though a soft one, and he lost his first election (but won in the College of Electors) and he won re-election solely because he was a wartime President and his opponent was talking about a "global test" at a time when Americans were faced with commando-style military attacks here in the United States. By the end of Bush's second term his popularity was so low he would have been sent to a school for special needs (has his approval rating been a standardized test score). The GOP then told us John McCain was the savior, and yet his "I can work with the Democrats and media" approach led to his being skunked in the election. Ditto Mitt "I agree with you Barack" Romney, the architect of Romneycare who was suddenly the man who would end Obamacare.
And yet, inexplicably, the same people who keep losing tell us once again that we have to follow this same game plan and the outcome will be different. What did Albert Einstein say about madness?
The fact is , the professional consulting class are a bunch of astrologers, reading signs in the stars and telling us we must order our campaigns thusly. They don't know what they are doing.
Furthermore, it should be pointed out that this whole notion of closely watching the polls is, bullsh, er, balderdash; it is like trying to predict who will win the World Series from the results of Opening Day. Or like trying to predict the weather on April 4, 2056 based on current models. (Oh, wait, the Global Warming crowd is doing that already...) The reality is the vaunted "moderates", the great unwashed middle, those know-nothing champions of Kardassian Kultursmog, are notoriously fickle and, if the assumption is correct about them, why would we think their polling data means they hold immutable positions? Remember, these are the people who make life choices based on what pop icons do; they are, by definition, easily led. This notion that polling data should decide our candidate is stupid in the extreme, because we are polling people who, by definition, have no opinions.
One does not win the hearts of such people by offering them what they themselves already have - weakness and spinelessness. They will respond to bold colors for this is what they lack. The GOP consultant class thinks that offering them pastels is the answer, because they are frightened of bold colors. But this is giving them nothing.
Why is Bernie Sanders, an avowed Socialist, doing well? Because unlike Hillary he is offering the great Middle what they want, which is commitment to a cause. So many of these unwashed moderates want to be a part of something, jump on a bandwagon and cheer. They don't know what wagon they are on or much care, as long as that wagon is fun and enthusiastic. It is that which the GOP fails to understand. Obama did this without actually revealing his true purposes, but that trick only worked for a Democrat getting universal media accolades. No Republican will enjoy such treatment from the press. They have to offer something of substance or perish.
And yet here a good Libertarian-leaning Conservative talk radio guy promotes Clintonian triangulation. I cannot understand it.
Niccolo Machiavelli made it quite clear that people despise a weakling, as I argued at American Thinker a few months back:
"Among other evils which being unarmed brings you, it causes you to be despised."
Machiavelli also stated:
"For the mob is always impressed by appearances and by results, and the world is composed of the mob."
And yet the GOP continues to baffle with this move to the center. The center is not impressed by the center.
Strange; every time the Democrats turn hard left they prosper. Nancy Pelosi. Harry Reid. Barack Obama. When the Democrats saw their fortunes fading during the war days of the Bush 43 Presidency they consciously moved to the left, and presented bold colors to Mr. Bush's uniquely colorless brand of conservatism. They attacked with venom and fury, something else the consulting class says is a no-no. Bush's approval ratings plummeted. And Bush killed his political fortunes by not fighting back and thus allowing himself to be caricatured. (It didn't help that Bush flipped on important issues "we have to suspend capitalism in order to save it".) Politics is war by other means, and, as Sun Tzu so eloquently stated so very long ago; "penetrating but a short way brings dispersion".
Clearly the Canadian conservatives illustrate this principle. Why cannot the GOP understand likewise?
Political opinions among the moderates are, by definition, malleable. Dr. Tobler and so many others believe they form a constant, not a variable, in the political equation. This is an error almost mathematical in nature; it assumes we must be the ones to change in order to win, rather than that we must change those who are looking to be led. Conservatism should be the constant. Our job is to educate those who would not educate themselves.
Of course, we must have a conservative who holds firm, which is why Marco Rubio is dead to me; he can never be trusted again, as he evinced a fatal character flaw with his Gang of 8 nonsense. Cruz is the most solid Conservative out there, I believe. It does not matter that he is deemed "unelectable" by the Establishment, who do not want a Conservative at all but would be happier with Hillary Clinton than Cruz. The fact is, Cruz can lead, and when the Great Unwashed see him lead they will follow. It is, after all, what they want, someone to do the thinking for them. They can then go back to their Golden Globe awards and new episodes of The Bachelor.
A line from the movie "Field of Dreams" comes to mind "if you build it he will come". Well, if you lead they will come - and vote for you. Ted Cruz has led against stiff opposition, making himself a pariah among the Senate good old boys club. Leadership is lonely sometimes. But stand firm and eventually others will stand with you.
If we lead they will follow. We have to be the ones to blaze the trail.
If you fail to point the way to the Great Middle they willl salute you with a centrist finger.
Even though a number of leftist versions on the Green Nazi historical record have been written over the last 30 years, strangely, not one conservative response to this wide open opportunity has been seized upon except for my own book, Nazi Oaks. While Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism and Dr. Gene Edward Veith’s Modern Fascism: The Liquidation of the Judeo-Christian Worldview (1993), dabble with the green Nazi historical record, the purpose of these books is not particularly directed at environmentalism per se.
I am always amazed at how far ahead of the curve ‘liberalism’ is, particularly with regard to books and academia. A score of books on the Green Nazi historical record have already been published by leftist academicians who defend environmentalism from the Nazi cadaver as they are slickly spun so that its readers do not think too much about such sordid and sometimes grisly connections. What has been the conservative response to this? Virtually nothing except from a part time pastor/missionary/author/farmer from Olympia, Washington who wears a number of different hats during the week depending on what day of the week, and what time of day it is.
The latest leftist Green Nazi book is written by Yale heavyweight Dr. Timothy Snyder. The book is entitled "Black Earth,” which, shockingly enough, presents to its readers what Snyder calls Hitler’s "ecological anti-Semitism.” While the beginning of Snyder’s book is excellent, he spends the rest of his book completely ignoring the ecological Nazi historical record of National Socialism that his own thesis demands. In so doing, Snyder reduces Hitler’s ecological worldview down to the realm of Malthusian Math only – which is very problematic for a variety of historical reasons. See my response to Snyder’s book on the American Thinker posted just today entitled, "Yale Professor on Nazi Environmentalism: So close, yet so far.” This is a shorter version of my book review that I posted on the Intellectual Conservative a few months back.
I have also upgraded my website at www.rmarkmusser.com – which is long overdue as it was just a skeleton before. You will find it much more helpful and edifying with a number of added subjects. I have categorized my books, writings, and articles along many different academic fault lines. Yet they all have been subjected to a biblical framework with a decidedly Judeo-Christian historical-prophetic point of view. I trust that some of you will enjoy the new website.
In short, environmentalism is not conservationism. Neither is sustainable development conservationism. Environmentalism and sustainable development invariably lead to fascism. Conservationism is wise form of stewardship over nature granted by God to mankind as a divine responsibility to govern the world (Genesis 1-2; Psalm 8) – which sometimes requires the sacrifice of that natural world for the well-being of humanity since we live in a fallen, broken world.…
"Where the manger is clean, there are no oxen, but much revenue comes from the strength of an ox (Proverbs 14:4).”
Here is the essay:
Yale Professor on Nazi Environmentalism: So Close, yet So Far
By Mark Musser
In the opening chapters of Black Earth: The Holocaust as History and Warning, Yale professor Timothy Snyder forcefully acknowledged what he calls the "ecological" Anti-Semitism of the Führer: "[a]n instructive account of the mass murder of the Jews of Europe must be planetary, because Hitler's thought was ecological, treating Jews as a wound of nature." In spite of such an assertion, however, the great caveat of Snyder's book is that he inexplicably fails to discuss the Nazi ecological historical record that should have informed his thesis. Snyder goes on to reduce Hitler's racial ecological worldview to a strict Malthusian war over natural resources, which leads him to faulty conclusions at the end of his book.
(Masquerading as science, Malthusian math is the longstanding myth that there are too many people relative to shrinking natural resources that has been at the very heart of the green movement for well over a century.)
Snyder's introduction presents to the reader one of the most incisive descriptions of Nazi Germany's ecological anti-Semitism ever summarized in print:
For Hitler the bringer of the knowledge of good and evil on the earth, the destroyer of Eden, was the Jew. It was the Jew who told humans that they were above other animals, and had the capacity to decide their future for themselves. It was the Jew who introduced the false distinction between politics and nature, between humanity and struggle. Hitler's destiny, as he saw it, was to redeem the original sin of Jewish spirituality and restore the paradise of blood. Since homo sapiens can survive only be unrestrained racial killing, a Jewish triumph of reason over impulse would mean the end of the species.
In Hitler's mind, the humanistic "nonsense" of the Jews was that they tried to live above Nature through global capitalism in the West, or through global communism in the East – both of which were hopelessly based on the modern emptiness of economic materialism. Worse, such materialism allowed the weak to live and leech off the strong so that Germany was being sapped from within in the face of an inauthentic universal culture alien to the Aryan man – i.e., the German volk. For Hitler and the leading Nazis, "
DHS ordered me to scrub records of Muslims with terror t...
Our leaders’ are willing to compromise the security of citizens for the ideological rigidity of political correctness.
30 queries taking 0.0926 seconds, 186 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.