A failed President is one who is no longer creditable during his term in office. -John Reilly. History will not be kind to Barrack Obama. It is early, far too early, to pass final judgement on the Obama Presidency. As the old observation goes, the worst President in history is always the guy occupying the […]
Read the first version of this post – on BREXIT – here. If you listen, you can hear the questions echoing around the echo-chambers of the left. Why Trump? Why President Donald Trump? Why did Donald Trump win the election? What were they thinking? Over the last few months, I’ve tried to explain why I […]
“July 26, 2009 … Yes, America, we are entering a very scary time for our country … America is the greatest country on Earth and we are going to change it.” Barack Obama
Time to celebrate the end of an error.
Something to consider. If Hillary is formally charged with crimes before Obama gets replaced, he can pardon her. If he pardons her for any crimes without being formally charged, he becomes complicit because he is acknowledging crimes committed. If he doesn’t pardon her and she is charged after he is out of office, things may be revealed that put his finger prints all over the same crimes. About time we see him in a corner. Well played Mr. Trump.
One major reason we have issues with foreign policy is our lack of consistency and our staying power. Every 4 years is a crapshoot for our allies. The public is fickle, uninformed and prone to seize on “causes” whether the facts contradict their worldview or not. Humans are not “nice” by nature and have to be taught manners. Sometimes this is unpleasant for the student.
“The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.” Not sure where this came from as many have had it attributed to them.
Obama and the left fit the definition of fascism, not the conservatives. Examine what is happening today and it is obvious.
Fascism is on the Left. Liberty and personal responsibility are on the Right. Fascism and Marxism are the two primary forms of Socialism, but for decades the Left has told the lie that Fascism is on the Political Right.
Fascists pursue government control of the economy, the people, and everything else. Since Fascism is statist, and those on the political Right embrace personal freedom and responsibility, Fascism has no logical relationship to the Conservative ideology of the political Right.
Conservatives support a small government, as our original Constitution mandates that there be little power in the Federal government. We Conservatives want most of the power to reside with the American people and want what government power is necessary to be kept at the local and state levels.Those on the Right support Liberty, free enterprise, and personal responsibility. Fascism opposes each of these.
Fascists like Adolph Hitler destroy Liberty, free enterprise, and personal responsibility. Fascism and Marxism are the two Far Left components of Socialism.
“Nazism” is “National Socialism” and arose from the “National German Workers’ Party” and later became the “National Socialist German Workers’ Party.” Such words are not used to identify those political ideologies that exist on the Right.
Crony Fascism is the economic model President Barack Obama has been using. Obama’s economic intentions have been to redistribute our tax money to his cronies and his supporters.
Barack Obama is foundationally a Marxist and wants government to eventually own and control everything. However, Obama is using a Fascist economic model, as he takes money and power from the people and from private businesses. Obama controls the businesses while allowing much of the business ownership to remain private for the time being.
This is just like the health insurance policies would be handled under ObamaCare. People and companies have been told by Obama that they can buy private insurance policies. However, government controls and red tape on private health insurance policies make the policies enormously expensive, which will eventually force almost everyone into government-controlled health care.
The Small Business Administration estimates that government regulations take $1.75 trillion each year from business. That accounts for many lost jobs, lost innovation, and lost growth. Most business leaders remain unimpressed by Obama and do not believe that Obama is on their side.
The Left can claim all it wants that Fascism is not what they support and is not Obama’s political economic model. Their repetitive claims will not make it so. Fascism and Marxism are the two primary forms of Socialism, whether the Left likes it or not.
It will take a lot of Conservative courage to turn our economy around and to fix the damage that Obama and his predecessors have done to our prosperity, our health care, our public education, our military, and to our nation. Government spending, taxes, and government regulations all need to be massively cut. This is essential and the necessary actions will not be politically easy.
TAGS: LubbockOnline Blog
Who Is “Fascist”?
Those who put a high value on words may recoil at the title of Jonah Goldberg’s new book, “Liberal Fascism.” As a result, they may refuse to read it, which will be their loss — and a major loss.
Those who value substance over words, however, will find in this book a wealth of challenging insights, backed up by thorough research and brilliant analysis.
This is the sort of book that challenges the fundamental assumptions of its time — and which, for that reason, is likely to be shunned rather than criticized.
Because the word “fascist” is often thrown around loosely these days, as a general term of abuse, it is good that “Liberal Fascism” begins by discussing the real Fascism, introduced into Italy after the First World War by Benito Mussolini.
The Fascists were completely against individualism in general and especially against individualism in a free market economy. Their agenda included minimum wage laws, government restrictions on profit-making, progressive taxation of capital, and “rigidly secular” schools.
Unlike the Communists, the Fascists did not seek government ownership of the means of production. They just wanted the government to call the shots as to how businesses would be run.
They were for “industrial policy,” long before liberals coined that phrase in the United States.
Indeed, the whole Fascist economic agenda bears a remarkable resemblance to what liberals would later advocate.
Moreover, during the 1920s “progressives” in the United States and Britain recognized the kinship of their ideas with those of Mussolini, who was widely lionized by the left.
Famed British novelist and prominent Fabian socialist H.G. Wells called for “Liberal Fascism,” saying “the world is sick of parliamentary politics.”
Another literary giant and Fabian socialist, George Bernard Shaw, also expressed his admiration for Mussolini — as well as for Hitler and Stalin, because they “did things,” instead of just talk. In Germany, the Nazis followed in the wake of the Italian Fascists, adding racism in general and anti-semitism in particular, neither of which was part of Fascism in Italy or in Franco’s Spain.
Even the Nazi variant of Fascism found favor on the left when it was only a movement seeking power in the 1920s.
W.E.B. DuBois was so taken with the Nazi movement that he put swastikas on the cover of a magazine he edited, despite complaints from Jewish readers.
Even after Hitler achieved dictatorial power in Germany in 1933, DuBois declared that the Nazi dictatorship was “absolutely necessary in order to get the state in order.”
As late as 1937 he said in a speech in Harlem that “there is today, in some respects, more democracy in Germany than there has been in years past.”
In short, during the 1920s and the early 1930s, Fascism was not only looked on favorably by the left but recognized as having kindred ideas, agendas and assumptions.
Only after Hitler and Mussolini disgraced themselves, mainly by their brutal military aggressions in the 1930s, did the left distance themselves from these international pariahs.
Fascism, initially recognized as a kindred ideology of the left, has since come down to us defined as being on “the right” — indeed, as representing the farthest right, supposedly further extensions of conservatism.
If by conservatism you mean belief in free markets, limited government, and traditional morality, including religious influences, then these are all things that the Fascists opposed just as much as the left does today.
The left may say that they are not racists or anti-semites, like Hitler, but neither was Mussolini or Franco. Hitler, incidentally, got some of his racist ideology from the writings of American “progressives” in the eugenics movement.
Jonah Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism” is too rich a book to be summarized in a newspaper column. Get a copy and start re-thinking the received notions about who is on “the left” and who is on “the right.” It is a book for people who want to think, rather than repeat rhetoric.
Prior to the election results the left was so confident they had the electoral college in the bag. They believed this because all the major bastions of leftist power were in the biggest cities. This is why the electoral college was implemented. To prevent these enclaves from dictating to the majority of states. It was to level that playing field. It was to prevent the tyranny of the majority. It gave all states a voice regardless of population density and gerrymandering. It strikes me as hypocritical that the left is now whining about being cheated when they held all the cards going into the election. The GOP, the media, Soros and all the high visibility social media was against Trump and he still prevailed. Sucks to have total power, which you leftists demanded, with someone you don’t like. It was ok when you were in the drivers seat. Give the new guy a chance. Nothing is perfect but being human is to continue to strive for that perfection.
Any thinking person realizes that the left has botched so many things in the last 30 years.
- Iran Nuclear Deal; The left believes that all nations should b on an equal playing field. This is delusional. Clinton gave North Korea the same basic deal as Obama gave Iran. Look how that turned out. The fallout will be felt for many more years once the little tinpot dictator has a tantrum and nukes one of his neighbors. Iran is the biggest threat to the middle east and wishes to control the world through Islam. We will have many conflicts with them in the future.
- Iraq and Afghanistan; The early and well publicized withdrawal with the timeline was the biggest blunder in modern memory. You never tell your enemy what you plan to do. You also do not abandon the losers to their own devices. What did they think was going to happen? Whether the wars were justified or necessary is not the issue. Once we committed we took on the responsibility to succeed. Epic failure.
- Libya; They had already accepted the demands the US and world had put on them to get out of the nuclear and biological warfare game. They were providing valuable intelligence on terrorist organizations and were basically no threat. They were an easy target for the bully. Look at Libya now.
- Our allies; Telegraphing our disdain for our allies is unconscionable. The allies we have had for decades always temper their policies and support because we have an election every 4 years and are not consistent in our foreign policy or commitment to actions taken by the previous president. This causes chaos and mistrust.
- Cuba; Removing the sanctions and giving Cuba status is myopic in the extreme. They have not changed. They were disparaging the US as Obama was kissing their behinds. This also disrespected all the brave Cubans who fought and died as well as the refugees who took extreme measures to escape Cuba, and are still escaping.
- Syria; Commit or get out. Russia saw this as a golden opportunity to reassert themselves in the region and make us look like idiots. Not our dog, not our fight. Making bold statements about crossing the line and then not acting on that line crossing shows weakness and lack of honesty.
- Refugees; The true refugees do not want to come here. The right way would have been to make a section of their own countries a safe enclave and protect them there. How many middle eastern countries have offered to take them? ZERO. Why? Because they are a threat.
- Obama care; Take away the competition, enact regulations that drive up medical costs, pay for people to get insurance who don’t want it, make 90 year olds have a birth control plan, it goes on and on. What has the government ever done in the private sector that has succeeded?
- Gun Control; From the very beginning of Obama this has been a theme that guns are bad and people who have guns are potential criminals. Its not the guns that are the problem and alienating 100 million Americans was not the smartest move. This is one that backfired on them hugely. It is an Inalienable right to protect yourself and taking that right away is not a good idea.
- Internet Freedom; The current push to ban “fake” news feeds is not a good idea. It leaves the government to decide what is fake and what is real. Also abdicating the control of content to the UN was just stupid. We protected the free speech aspect and would not use the controls that are now being requested.
- Education; We have no education system. We have an indoctrination and test learning system. No critical thinking allowed. Case in point;
- Remove all of Obamas unlawful edicts. He is not the emperor.
- Keep surrounding yourself with smart people. Listen to them critically and do not compromise your principles.
- Remove religion totally from government. What I mean by this is do not restrict someone from displaying or talking about religion but using religion to shape policy. If you wish to have a bible on your desk, no issues. If you spend all your time preaching instead of working, get another job. The ten commandments are not a bad thing but not everyone follows these religions. Tolerance for all religions as long as the practice does not violate our constitution.
- Safe enclaves for refugees in their own region.
- Secure our borders.
- Revise the tax laws to encourage job growth and self sufficiency.
- Negotiate trade deals that are advantageous to our country and give good value to our trading partners. No protectionism.
- Obama care; repeal and replace with a competitive free market solution. Uninsurable conditions could be subsidized by the government but the criteria should regulate the industry to not play the system and set the guidelines so they only profit.
- Defeat cyber crime. This is an unacceptable condition. The DOJ help is laughable. Hire hackers.
- Bring back patriotism. This will be the hardest task. Our universities have been subverting the young for 60 years.
- Transparency; Do not lie to the people. Understanding that secrets are necessary, do not lie to achieve a policy.
Mr. Trump, you have a huge task ahead of you and I support your success in achieving these tasks. Be assured that the left will now unbag their bag of tricks and it will be a hard fight. It will be tempting to go hard totalitarian on them but resist this natural urge. You can’t fix stupid and the power mongers will not easily go into the night.
The world did not end on Tuesday 8th. Not that you’d know it from some of the articles online. Or from the news media as it struggles to cope with the simple fact that bloggers – like me – called it for Trump while the MSM was so deeply involved with Clinton that it missed […]
There is, I feel, an odd degree of respect for military training among the Social Justice Warriors. (Yeah, I know; bear with me a little.) By any reasonable standard, the American military has been head and shoulders ahead of everyone else in breaking down racial barriers in American society, at least in the combat arms. At the same time, however, there is a complete lack of understanding of the ethos of military training. One can become a Green Beret, but one cannot become a black/ white/ yellow Green Beret without fatally undermining the whole concept and (re) introducing the curse of racial diversity.
But wait, the SJW might say. No one can ignore the fact that there are black/ white/ yellow Green Berets! Yes, that’s true. But there are also blond-haired Green Berets and dark-haired Green Berets and bald Green Berets … and no one gives a damn. Differences in hair colour are completely immaterial. If we are to rid ourselves of racism, we must refrain from taking race into account. We cannot claim to live in a post-racial world when President Obama is lauded as the first black president. To let ourselves draw lines between white soldiers and black soldiers (and every other kind of soldier) is to reintroduce tribalism into military society and undermine the whole concept of the military team. This is potentially disastrous. Humans are tribal creatures. To allow recruits to think of themselves as belonging to the white tribe, or the black tribe, or the homosexual tribe, or the female tribe, rather than the military tribe will lead to conflicts between those tribes within the military. The military has the odd problem, therefore, of treating its soldiers as individuals and, at the same time, as part of an overall unit. It cannot take the risk of adding a tribal layer without risking internal collapse.
Why? If humans accept the existence of tribes, each tribe will start jockeying for position against the other tribes. Outsiders will see those tribes as single entitles; insiders will see outsiders as enemies, rather than allies or neutral observers. Bad apples within the tribes will smear the rest; the tribes will rally round their own, rather than give them up to the judgement of outsiders. (This has been amply demonstrated by the Catholic Church’s reaction to child sexual abuse by priests, among other matters; the Church was more interested in defending itself than rooting out the offenders.) Society will be ripped apart as tribes become the dominant powers, eroding a single unifying faction. Pressure from the SJWs, therefore, has done a considerable amount of damage to the military. Speaking as an outsider, I see no problems with having women, homosexuals or even transgendered individuals within the military, provided they meet the criteria and act in a professional manner. There are aspects of military training that require very high qualifications; lowering those requirements for a specific tribe undermines the overall effectiveness of the military.
If women can be declared Army Rangers (for example) while completing a course only half as difficult as their male counterparts, it should not surprise anyone that the men regard women with deep suspicion. Can they carry their weight in a real combat zone? This isn’t sexism; this is sheer practicality. Take a look at some of the deployments handled by Special Forces in the War on Terror. None of them were scripted by exercise controllers, or designed to allow those who wanted to give up to quit. Shit happens in combat zones; you might find a ten-mile hikebecoming a twenty-mile exercise in staying ahead of a hunting enemy force. Or you might find yourself carrying the body of your wounded comrade for miles, trying to keep him out of enemy hands. There’s a milder problem that should also be remembered. Men – as a general rule – respect people who come up with new ideas. If a female soldier comes up with a loophole that anyone could use (at least until it is closed by higher authority) she will earn a considerable amount of respect from her male comrades. On the other hand, if she uses an advantage given to her because of her gender, she will earn nothing but their contempt. If she decks someone making sexist remarks, she will earn respect; if she complains to her superiors, she will earn a reputation as a sneak. And, because humans are inherently tribal, a pathetic female soldier will prejudice every male soldier she meets against every other female soldier. Tom Kratman’s article on women in the military had a rather pithy observation that should be born in mind. The price for being a woman in the military is sacrificing your right to act in a feminine manner. The same could easily be said for homosexuals. As I see it – and again, I speak from the outside – the American military made a critical mistake when the issue surfaced (and re-surfaced, etc). It should have been simple enough to point to the requirements for Ranger School (which couldn’t have been that strict, because soldiers were passing them) and invite women to try to pass the requirements. (The British Paras allow women to run through the course, although to the best of my knowledge none have passed.)
The Pentagon could have argued that lowering the requirements for women was inherently sexist, as it implied that women couldn’t pass the complete requirements, and therefore invited female soldiers to try to pass. It would, at least, have driven a wedge into the SJW camp. And who knows? They might have gained a few full-fledged female Rangers out of the deal. Such a requirement would have focused on the individual, not women as a tribe (and, as such, separate from the male tribe). It would have made it much easier to handle the problem – and, later, any disciplinary issues that might have arisen. If a soldier happens to be in trouble, it is very dangerous to raise the spectre that he/ she is being charged because he/ she happens to be the wrong gender, or the wrong colour, or the wrong sexual orientation. Such spectres undermine military discipline to the point it will eventually collapse. This is not, alas, unprecedented. Military training is – and will always be – an ongoing project. We have learned a great deal from our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, incorporating the lessons into our training programs for soldiers who are on the verge of being redeployed. It is vitally important that we keep honing our soldiers, because our superior training and technology is an inherent part of our military edge over the rest of the world. To weaken it for political reasons – whatever they may be – is to undermine the security of the entire Western World.
Does this seem true? The average Arab recruit, for example, is rarely told anything more than he needs to know. Basic maintenance is beyond him, let alone the complexities of the fine military hardware purchased by his country’s rulers. His superior officers are often prepared to work him as a slave; he is punished for showing initiative (as are they.) Those who are recruited for terrorist/ insurgent operations may have more enthusiasm, but they are rarely any more technically skilled. But they do tend to have the numbers. Military training is one of the factors that gives us the edge. There are others, of course, but training is the bedrock. Weakening it in the middle of wartime is very – very – dangerous.
Christopher G. Nuttall Edinburgh, 2015 PS – you can download Tom Kratman’s essays from http:// http://www.tomkratman.com/
Nuttall, Christopher. First To Fight (The Empire’s Corps Book 11) (Kindle)