Tag: politics

Conservatives are still stupid

John Hawkins took a poll of right-wing bloggers concerning the immigration bill. They mostly had enough sense to oppose it, but this was the pair of questions that revealed the irrational position of conservatives on immigration:

6) On the whole, which of these sentiments best describes your thoughts about illegal aliens?
B) They make America a worse place to live? 88.6% (31 votes)
A) They make America a better place to live? 11.4% (4 votes)

7) On the whole, which of these sentiments best describes your thoughts about legal immigrants?
A) They make America a better place to live? 88.6% (31 votes)
B) They make America a worse place to live? 11.4% (4 votes)

Most conservatives genuinely believe that the legality of an action determines the qualitative nature of it.  This is why they so often blithely support whatever evils that the previous generation of progressives have managed to slip past previous conservatives.

It doesn’t matter if 100 million Nigerians and 300 million Chinese enter the country legally or illegally next year, they will substantially change what America is by virtue of their entry.  The legality or illegality of that entry will have no effect whatsoever on the impact they will have over time on American society.

For all their supposed reverence for the Founding Fathers, conservatives have forgotten their wisdom on these matters:

“The opinion advanced in the
Notes on Virginia [by Thomas Jefferson] is undoubtedly correct, that foreigners will
generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have
left behind; to the country of their nativity; and to its particular
customs and manners. They will also entertain opinions on government
congenial with those under which they have lived; or if they should be
led hither from a preference to ours, how extremely unlikely is it that
they will bring with them that temperate love of liberty, so essential
to real republicanism?”

Offended by silence

This story of internecine offense-taking should be educational for those who believe that if only they remain are sufficiently nice to people and avoid saying anything negative, they will avoid giving offense to the permanently – and in some cases, professionally – offended:

Two state legislators are accusing former Congressman Anthony Weiner of displaying a “lack of moral courage” in the face of what they slammed as a “homophobic, misogynistic slur” made by a voter referring to their chosen candidate: City Council Speaker Christine Quinn. And they want him to apologize.

The offense occurred in The Washington Post, which published a lengthy story Thursday on the mayor’s race that included this scene that described Mr. Weiner’s interaction with a voter on the campaign trail:

    “You a registered Democrat?” he asked an elderly woman wheeling a shopping cart by him.

    “I am,” she said. “And I’m not voting for uh, what’s her name? The dyke.”

    “Okay. I just need you to sign the petition to get me on the ballot,” said Weiner, who then noticed the incredulous reaction of a reporter and added, “and you really shouldn’t talk that way about people.”

    “Oh, I’m sorry,” the woman said.

    “It’s okay,” Weiner responded. “It’s not your fault.”

The response left Assemblywoman Deborah Glick and State Senator Brad Hoylman–who have both endorsed Ms. Quinn’s campaign–seething.

“We are appalled by the account in the Washington Post of Anthony Weiner’s unacceptable response to a prospective voter’s homophobic, misogynistic slur in reference to Christine Quinn,” they wrote in a statement Thursday. “Weiner’s response to this blatant display of homophobia is completely inappropriate and extremely alarming. There is nothing ‘okay’ about homophobia and it’s never ‘okay’ to condone bias-based slurs or hate speech of any kind.”

They argued that such language was indicative of the larger challenges faced by female and openly gay political candidates.

“The voter’s use of the term demonstrates the challenges women candidates and lesbians in particular face, and Weiner’s failure to swiftly and firmly condemn her language demonstrates his lack of moral courage,” they added. “We demand an immediate apology from Mr. Weiner on behalf of LGBT and women New Yorkers.”

The fascist pinkshirts are not merely speech police, they are totalitarian thought police.  They are the very sort of people of whom George Orwell warned.  It’s not enough to leave them alone, because if you merely happen to show insufficient public enthusiasm for causes they consider morally imperative, they will attack you even more ferociously than those who openly oppose them.  They are the enemies of free speech, and more than that, they absolutely loathe the very idea of human freedom.

The reason the pinkshirts are always seeking apologies is because they view them, correctly, as public rituals of submission.  This is why it is a massive mistake to ever apologize to the monsters or to give them any ground whatsoever.  Stand your ground and they will fade away for the time being, (although they will lurk around and strike again the moment they detect any weakness), retreat and they will press forward with alacrity.

Remember that is always about power with these people.  It concerns power and nothing else. Note how not even being a high profile member of Team Clinton, (which those who know anything about DC are aware is not exactly unsympathetic to dykes), is enough to protect the left-wing Weiner from attacks on this front.  Being offended, or better yet, falsely claiming to feel threatened, is nothing more than a rhetorical tactic for these people, and therefore is best met with a rhetorical response.

46 million more Americans

That’s the CBO estimate for the Senate’s immigration bill:

The Senate’s pending immigration bill will pave the way for the
arrival of 46 million legal immigrants over the next 20 years, increase
the federal debt in the same time period and shrink Americans’ average
wage, according Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Session’s critical reading
of two new reports on the pending immigration reform bill provided by
the Congressional Budget Office. But Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio, the most prominent GOP
advocate for the immigration reform bill, says the CBO reports are good
news for Americans.

Marco Rubio wants more Hispanic immigrants.  That’s almost as much of a surprise as Italy’s new Congolese Minister of the Interior, whose first action in office was to argue for the importance of making it easier for Africans to get Italian citizenship.  Isn’t it a remarkable coincidence that the absolute top priority of every immigrant who achieves any political power is to bring in more people just like them?

Anyhow, this should suffice to snuff out the last remnants of any grass roots Republican enthusiasm for Marco Rubio.  And I can’t help but notice the reference to that portentous year. 2033. By the time there are 357 million people living in the lower 48, I very much doubt they will still be a single political entity.

John C. Wright explains l’affaire sauvage

In his philosophical explication of the differences between the Conservative, Liberal, and Libertarian political theories, Standout Author John C. Wright explains why the conflict between me and the writers presently dominating SFWA was not only inevitable, but will remain unresolvable.

The reason why political discussions between partisans of these theories
are so often futile is that their goals are unrelated to each other,
and the fears of one seem highly theoretical, if not ridiculous, to the
other…. Libertarian views of Liberals is one of deep seated and scathing
contempt. Where Libertarians are fundamentally intellectual and
conservatives fundamentally men of passion and honor, Liberals are
entirely emotional, and do not have the metaphysical or philosophical
groundwork needed to erect an intellectual defense of their position to
Libertarians, or to mount an intellectual criticism of Libertarianism.

It’s intriguing to see how closely his observations serve well as a predictive model concerning the behavior of both myself and my critics.  I certainly tend to regard this particular set of critics with “deep seated and scathing contempt”.  And, as we have seen, the SFWA writers have not only failed to erect an intellectual defense of their position, or mount an intellectual criticism of mine, [REDACTED PENDING APPROVAL TO QUOTE FROM SFWA FORUM].  They definitely regard me as evil.

This speculation is admittedly harsh.

It would have been gentler had I been asked my opinion in the days
before I exchanged many, many arguments with liberals of all stripes.
The one thing they all have in common, and this includes Catholic
liberals as well as atheist liberals, male and female, young and old,
all of them, all of them, all I have ever met: their argument is
primarily emotional, and they interpret disagreement as a moral failure,
not just an intellectual one.

They do not think you are wrong, my dear conservative and
libertarians readers, they think you are evil. Not one I have met thinks
that there can be honest disagreement with their positions, or that the
matter is one where reasonable men can differ.

This is not due to the personality of the liberals I have met, but it
is due to their theory. I have had angry Catholic socialists denounce
me angrily as wicked for not believing his nonsense, but I have also had
gentle grandmotherly socialists do the same in mild tones, and sneering
atheist socialists utter the same denunciation in sneering tones
without even bother to discover what the argument is or the objections
are. The tone depends on the personality of the liberal, and they are as
different as the whole spectrum the human race affords.

But the the automatic imputation of vile motives and conspiracies by
one mass against another mass is not due to a character flaw in the
liberal psychology. Rather, the flaw is built into their theory. It is
what they have to say. They can say nothing else, since if they did,
they would no longer be liberals. The institutions of civilization are the enemy, since they and only they are the source of mass-oppression and inequality.

Wright’s observations are 100 percent in line with my own considerable experience of what he describes as the Liberal. And this explains why Jamsco’s assertion about the need for inoffensive dialogue is not only wrong, but futile.  Because he only thinks about what he sees as being obviously offensive, he doesn’t recognize that it is not the sharper points of the rhetoric that offend, but rather the way in which the use of that sharper rhetoric correctly communicates to the Liberal that the non-Liberal is immune to their primary emotion-based tactics.  He’s only looking at the surface, and in doing so, he’s failing to see the more substantial forces operating beneath it.

You cannot use Aristotelian dialectic with a Liberal.  You cannot reason with him because he is not reasonable.  You cannot engage in rational discourse with him because he is not rational. To paraphrase Aristotle, you can only rhetorically flay him alive while dialectically exposing the flaws in what passes for his arguments in order to persuade undecided third parties.  And the more cruelly you flay them, the louder they shriek, and the more third parties are eventually inspired to see the difference between your reason-based arguments and the emptiness of their emotion-based non-arguments.

It would surprise – no, it would horrify – the rabbits if they had any idea how more and more people are coming over to agree with my positions as a direct result of Liberal pointing-and-shrieking combined with their total inability to make a coherent case, let alone a compelling one.  Perhaps you recall how only last year various rabbits were trumpeting the significance of how popular Whatever was and asserting that I was jealous of their Chief Rabbit’s massive blog traffic?  Less than a year later, my blogs have 4553 percent more pageviews than the Chief Rabbit’s warren.

Now, Wright’s series of posts – read the whole thing from the start – are not about my conflict with a group of SFWA members, and yet they demonstrate that those who see that conflict as a petty writers squabble are entirely missing the point.  It is, rather, a micro-model of the great civilizational conflict that is already engulfing the entire West, whether most of those on either side realize it yet or not.

Presenting this summer’s distraction

If there were any doubts about the wisdom of the US getting militarily involved in Syria, the combination of the Benghazi, IRS, and NSA scandals appears to have resolved them:

The Obama administration has concluded that Syrian President Bashar
Assad’s government used chemical weapons against the rebels seeking to
overthrow him and, in a major policy shift, President Obama has decided
to supply military support to the rebels, the White House announced
Thursday. “The president has made a decision about providing more
support to the opposition that will involve providing direct support to
the [Supreme Military Council]. That includes military support,” Deputy
National Security Adviser for Strategic Communication Ben Rhodes told
reporters.

Well, it’s better than a false flag event.  It’s probably preferable to give the administration the easy foreign policy distraction they are seeking than force them to generate one.  And as an added bonus, the country will receive about 800,000 Syrian immigrants, which will help replace the now-declining native white population.

The Obama administration is considering resettling thousands of refugees who left Syria during the country’s ongoing civil war to multiple towns and cities across the United States, the L.A. Times reports. A resettlement plan under discussion in Washington and other capitals is aimed at relieving pressure on Middle Eastern countries straining to support 1.6 million refugees, as well as assisting hard-hit Syrian families…. The United States usually accepts about half the refugees that the U.N. agency proposes for resettlement.

More diversity = more better, right?

Another step reaches the Cabinet

The dam is cracking:

Attorney General Eric Holder signed off on a controversial search
warrant that identified Fox News reporter James Rosen as a “possible
co-conspirator” in violations of the Espionage Act and authorized
seizure of his private emails, a law enforcement official told NBC News
on Thursday.

The
disclosure of the attorney general’s role came as President Barack
Obama, in a major speech on his counterterrorism policy, said Holder had
agreed to review Justice Department guidelines governing investigations
that involve journalists.

Eric Holder’s ability to protect Obama has just been compromised.  Not necessarily destroyed, but compromised. Even the Obama defenders in the media are going to be nervous about permitting this sort of precedent, knowing it can be used against them.

Forget the audits

The AP reporters should be more worried about being targeted by the Obama administration’s drone operators:

“The Obama administration continues to claim authority to kill virtually anyone anywhere in the world under the ‘global battlefield’ legal theory and a radical redefinition of the concept of imminence,” said Zeke Johnson of Amnesty International.

It’s a very bad combination, when you’ve got a lawless administration that is willing to sic the IRS and the FBI on the media as well as its political opponents, and is simultaneously claiming a right to assassinate American citizens at will without so much as an arrest, let alone a trial.

Benghazi sinks the Lizard Queen and the Magic Negro

This display of ineptitude would tend explain why, for better or for worse, white men run the world:

The former diplomats inform PJM the new revelations concentrate in two areas — what Ambassador Chris Stevens was actually doing in Benghazi and the pressure put on General Carter Ham, then in command of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) and therefore responsible for Libya, not to act to protect jeopardized U.S. personnel.

Stevens’ mission in Benghazi, they will say, was to buy back Stinger missiles from al-Qaeda groups issued to them by the State Department, not by the CIA. Such a mission would usually be a CIA effort, but the intelligence agency had opposed the idea because of the high risk involved in arming “insurgents” with powerful weapons that endanger civilian aircraft.

Hillary Clinton still wanted to proceed because, in part, as one of the diplomats said, she wanted “to overthrow Gaddafi on the cheap.”

This left Stevens in the position of having to clean up the scandalous enterprise when it became clear that the “insurgents” actually were al-Qaeda – indeed, in the view of one of the diplomats, the same group that attacked the consulate and ended up killing Stevens.

The former diplomat who spoke with PJ Media regarded the whole enterprise as totally amateurish and likened it to the Mike Nichols film Charlie Wilson’s War about a clueless congressman who supplies Stingers to the Afghan guerrillas. “It’s as if Hillary and the others just watched that movie and said ‘Hey, let’s do that!’” the diplomat said.

He added that he and his colleagues think the leaking of General David Petraeus’ affair with his biographer Paula Broadwell was timed to silence the former CIA chief on these matters.

Regarding General Ham, military contacts of the diplomats tell them that AFRICOM had Special Ops “assets in place that could have come to the aid of the Benghazi consulate immediately (not in six hours).”

Ham was told by the White House not to send the aid to the trapped men, but Ham decided to disobey and did so anyway, whereupon the White House “called his deputy and had the deputy threaten to relieve Ham of his command.”

I’m out of the business of political predictions, but I will say that the average Boy Scout leader would know better than to do as either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama did with regards to Benghazi.  If the news gets out, whoever is responsible for threatening to relieve Ham of his command for doing his freaking job should be political toast.  Even if he is blessed with magical negritude.

Another step closer

There is evidence connecting the White House to the IRS investigations after all.  But no proof that Obama knew about it or ordered it… yet:

The White House on Monday once again added to the list of people who
knew about the IRS investigation into its targeting of conservative
groups — saying White House chief of staff Denis McDonough had been
informed about a month ago.

Press secretary Jay Carney said again
that no one had told President Barack Obama ahead of the first news
reports: not his top aide McDonough, nor his chief counsel Kathy
Ruemmler, nor anyone from the Treasury Department.

Monday’s revelation amounts to the fifth iteration of
the Obama administration’s account of events, after initially saying
that the White House had first learned of the controversy from the
press.

And the scandal grows….

First they came for the conservatives

“IRS commissioner Steven Miller said the IRS’s targeting of conservatives “is absolutely not illegal”

Fascinating.  I’m sure the Jews, among others, will be delighted to hear that it is now “absolutely not illegal” to have government agents targeting a particular minority among the population.

You know how it goes: “first they came for the conservatives, but I was not a conservative….”