Monday, November 7, 2016

Trump or Bust

This is my vision for the year 2020. 

We take over the Libertarian Party.  We beat back the governors and the globalists who would sacrifice our liberty for universalist platitudes.  We put forward a nominee who champions a bold but realistic agenda.  We vow not only to cut taxes, cut spending, and cut debt, but also to fortify the essential cultural and genetic underpinnings of a free, prosperous, and glorious country.  We build a coalition of libertarians, independents, nationalists, disaffected Republicans who have been betrayed by their party’s establishment, and ordinary working families who have been excluded from the Democratic Party’s identity group feeding trough.  We shock the system by defeating Republican Paul Ryan and Democrat Michelle Obama to win the White House.

Unfortunately, this scenario won’t play out in 2016.  In the current year, libertarian realism isn’t on the ballot.  A vote for the so-called Libertarian ticket of Gary Johnson and Bill Weld is neither principled nor pragmatic because Johnson and Weld are neither libertarian nor realistic.  They are openly shilling for Hillary Clinton and her globalist vision for America.

Only DonaldTrump can stop her.  Of course, as president, he won’t deliver for us everything we want.  We can work to make a more ideologically sound candidate viable in a future election.  For now, the imperative must be to defeat the candidate who represents everything we loathe.

A Hillary Clinton win will entrench everything wrong with the corrupt federal establishment. A Hillary Clinton win will embolden Social Justice Warriors to escalate their vicious campaigns aimed at deconstructing Western history, Western values, and Western men to try to make sure that nobody like Trump can rise again. A Hillary Clinton win means massive tax hikes, more disastrous wars for regime change overseas, a new Cold War or worse with Russia, a surge in taxpayer-funded Muslim refugees, a program to turn millions of illegal immigrants into welfare-eligible Democrat voters, and appointments of activist judges who will invent new rights and give a green light to the most aggressively discriminatory Affirmative Action schemes.  

A Hillary presidency will be like an extension of Obama’s – only worse.  She’s far more corrupt, far more vindictive, and far less subtle when it comes to lecturing and hectoring uncucked white males.  Hillary Clinton is the sort of feminist who sees any criticism of her as an affront to her gender.  Her deep-seated desire to punish the part of the country that isn’t with her will never subside.

You will be complicit in her election if you do not use the only tool you have available to stop it: a vote for Donald Trump.  If you stay home, then you’re helping Hillary win.  If you vote for Goofball Gary Johnson and Big Government Bill Weld, then you’re helping Hillary and the entire federal establishment win.  If you don’t vote for Donald Trump in 2016, then in 2020 you will wake up in a country whose accelerating downward trajectory you did nothing to stop. 

Maybe you were “Never Trump” during the primaries.  Maybe in your heart you wanted to vote Libertarian.  Maybe in 2020 a better candidate will be on the ballot.  Right now it’s down to Trump or Clinton.  It’s down to Trump or bust for the country.  

Wednesday, February 24, 2016

The Case for Reparations

Black racial justice warriors such as Ta-Nehisi Coates want reparations.  Isn’t that rich, coming from Affirmative Action babies who have been politically moly-coddled their whole lives with special protections and generous handouts paid for by white tax dollars.

Now I’m inclined to reject any proposals to compensate groups of people for historical injustices.  I’m inclined to view the wars, invasions, persecutions, enslavements, genocides, and crimes of the past as lessons to be learned, not opportunities for monetization.

In the history of this country, large numbers of white people have been conscripted into armies, have been victims of war atrocities, and have been forced to labor as indentured servants – slaves by another name.  Meanwhile, some significant holders of slaves in places like Louisiana were black or mulatto.  Should the descendants of these slaveholders of color receive or pay reparations?  And as for those American blacks who believe they are the descendants of slaves rather than slaveholders, shouldn’t they be seeking reparations from the African tribes that originally enslaved their forefathers?

If you want to be concerned about slavery, then let’s focus on where slavery is actually still being practiced today.  For the most part, slavery doesn’t exist in white Western countries.  Slavery exists in places like Haiti, most of South Asia, and most of sub-Saharan Africa.  Why isn’t this the top priority of reparations advocates?  Why aren’t they demanding that these slave masters of color free their slaves and pay them reparations?

I’m open to the idea of reparations for injustices that were inflicted on people alive today by people alive today.  So if Ta-Nehisi Coates and the Huffington Post want to provoke a discussion on racial reparations in the United States, let’s have it.  Let’s consider the debt black Americans owe to white taxpayers who have been forced to pay for their welfare benefits and to white victims of systemic racial discrimination under Affirmative Action.  Let’s consider the value of white lives that have been lost due to the disproportionately high rate of black on white crime.  Let’s consider ways in which black people can begin to make amends for ruining the once great city of Detroit (not to mention Ferguson, Baltimore, Compton, and Watts).

Maybe reparations aren’t the answer.  But let’s at least recognize that black Americans living in the current year are the most politically privileged people the universe has ever known.

Tuesday, December 8, 2015

Donald Trump Proves He Is No Conservative

Donald Trump has finally crossed the line with his call to halt Muslim immigration.  That’s not who the GOP is as a party, and that’s not Conservatism. 

If you want to know what’s truly Conservative, all you need to do ask people like Jeb Bush, Bill Kristol, Paul Ryan, and Lindsey Graham.  They’ve Conservatively denounced The Donald as an “unhinged” “racist” “bigot” who is “soiling the robe of conservatism” and should “go to hell.”

Of course, it was Conservatives like Bush, Kristol, Ryan, and Graham who drove the country into the most expensive and longest wars in the nation’s history in Iraq and Afghanistan.  It was demagogues like Trump who opposed our massive sacrifice of treasure and blood in the Conservative Iraq war.  Trump warned that toppling Saddam Hussein and other secular leaders in the Middle East would destabilize the region and create power vacuums for radical Islamists to fill.  What a reckless lack of judgment on Trump’s part.

Trump has also failed to embrace the Conservative policy of arming Islamic rebels in Syria in the hope of overthrowing the secular Assad government.  What could possibly go wrong?  I mean, the hundreds of thousands of displaced Syrian refugees, and the millions of people posing as them, are natural Conservatives.  Just invite them in all in.  Invade the Muslim world and invite the Muslim world.  That’s the Conservative thing to do.  Invade and invite.

Don’t forget to also stir up hostilities with the one country that has enough nuclear weapons to wipe our largest cities off the map.  If Trump were a Conservative, then he would be calling for punitive new economic sanctions on Russia.  He would be demonizing Vladimir Putin incessantly, never forgetting to compare him to Hitler.  Anything that provokes an escalation of tensions with Russia is obviously Conservative.  But Trump has said he wants to get along with Putin.  If that doesn’t demonstrate just how dangerous a Trump presidency would be, I don’t know what will. 

Trump can’t be trusted.  He exaggerates.  A true Conservative like Dick Cheney doesn’t exaggerate.  He flat out lies when it’s necessary to get us into a war against a country that never attacked us.  Dick Cheney spearheaded a war in Iraq that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Muslims and the persecution and forced displacement of virtually all Iraqi Christians. 

So Dick Cheney is the ideal person to be lecturing Donald Trump about religious freedom.  After Trump proposed a moratorium on Islamic immigration, Cheney chimed in and said, no, that “goes against everything we stand for,” especially “religious freedom.” 

Because, of course, when the Founding Fathers wrote religious freedom into the Bill of Rights, they wanted Muslims born in Syria, Pakistan, and Somalia to be able to use their religion as an excuse to sidestep any scrutiny over the heightened real-world risk their demographic represents to our freedoms.  Religious freedom means Muslims born abroad have the right to come here to try to establish Sharia zones in our cities or Sharia law through the voting booth in areas where immigration has given them demographic strength.  As far as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson were concerned, the Koran was just as good a basis for a government of a free society as the Magna Carta. 

That’s what a Conservative believes.  The great Compassionate Conservative George W. Bush told us that Islam is a “religion of peace” and that what Muslims really want is to have democratic pluralistic societies just like ours. 

Conservatives can disregard centuries of divergent history, can disregard cultural incompatibilities, can disregard genetic incompatibilities, and can disregard statistical probabilities.  In any conflict between reality and Conservative principles, the Conservative puts his full faith in his principles.  If they happen to reinforce the policy prescriptions of the left, so be it.  A Conservative would rather support government programs to resettle welfare-dependent Muslims from war-torn hell holes into our cities than have his principles called into question by someone on the left.  You’ll know a Conservative who stands on principle by the fact that he carefully avoids taking any position that could be construed by the New York Times editorial page as Racist, Xenophobic, or Islamophobic. 

When a Conservative advocates spending a trillion dollars on a foreign war that wreaks havoc, he might be called misguided.  But he’s misguided in the name of global egalitarian ideals.  He’s operating within the window of allowable opinion.  On the other hand, to suggest that immigration policy not be concerned at all with serving the world, to demand that it serve national self-interests, to propose that it discriminate – discriminate! – on the basis of cultural compatibility and population risk characteristics is to commit an intolerable ideological transgression.

That’s why the entire GOP establishment is lining up to denounce Trump.  He crossed a line.  And in doing so he could move the window of political viability so far from the Conservatism of Jeb, Dick, and Lindsey as to render their wing of the Republican party electorally impotent.