Tag: politics

The God-Emperor has spoken:

America is winning again. America is respected again because we are the first We’re putting America first. It hasn’t happened in a lot of decade. We’re putting them first We’re taken care of ourselves for a change Like that guy, but not that much. But radical democrats want to turn back the clock For the rule of corrupt power hungry, globalist, globalist. You know what globalist is? A globalist is a person that wants the globe to do well, frankly, not caring about our country so much.

And you know what, we can’t have that. You know they have a word. It sort of became old fashioned, It’s called a nationalist, and I say really, we’re not supposed to use that word. You know what I am? I’m a nationalist, okay? I’m a nationalist. Nationalist. Nothing wrong. Use that word. Use that word.

They reported yesterday that Donald Trump was unpopular with foreign nations, He’s one of the most unpopular president in the history of polling, And I said No, I said, Of course, I’m unpopular with foreign nations because we’re not letting them rip us off anymore.

I, too, am a nationalist. Not a civic nationalist. Not an creedal nationalist. Not a paper nationalist. Not any kind of Fake Nationalist. Because I simply don’t have faith in the Satanic religion of Babel and I don’t believe int the beneficence of Eine Welt, Ein Volk, Ein Reich like the globalists and the Fake Nationalists do.

The God-Emperor’s will and his nationalism are about to be tested by the caravan of invaders. Let us hope, let us pray, that he rises to the challenge and does what must be done.

The Economist is attempting to square the circle between standing by its globalist principles while minimizing the inevitable political consequences of those principles:

Matteo Salvini, Italy’s hard-right interior minister, deputy prime minister and leader of its Northern League, is surging in the popularity polls. Mr Salvini is likely in due course to become Italy’s leader in large part because of his uncompromising stance on immigration. “People whose only contact with immigrants is with the Filipino servant who takes the dog for a walk in the evening are in favour of immigration, but they have no idea of how immigration is lived in the peripheries,” he said in July.

That, in a nutshell, is the charge made against smug liberals who champion “open borders”. They get all the benefits of large-scale migration from low-wage countries: cheap nannies, Uber drivers, decorators, waiters, sandwich-makers, chambermaids and dog-walkers. But they don’t rely on public housing, tend to have private health-care and often pay for private education so that their children are not brought up in classes where, in some cases, their native tongue is spoken by a minority.

Meanwhile those locals not so fortunate as the cosmopolitan elite (who kid themselves that they deserve their good fortune because they worked hard, ignoring that they started life on third base) often compete with people who will work for less because they are prepared to live in dorms or bedsits, having left their families at home.

It is a crude oversimplification. Economically, migrants are a net plus. European Union migrants in Britain, for example, typically contribute more in taxes and take less in benefits than the natives they ostensibly “compete” with. In global utilitarian terms, the benefits of migration to the migrants themselves are much greater than the downside, if indeed there is one, to the native-born. For the host country, more labour means a bigger economy, so that more money is available to be spent on the schools, hospitals and houses needed to accomodate the newcomers (though in these straitened times the money is often not spent on doing that). The liberal case for more immigration is pretty clear.

The trouble is, many liberal leaders forgot to ask citizens if they wanted large-scale migration from distant lands. And it turns out that a large number of them did not.

What the Economist calls “a crude oversimplification” is the truth. What is actually “a crude oversimplification” that is false is the claim that “economically, migrants are a net plus”. That claim is only viable in certain circumstances, when GDP is substituted for native economic wealth per capita.

In fact, given the way GDP is measured, it is a tautology; moving the entire population of China into the United States would also be a net plus, economically. The Japanese invasion of Manchuria was also a massive net plus, economically. The fundamental error of the Economist is to assume that all economic growth is intrinsically desirable, no matter what the cost.

The media knows they’ve failed to successfully push their false narrative about a big Democratic voting wave next month, so the pollsters are already backing away from their predictions in order to avoid looking foolish again:

Independent analysts have recently downgraded the number of seats Democrats are expected to flip. Two weeks ago, Cook Political Report’s David Wasserman predicted Democrats could pick up 30 to 40 seats; now he puts the range at 25 to 35. Wasserman estimated that Republicans have a 30 percent chance of keeping the majority.

By November 4th, that prediction will be 5-10 seats.

The God-Emperor should be angry. If invaders are still crossing the border, then someone clearly isn’t doing his – or her – job.

President Donald Trump’s chief of staff and his national security adviser engaged in a heated argument outside the Oval Office on Thursday, according to three people familiar with the episode.

The chief of staff, John Kelly, and the national security adviser, John Bolton, fought over immigration and border crossings, including the performance of the Homeland Security Department under Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, one person familiar with the matter said. She was at the White House for meetings on Thursday, but the people disagreed about whether she witnessed the argument.

Bolton criticized DHS, and Kelly defended Nielsen, a former deputy whom he supported to replace him at the department. Two people described the exchange as less a shouting match than an intense argument. Kelly then stormed away, so upset that he uttered some profanities.

Bolton and Nielsen had a good conversation after Kelly and Bolton’s argument, a White House official said. Both believe the goal is to protect the border, the official said.

Trump has lately expressed fury about a large group of migrants who are traveling from Honduras toward the U.S. border. He vowed Thursday to deploy the military and shut down the Mexican border unless the migrants are turned back.

I don’t pretend to know the real deal. Perhaps it is kabuki to keep the mainstream media occupied. But Kelly too often comes across like a true blue Swamp creature whose primary job is to convince Trump not to follow his instincts.

In a move that surprises precisely no one, Democratic Baby Boomers refuse to retire or get out of the way:

The Next Generation Of Democratic Leaders Wants To Move Up, But The Baby Boomers Are In The Way

Ambitious, young House Democrats have a problem: At a time when the party is calling for generational change, there are few opportunities to advance. Leadership has long been static for Democrats in the House. Reps. Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, and Jim Clyburn, the top three Democrats, respectively, have all been at the top of the House Democratic ladder for more than a decade. And none have shown any signs of leaving; Pelosi has said she expects to be speaker if Democrats retake the House in November.

In fairness, the country isn’t entirely ruined yet. And they’re still just as cool and sexy as they ever were. They changed the world, you know. Woodstock!

Never trust anyone over eighty.

The response by the Cherokee Nation is both apt and incredibly amusing. I cannot believe she thought this was going to restore her viability as a presidential candidate.

“Senator Warren is undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage.”

The concept is really not that hard and underlines my case against pan-racial nationalism. DNA says nothing about one’s tribal heritage, because tribe is a subset of nation, which is itself a subset of race. Pan-racial tribalism is even less viable than pan-racial nationalism.

We’re practically cousins. Fauxcahontaus may be one-five-hundred-twelfth Indian

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) made public the results of a DNA test on Monday, which an expert said shows “strong evidence’’ that she has a Native American ancestor.

Warren provided the test results to The Boston Globe on Sunday, the newspaper said, “in an effort to defuse questions about her ancestry that have persisted for years.” According to the paper, the disclosure is another strong sign that she is seriously considering running for president.

“The vast majority” of Warren’s ancestry is European but “the results strongly support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor” six to 10 generations ago, according to Carlos D. Bustamante, a Stanford University professor who analyzed the results.

This means she could be 1/32nd Native American, or just 1/512th Native American if the ancestor is 10 generations back.

The thing I find amusing is that the same people who insist that I can’t possibly be an American Indian despite the undeniable fact that I possess considerably more Indian blood than Warren will turn right around and assail the God-Emperor for mocking her claims.

The God-Emperor’s triumph is all-but-certain now. FiveThirtyEight thinks the Democrats’ chances of winning the House are more than five percent higher than Hillary Clinton’s probability of winning the Presidency:

It was this week two years ago that Hillary Clinton’s victory looked assured, when the infamous “Access Hollywood” tape of Donald Trump bragging about sexual assault appeared all but certain to end his campaign.

Jesse Ferguson remembers it well. The deputy press secretary for Clinton’s campaign also remembers what happened a month later.

It’s why this veteran Democratic operative can’t shake the feeling that, as promising as the next election looks for his party, it might still all turn out wrong.

“Election Day will either prove to me I have PTSD or show I’ve been living déjà vu,” Ferguson said. “I just don’t know which yet.”

Ferguson is one of many Democrats who felt the string of unexpected defeat in 2016 and are now closely — and nervously — watching the current election near its end, wondering if history will repeat itself. This year, instead of trying to win the presidency, Democrats have placed an onus on trying to gain 23 House seats and win a majority.

The anxiety isn’t universal, with many party leaders professing confidently and repeatedly that this year really is different.

But even some of them acknowledge the similarities between the current and previous election: Trump is unpopular and beset by scandal, Democrats hold leads in the polls, and some Republicans are openly pessimistic.

FiveThirtyEight gives Democrats a 76.9 percent chance of winning the House one month before Election Day. Their odds for Clinton’s victory two years ago? 71.4 percent.

It’s going to be delicious when the reality that there is no Blue Wave finally hits them in the face like a kayaker being struck in the face with an octopus by an otter.

Not that the UN matters, but it will be good to have Nimrata Randhawa out of both federal and state government.

President Trump has accepted Nikki Haley’s resignation as UN Ambassador, according to two sources briefed on their conversation. The timing of her departure is still unclear. She spoke out strongly in favor of Christine Blasey Ford after the university professor levied an accusation of sexual assault against Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

Ideally, the God-Emperor won’t even bother to replace her. It will be interesting to learn if this is just part of the ebb-and-flow of politics or an element of a larger shakeup taking place.

Taylor Swift nukes her fan base:

Taylor Swift can’t stay silent about politics any longer. The 28-year-old superstar took to Instagram on Sunday night to weigh in on Tennessee’s closely contested U.S. Senate race, endorsing Democratic former Gov. Phil Bredesen as she offered a harsh rebuke of U.S. Rep. Marsha Blackburn, the Republican nominee.

In her Instagram post, Swift said she has been “reluctant to publicly voice my political opinions, but due to several events in my life and in the world in the past two years, I feel very differently about that now.”

“I always have and always will cast my vote based on which candidate will protect and fight for the human rights I believe we all deserve in this country,” she wrote. “I believe in the fight for LGBTQ rights, and that any form of discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender is WRONG. I believe that the systemic racism we still see in this country towards people of color is terrifying, sickening and prevalent.”

Wait, a gay celebrity hates Republicans and parrots the SJW narrative? Surely this shocking news will convince all of her fans to change their views rather than simply reduce their support for her.

And isn’t it remarkable how Tennessee values are British values are German values are Texas values are California values are LGBTQP values these days?