Thursday, January 19, 2017

A smart move for Trump

It's been widely reported that Donald Trump had promised to move the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. It's difficult to explain to a rational person why some people would object to this - after all, Jerusalem is the capital of the Jewish state, and has been the most holy Jewish city for thousands of years. And yet, the entire international community, the "Moslem street" and the American liberals are strongly against this common sense measure. So, how can Trump fulfill his promise, and silence the inevitable outcry from the liberal media?

I think it's quite easy. First of all, few people remember that in 1995, Congress overwhelmingly voted to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. It was not even close - the vote in the Senate was 93-5, and in the House 374-37. In 2003, Congress voted on the following resolution: "The Congress maintains its commitment to relocating the United States Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem and urges the President [...] to immediately begin the process of relocating the United States Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem".

What president Trump (sounds nice, doesn't it?) should unofficially ask the GOP leaders in the House and the Senate to vote for a resolution calling for president Trump to recognize Jerusalem as a capital of Israel and to transfer the US embassy there. While the Democrat party is clearly moving away from its support of the Jewish state, it is still dependent on the votes and money of the millions of American Jews, and it is unlikely that many Democrats would vote against this proposal. Once it passes Congress, president Trump can loudly proclaim that in the interests of bipartisanship and his commitment to respect the will of the overwhelming Congressional majority, he will recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. President Trump should note that by doing so, he will finally fulfill the promise of our former president Barack Obama.... He should say something like this: 

Finally, we will be able to fulfill the dream of my friend, former president Barack Obama, who years ago promised the American people, that “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.” It is my pleasure to report to the American people, that Barack's hope to see Jerusalem as an undivided capital of Israel will be finally realized. As he said in his speech, "while you can’t necessarily bend history to your will, you can do your part to see that, in the words of Dr. King, it “bends toward justice.” The day has come when the eternal dream of the Jewish people for justice will be fulfilled  and the strong bipartisan majority in Congress agreed with president Obama's and mine proposal. 

Sunday, September 11, 2016

Hillary's health problems....

Apparently, Hillary Clinton got "overheated" in NYC although the temperature was below 80 degrees. Hillary had to be taken out of 911 memorial and as the police reported, "they threw her in like she was a side of beef". The video confirms their testimony. 

A few hours later, the media reported that her innocent cough was apparently due to pneumoniaand not allergy. And moreover, her schedule is probably changing in order to accommodate her health issues. 

Wait, health issues?! The most amazing thing was that all liberal "reporters" proclaimed for weeks that anyone questioning her health was a crazy evil misogynistic right-wingers  and any suspicion that Hillary's cough was not due to a simple allergy was an evil conspiracy. And now they repeat after Hillary's doctor - "it's just pneumonia, nothing else." Well, it's nothing else until the next week... 

So how come that evil conservatives so easily diagnosed that her cough was NOT caused by allergy - and all the smartest liberal doctors in the world could not? 

Or maybe, "We 've always been at war with Eastasia", and it was always "pneumonia", and everyone knew about it? 

This whole situation with Hillary Clinton reminds of an old Monty Python sketch. I wonder if Hillary wins the elections this November, and a few weeks later the American people feel as an unfortunate character, who found out he bought a dead parrot. 

Well, maybe it's not dead, maybe Hillary is only resting. What a beautiful plumage!

Thursday, June 23, 2016

British people vote to leave EU

A few quick points.

1. It's rather obvious that EU is unsustainable. The structure of the union is undemocratic, the governing body is sclerotic, and the people who run it consistently make stupid decisions. And what's worse, they despise the working men and women. It's only a matter of time before this huge carbuncle explodes. And the longer people wait, the worse it will it. This is why I believe the British people made the right to decision to leave the EU.

2. Few people remember, but before Reagan was voted president in 1980, Margaret Thatcher was elected the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in 1979. In other words, Britain was the first major country to push back against statism in the civilized world post WW2. Today, Britain votes against liberal elites and the government bureaucracy. Tomorrow - Americans take back their country.

It's not yet late today to do what's right - but it may be too late tomorrow.

Sunday, March 20, 2016

Should conservatives use violence against DNC protestors?

The real question is actually somewhat different - why shouldn't they?

Back in 2004, Democrats approved of the violence against protestors in their rallies. In fact, they even celebrated it. Here is the relevant story:

Al Franken Knocks Down Dean Heckler
January 27, 2004 -- EXETER, N.H. - Wise-cracking funnyman Al Franken yesterday body-slammed a demonstrator to the ground after the man tried to shout down Gov. Howard Dean.
The tussle left Franken's trademark thick-rim glasses broken, but he said he was not injured.
Franken - who seemed in a state of shock and out of breath after the incident - was helped back to his feet by several people who watched the tussle. Police arrived soon after.
"I got down low and took his legs out," said Franken afterwards.
Franken said he's not backing Dean but merely wanted to protect the right of people to speak freely. "I would have done it if he was a Dean supporter at a Kerry rally," he said.
"I'm neutral in this race but I'm for freedom of speech, which means people should be able to assemble and speak without being shouted down."
The trouble started when several supporters of fringe presidential candidate Lyndon Larouche began shouting accusations at Dean.
Franken emerged from the crowd and charged one male protester, grabbing him with a bear hug from behind and slamming him onto the floor.
"I was a wrestler so I used a wrestling move," Franken said.

Note that Al Franken, a senator from Minnesota was never criticized by the media, nor did was he prosecuted. I don't remember hearing any liberals shaming him for what he did, nor calling him a Nazi. So, the next time a liberal tells you about people attacking liberal protestors at Trump's rallies - turn the table around. Ask them - why shouldn't the republicans behave as Al Franken? 

P.S. Don't mistake my anti-left-wing post for support of Donald Trump. I believe he is not a good candidate, and I don't expect him to be a good president. But that does not mean I support liberal fascism. 

Thursday, January 21, 2016

Naziism and Communism

It's quite often that you see a liberal asserting that Naziism (fascism) and Communism (socialism) are exact opposites, socially, economically, politically. In fact it's a matter of deep faith among liberals that Hitler was a hard-right, anti-socialist, anti-communist, anti-left fanatic. Well, the reality is somewhat more complicated as many people who survived the communism would ascertain. 

Some months ago I was debating a liberal on this exact topic. I believe my reply to him could be educational to some of my audience. 

"The basis of the conflation of nazism and socialism is the term "National Socialism," a self description of the Nazis."
There are plenty of works from historians and economists which show the similarities between different types of socialism - national socialism, communism, "democratic socialism", "socialism with a human face", "Juche", etc.. The similarities are obvious to anyone who lived in the socialist countries.
"Hitler and the Nazis outlawed socialism, and executed socialists and communists en masse, even before they started rounding up Jews. In 1933, the Dachau concentration camp held socialists and leftists exclusively."
This argument is wrong on many levels. Nazis, socialists and communists competed for the same electorate and tried to appeal to them with similar slogans. The fact that they hated each other is understandable (and even inevitable). You hate most the people who you consider to be betraying your cause, the people closest to you. Moreover, different socialist movements were in direct competition.
For example, before WW2, Stalin called German social democrats "social fascists". German communists and Nazis were fighting each other on the streets of Germany - just like the Crips and the Bloods are fighting today on the streets of Los Angeles. In 1939, the communists and the Nazis became best friends - if only for a short duration.
This is similar to Al Capone making deals with some gangsters, and murdering hundreds of other gangsters. Of course, no one would claim that on this basis that al Capone was not a gangster himself.
And let's not forget that all communist regimes killed plenty of communists - Stalin murdered almost all of Lenin's "Old Guard", as well as sent hundreds of German communists to the Gestapo. The original revolutionaries did not escape the terror from Mao either.
"The Nazis arrested more than 11,000 Germans for "illegal socialist activity" in 1936."
Hundreds of thousands of people accused of "Trotskyist activities" in the USSR were sent to forced labor camps. Among them was my grandmother, Basya Arkuzskaya, who was punished with a 10 year sentence - even though she had no idea who Trotsky was. Indeed, totalitarian regimes silence, imprison and kill anyone who is suspected of disloyalty. It is no surprise that anyone, no matter how "socialist", was in danger of the communist/Nazi attack. Totalitarian regimes have long memories, and if it was found you were in the wrong crowd (competing socialist group), you had a good chance of being sent to the Gulag.
"In the 1930s and even beyond, nazism, in sharp contrast to socialism, was strongly supported by leading capitalists and right wingers in the US."
That's a rather strong statement. So, what are the names of those multiple "leading capitalists" who supported Naziism? Amazingly, in your post you provide only one name - Henry Ford. Well, for one, Henry Ford is always given as an example of a "smart capitalist" by American liberals. His bizarre theories about worker wages are cited often in USA by the NYT and other publications with approval. What's is even more ironic is that Henry Ford was a big friend of Stalinist USSR, which means he was not really against socialism. He was a great friend of the communist dictator Stalin too: "In 1944, according to Brinkley, Stalin wrote to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, calling Henry Ford “one of the world’s greatest industrialists” and expressing the hope that “may God preserve him.”
"Nazism is a right wing ideology. It is violently racist, anti-socialist, and it targets the political left for extermination."
While Stalin put his people in charge of individual companies, Hitler decided to keep the existing experts and owners, but only as long as they satisfied his needs. This was a purely tactical difference, Stalin nationalized industries, while Hitler nationalized people.
Amazingly, all socialists who came to power eventually became racist, killed a lot of socialists, and targeted millions of people for extermination based on their ethnic, religious and sexual background. The Stalinist regime, Maoists, Pol Pot, Ceausescu , the whole family of Kims in North Korea, Honeker, and all others easily fit in this description. Heck, even good old Lenin himself killed plenty of socialists who were not communists. And yes, anyone who lived in the USSR or any leftist regimes knows about  the Soviet hatred of the Jews and other minority groups, and surely you know about Stalin exterminating or exiling millions of minorities - Germans from Volga, Chechens, and many, may others. Same fate was also met by minorities in Mao's China, communist Vietnam, Pol Pot's Cambodia and the like. The list is too long to show here.
"Hitler banned labor unions (also a favorite target of American conservatives), which he saw as a potential threat to his regime."
None of the socialist regimes - from Lenin to Mao allowed independent unions. Hitler's position towards unions was indistinguishable from the position of the socialists before and after him - a vehicle to destroy the existing government, and later use as a socialist weapon to control the worker.
BTW, union membership in the USSR was compulsory, and unions were  controlled by the communist apparatus.
"Hitler conducted a holocaust against gay men too - killing many thousands of them in concentration camps. He also banned abortion..."
Homosexuality was illegal in the USSR, as well as the rest of the communist block. Until recently, it was punished in Cuba with years of imprisonment in the labor camps. Abortions were illegal in the USSR during Stalin, while in communist China they were (and are) compulsory. In other words, Hitler's position on abortions and homosexuals was very similar to the position of the socialists before and after him.
Let me stop here. The problem with many liberals is that they have no historic point of reference, they don't fully comprehend the socialist ideas, and don't comprehend how much Hitler borrowed from them. 
In fact, one can claim there are two camps - one which wants liberty for all, and the second which believes we all exist for the sake of the collective - the nation, the common good, the race, ethnicity, class. This is why Hitler's top diplomats wrote that "they felt as if they were with their party comrades" when they visited Stalin's Kremlin. There is little conceptual difference between Stalin's socialism and Hitler's socialism - both were based on the idea that was expressed by the Nazis in their program: "common good above private profit", a slogan which underlines the philosophy of communists, Nazis, socialists and American so-called liberals.
And one more thing. Somehow, liberals always forget to mention Winston Churchill, a leading anti-communist and anti-Nazi. While the liberals were busy appeasing the Nazis, he was on the forefront on fighting them. Should I assume that this is due to ignorance or malice?

Tuesday, January 19, 2016

Next time a liberal tries to argue with you

A few weeks ago, Vox, a media outlet for liberal intellectuals published a rather amusing article, entitled "Next time someone tells you "all lives matter," show them this cartoon". The cartoon they assumed was the strongest argument in defense of clearly racist slogan "Black lives matter" is shown below:

Now, it is rather amusing that the liberal intellectuals choose cartoons as their strongest arguments - although not terribly surprising. 

Well, I personally prefer to use logical arguments, and appeal to logic and reason - instead of using silly pictures to prove my point, but given that the other side of the aisle is not intelligent enough, I decided to lower the complexity of my argument to their level. Shown below is a nice cartoon that encapsulates the stupidity of liberal ideology. The photo depicts the demonstration by the so-called "Occupy Wall Street", a hard-left movement - and its interaction (so to speak) with the police. The capture to the cartoon is quote amusing.

Monday, November 24, 2014

Can Obama's amnesty of illegal aliens save America?

The response of conservative experts and politicians to Obama's latest decision was expected - they are outraged, upset and disgusted. While I can understand their emotions, I disagree with their conclusions. In fact, Obama may have inadvertently acted as a savior of the Republic. 

This Friday morning I accidently overheard my colleague, who I will call JC in order to preserve his anonymity, talking in his cubicle about the unconstitutionality of Obama's "edict" to amnesty 5 million illegal aliens. In all fairness, by that time I already knew what I wanted to write in this post, but I could not resist jumping right in the middle of this discussion to express me opinion on the subject. I fully sympathize with the argument that Obama's decision is unconstitutional, but that by itself is hardly an argument which can win a lot of supporters among American people. A careful recitation of the Articles of the Governing Law of the Republic will most likely put to sleep a  majority of our semi-literate population, while upsetting probably another 20%. And in all honesty, these numbers may well hold true for our Supreme Court. More importantly, the real issue is that our Constitution has been dead since at least the 1930ies and FDR's New Deal, if not even earlier with Woodrow Wilson. No fair person, knowledgeable of the letter and spirit of the Constitution and the history of its adoption would agree that the major building blocks of today's federal government - Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, most of labor laws and even environmental laws satisfy the limited role of the government envisioned and codified by the Founding Fathers. In other words, our Constitution is dead and buried, and most of the people do not care, so it's useless to appeal to it.

What's worse, is that the oppressive role of the federal government, the "welfare socialism", as well as extreme environmentalism are slowly but steadily suffocating the Republic. If the current trajectory is not drastically altered, America will eventually become a pseudo-socialist state, with lobotomized population brainwashed in government-controlled schools and universities. Conservative debate about the niceties of the Constitution in light of this debacle seem to be incredibly naïve - and reminds me of two apocryphal stories about the well-meaning British. Apparently, before WW1, the British intelligence refused to intercept German radio and written communications. The argument was that "Gentlemen don't read other gentlemen's letters". During the start of WW2, the British initially refused to bomb German factories, because that could cause the damage to private German property and was apparently unfair. Today's Republicans in many ways remind me of the same - and what's worse, they tend to treat the Democrat Party as a well-meaning but somewhat confused dear friend of theirs.

But still, you may ask, how does Obama's amnesty have to do with this? Well, once we acknowledge that the Constitution is essentially dead, and this country is going to hell, we must ask ourselves - what can be done about it? Even president Reagan, who was elected twice with the promise of cutting federal government and privatizing Social Security and eliminating Medicare was unable to achieve this. President Bush attempted a moderate reform of Social Security and he too was stopped. It is also widely acknowledged that American welfare state is soon to go bankrupt, and there is apparently no attempt to be made to rescue our country. Congress, even with Republican control is unable to break the Democrat obstruction, as the past has shown.

And yet, let's not forget that the foundation of the liberal regime in this country is federal power to prosecute the people who attempt to withdraw their monetary support of the welfare state. You have to support it with your taxes - or you will be sent to jail. Same applies to environmental laws, labor laws and the like. Until today, the executive branch was expected to prosecute all the dissenters from the welfare state, and the president was powerless to stop this. But what has happened this Friday? President Obama is now demonstrating that the motivated president can refuse to uphold the law, and prosecute the people who openly violate it. In other words, he is setting the precedence that the enormous federal power to prosecute (which is the foundation of American liberalism) can be simply set aside by the President. As it stands today, the President cannot arbitrarily prosecute his opponents, but he can, if he so decides, remove the entire oppressive power of the federal apparatus. This means that the sole pillar of liberalism, the threat of federal violence has been dramatically weakened, and Republicans can remove it if they elect a conservative president. It is no longer necessary to have a complete control of Congress to reform the welfare state - the president can simply declare that people who refuse to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes will not be prosecuted. Moreover, he may unilaterally cut federal taxes, union laws and environmental regulations without the need for a protracted and most likely unsuccessful struggle in Congress.

Does it mean that we won? No, but it means we now have an opening. In order to satisfy his narcissistic desires to "fundamentally change the country", as well as his angry response to the rejection by American voters, Obama removed a major defense wall around the welfare state.
Will the Republicans use Obama's error? If we make sure that the man we elect to serve in the White House has the guts to defend this country, and people in Congress won't surrender, we may have a chance to stop this country from falling into the abyss. The only other alternative would be to appeal to the Armed Forces and remind them they took an oath to protect this country from all enemies, foreign and domestic - but that is the step few people are ready to call for.

Monday, November 17, 2014

More shoes to drop

Now that the elections are over, it's time for reality to re-assert itself. Obama administration was able to postpone some of the things after the elections in order to limit the damage, but the clock is up.

Obamacare is here again
As Karl Marx liked to say, "It's no accident", that Obamacare enrollment was postponed until after the elections. Moreover, insurance companies were told not to disclose the prices for premiums. Well, starting yesterday, Saturday, November 15th, the Obamacare exchanges were up. Expect the obvious - the premiums will be higher, the website will have bugs, and the deductibles will be higher than before. And employer insurances will be expensive too. In short, there is a reason why Obama postponed the sign-up time this year by 1.5 months - and it's not because he had so much confidence in it.

Deadline on negotiations with Iran

The official deadline to reach a deal on Iranian nuclear program is November 24th, which is just a few weeks after the elections. Do not forget that Obama unilaterally, without consultation with Congress, shut down the sanctions against the "Islamic Republic" in naïve hopes that it would appease the Mullahs, and they would stop their efforts to build nuclear bombs. Of course, the Mullahs correctly understood this as American surrender. It's quite clear that Iran will not cease its nuclear efforts, and any treaty will be meaningless. Of course, after boasting about the success of his negotiations with Iran, Obama is in a tough spot now.

Ebola in America
It's been widely reported that the media complied with the regime's demand to seize reporting on the spread of Ebola in the USA. The problem is - there are about 150 people coming to the USA from Ebola-infected areas in Africa each week. Moreover, thousands of American soldiers will at some point have to come back. If only 1 out of 100 Africans coming to the USA have Ebola, that means we have 3 Ebola cases each two weeks. And don't forget that the chances of surviving Ebola in Africa are less than 20%, and American borders are wide open. Is it too difficult to imagine that at some point every middle class African, who suspects he has a case of Ebola, would be stupid not to try to come to America. Moreover, the flu season is upon us, and there will be thousands of suspected cases of Ebola. Is our medical system ready for this? Clearly not. And don't underestimate the frustration of thousands of unionized medical workers, who will strike if they suspect they are in danger. The next two-three months may be quite interesting...

The war against ISIS
Only a few months ago, the smartest president of all times, announced that ISIS was a mere JV team. How quickly things change. Today, ISIS is simultaneously advancing in Syria and Iraq, destroying everything that stands in the way. Obama has finally responded to  this onslaught with a few pinpricks, and delayed fighting back until after the elections. Well, the elections are over, and it seems the situation is calling for more than a few bombs dropped into the camel's behind. If America does not want to see the fall of Baghdad, American troops will have to take the fight into their own hands. In other words, Obama's withdrawal from Iraq was a strategic mistake and must be reversed.

Illegals bringing deadly diseases
It's been widely reported in the media that since the latest inrush of illegal immigrants from South of the border, there was an explosion in new deadly diseases. The federal government refuses to speculate whether these diseases were brought to US by the illegals, but the chances are that they were. The media refused to discuss this before the elections, but it is very likely that this story will get a life of its own in the near future.

Finally, the economy
The federal bank is slowly raising interests rates, which is most likely due to the fears of the run-away inflation. At the same time, Europe is still in recession, Russian tanks are fighting in Ukraine, and the Middle East is more combustible than ever. The oil prices are going down, which is helping the US economy, but the employment is still well below historic levels, and the federal government is run by unusually incompetent people. It's quite possible that America will enter another recession by the end of 2015.

IRS and other dirty games
Apparently, the IRS did not even attempt to find the "missing" emails of Louis Lerner, the government bureaucrat who organized the illegal targeting of conservative groups. This became known only a few days after the election. I hope the Republicans in the House and Senate will finally wake up and put some pressure on the IRS to reveal the details behind the secret operation to silence the opposition. It can be expected that in the next two years, we will find a lot of new facts about the IRS war with conservatives.

And one more thing. It's been reported that the polls were widely inaccurate leading to the 2014 midterm elections. While the media outlets offered a number of explanations for this puzzling case, there was one hypothesis that was not discussed. What if some conservative voters hesitated to share their political views with the pollsters? What if some of them decided that some of the liberal polling groups may be sharing the data with the IRS in order to punish the enemies of the president? It may seem far-fetched, or does it?

Sunday, March 9, 2014

Who to blame for the Russian invasion of the Crimea

I often hear these days a constant refrain among liberals that Republicans put too much blame on president Obama for the actions of Putin. After all, it's the Russian strongman who invaded Crimea, not Barack Obama. I think this view is emotional and ahistorical. Vladimir Putin is a former KGB officer, a man with clear and unambiguous views on communism and Russian nationalism. He is a predator, a killer, a man who will take what he wants by force or deceit.  It is in his nature to attack the weak if it profits him. To blame Putin for the invasion into Ukraine is like blaming the fox for stealing your chickens. The person who is truly to blame is the man who let the barn open, who let Putin think  that he could take Crimea with few consequences. And that man is Obama, the president of the United States, the very person whose weak foreign policy made the Ukrainian invasion inevitable.

Tuesday, April 30, 2013

The meaning of words

One of the weapons of propaganda is a continuous effort to influence the language itself. As Orwell said in "1984", the goal is to change the language to the point when no "wrong" thoughts can be expressed. Since Obama's take over in 2009, the nation could see a number of rather peculiar attempts of the White House at newspeak. Terrorist attacks became "man-caused disaster". A terror attack by a deranged Islamist were characterized as "workplace violence", while Time magazine speculated if major Hasan contracted the Post-Tramautic Stress Disorder from the returning soldiers. American were told that the worst tragedy of the Fort Hood attack could be "And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that's worse." Apparently, the need to hire supporters of Islamic terrorism is what constitutes diversity in the eyes of the Obama administration, and "not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength" which should we cannot afford to lose.

Obama administration seemed to decided that it was a great idea to test how far they can push the absurd in our everyday life. Charles Bolden, the administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, listed Obama's priorities for NASA: "One, he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math; he wanted me to expand our international relationships; and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science and engineering — science, math and engineering." A careful observer would notice that space exploration was not in the top 3 goals of NASA - but making Moslems feel better about themselves was.

The mainstream media obviously is trying to follow the lead of their leader. As a political gesture, AP (a media monopoly) outlawed the term "illegal immigrant". Apparently, some people (i.e. liberals) did not like the term, and it only made sense that AP had to follow orders from the crowd. 

Recently, my attention was caught by the CNN's article (other news outlets are no better). In the wake of the Moslem Boston bombing, CNN published an article on terrorism. Here is the offending passage:

Of the 380 individuals indicted for acts of political violence or for conspiring to carry out such attacks in the U.S. since 9/11, 77 were able to obtain explosives or the components necessary to build a bomb, according to a count by the New America Foundation.

Of those, 48 were right-wing extremists, 23 were militants inspired by al Qaeda's ideology, five have been described as anarchists and one was an environmentalist terrorist.

There are a few interesting notes here. Firstly, White racists, anti-semites and nut-cases are arbitrarily called "right-wing" - even though there is little ideological correlation between most of these people except their support for terrorism.

On the other side, Moslem terrorists, united in their Moslem faith are claimed to be "inspired by al Qaeda's ideology". Left-wing, progressive terrorists are assigned a misnomer of "anarchists", as if those people were extreme followers of Bakunin. Any objective person would see a bias in CNN's reporting - and a more careful observer would note that this is clearly an attempt of influencing the nation's mind through changes in vocabulary.

It's also interesting to note that Scott Roeder,  a schizophrenic, and a member of the pseudo-anarchist group "Sovereign Citizen Movement" who killed an abortionist is also characterized as "right-wing". In general, any anti-abortion group is claimed to be right-wing - and this highlights a rather peculiar dichotomy. Doctor Kermit Gosnell, an infamous abortionist is personally responsible for murdering hundreds if not thousands of babies through so-called "abortions". Many of the children were murdered outside the womb (although it is left unexplained what is the major difference between killing a 24 week viable baby inside the woman or beheading it later). Dozens of people from Gosnell's medical personal, Planned Parenthood, government officials,  and numerous of his patients covered up his crimes. And yet, all these people, clear supporters of abortion without limits, are never classified as "liberal", "left-wing" or "progressive". Common sense would dictate that if freedom of abortion is a dividing line between right-wing and left-wing, then Doctor Gosnell would clearly fall in the category of a hard-core progressive individual. A media outlet which seeks the truth would also note that Barack Obama, then an Illinois senator, objected to the proposed law that would have made Gosnell's behavior illegal.

I have little doubt that my readers will find other numerous examples of the left-wing attempt to change our vocabulary. A few additional examples would include "kinetic military action" as a substitute for "war", as well as "diversity" and "affirmative action" as code words for "discrimination based on race".

The article will not be complete if I did not share the euphemism that I invented - "reverse reverse discrimination" to denote the reaction of White Americans to "affirmative action".

Monday, April 29, 2013

Smart foreign policy

In 2011, America got a splendid gift from the Middle East - the Syrian "reformer" and John Kerry's "Dear Friend" finally got in trouble with his own population. Today, Syria is battleground, a place where Iranian Revolutionary Guard and Lebanese Hezbollah fight against Al Qaeda. The war between American bitter enemies brings to mind Henry Kissinger's famous quip about the Iran-Iraq war: "It's a shame they can't both lose". What a smart US president would do in this case? He would try to stay as non-committal as possible, and say his thanks to God that helped his country.

But being a smart president is not something Barack Obama is capable of doing. As someone previously noted, ""He wants to be the bride at every wedding, the corpse at every funeral, and the baby at every christening". And so Obama, in the best traditions, "acted stupidly" - he decided that the world simply cannot survive if he keeps him mouth shut - and he announced that if Assad used chemical weapons, that would be a game changer, and would provoke America to do something really-really drastic.

And in 2013 it became undeniable that Assad used the chemical weapons against the rebels - and even Obama's Secretary of Defense conceded that fact - together with about half a dozen countries. It also became quite clear that our president has no idea what to do next and even felt remorseful for "acting stupidly". If Obama ignores the use of chemical weapons, the world will judge him and the country as non-serious. Israel will finally conclude that all Obama's pronouncements about nuclear Iran were worthless. If Obama decides to send the US troops to fight in Syria, he will screw up a perfectly fine conflict between Iran and Al Qaeda - and Syria will likely look even worse than Libya after Obama's war.

Even the Democrats noticed that Obama put the credibility of this country on the line. Rep. David Cicilline, a Democratic member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said that “There’s no question that when the United States takes a position that this crosses a line, that our failure to respond has implications. So that if we, in fact, determine that chemical weapons were used, I think the expectation is that we and the coalition and others take some action.”

The most amazing thing about our president is that he is capable to take a perfectly good situation and turn it against the interests of this country. This man has a serious talent of turning anything he touches into shit. Too bad American people were stupid enough to elect him twice. We all will pay for this in the decades to come.

Monday, April 15, 2013

The terror attack in Boston fits the Islamist MO

It's always wise to wait until all the data are collected before pronouncing any conclusions on who could be the guilty party. You don't want to sound like the mainstream media that is infamous for always blaming some mythical right-wing extremists for the acts of terror. Here are the 6 most recent examples of this sloppy (and incorrect) analysis by the media outlets:

  • ABC’s Brian Ross tries to blame the Tea Party for the Aurora attack.
  • Reuters Foundation Fellow Jonathan Curiel blames "racism" for the attack by professor Bishop.
  • Think Progress proclaimed that James Lee (a man who took hostages in the Discovery Communications headquarters in Silver Spring, Md).
  • Andrew Sullivan and Stephanie Miller blamed GOP, Fox News and the Tea Party for the death of United States Census Bureau William Edwin “Bill” Sparkman.
  • New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg,  Nation’s Robert Dreyfuss and the folks from Daily Kos blamed conservatives for the attempted bombing of the Times Square.
  • Jonathan Capehart from the Washington Post and Chris Rovzar from New York Magazine blamed the Republicans and the Tea Party for Andrew Joseph Stack kamikaze-style attack on the IRS building.
  • And last but not least - most of the mainstream media blamed Sarah Palin for Jared Loughner's attack on Giffords and other government officials.
Of course, all this pales in comparison with liberals blaming the deaths of JFK (killed by a communist) and RFK (killed by a socialist Palestinian) on, as you would guess it, the right-wing conservatives.
The other side of the story, is, of course, Barack Obama, bizarrely asking the public not to jump to conclusions about the Fort Hood attack by a Moslem terrorist, who screamed "Allah Akbar before gunning down American soldiers.
I will try to walk a thin line between these two extremes and instead will use logic and reason to guess who was the terrorist who bombed the Boston marathon.
A logical analysis of the facts would point in the direction of Islamic terrorism. Firstly, I cannot remember any non-Islamist attacks in US in recent history which would be similar to the attacks in Boston. An attack by the KKK on black churches was 50 years ago, and was specifically targeting people of color. The Oklahoma City bombing was an attack on a federal building, and the perpetrator claimed that civilians were not targeted on purpose.

Numerous progressive terrorists (from Obama's friends, Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers to Occupy Wall Street as well as so-called "Animal Rights" activists) don't fit the profile either - it's unlikely they would attack marathon runners on the streets of Boston. Numerous non-Islamic terror groups (from IRA to Basques and Kurds) are unlikely to have any interest in attacking American cities.

Boston marathon attack was specifically designed as an attack on all Americans, without any distinction of color, race or connection to the federal government. The attack also showed a rather sophisticated use of multiple explosive devices, armed with ball bearings in order to result in maximum number of civilian damage, and timed in order to hurt the police and the medical personal which are expected to rush to scene and provide help to the wounded. The relevant terrorist attacks which resemble the Boston massacre are Islamist attacks in Israel, Europe, Bali - and the latest three attacks in the US - namely the attacks in Portland and two attacks in New York (New York Federal Reserve building and Times Square). If I were a terror profiler, I would conclude that the Boston bombing was a terrorist attack by Islamists with a high degree of confidence.

Thursday, February 28, 2013

A few words at this late hour

1. American "Progressives" have as much in common with progress as "People's Democracies" had with democracy.

2. Prime-minister of Turkey recently compared Zionism (a movement which supports the self-determination of the Jewish people) with anti-Semitism and fascism. For those who are not following the Turkish politics - Erdogan a big friend of Hamas, an Islamic terrorist group. In case you are wondering, Obama considers Erdogan to be among his top 5 closest foreign world leaders.

3. There are relatively few articles about the Kurdish war for independence in Turkey, and the media apparently don't want to give their struggle any publicity - as well as the Turkish military campaign against the Kurdish freedom fighters. The media and liberal academia clearly treat the Kurdish fighters much worse than, say, the PLO or Hezbollah. Is it because the Kurds do not target Jewish women and children?

4. According to liberal lobbyist, "The bad news is, the world doesn’t end March 2 [The first day of sequester]. The worst-case scenario for us is the sequester hits and nothing bad really happens." Even before the sequester took effect, Obama's administration grounded a US aircraft career, and freed thousands of criminals from jail. Moreover, Obama and his people promise numerous hardships for the American people if the sequester is not stopped. The sequester "cuts" federal budget by 45 billion dollars in 2013, which amounts to about 1% of the federal budget. Even this datum is rather optimistic on the cuts - the actual federal budget in 2013 will be larger than in 2012 according to experts. One of the arguments against the sequester is that the cuts are "dumb" and the Obama administration will be forced to cut essential services - and yet, when the GOP proposed a legislation that would give Obama more flexibility in the budget cuts, he promised to veto it. It is projected by many that the Obama administration will most likely use the sequester cuts in the ways most painful to the American citizens. This brought to my mind a dictionary definition of "sabotage":

sabotage (ˈsæbəˌtɑːʒ) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]
the deliberate destruction, disruption, or damage of equipment, a public service, etc, as by enemy agents, dissatisfied employees, etc

I am curious if Obama can be impeached for deliberate destruction of  public service for political gain. Would it qualify as "high crimes and misdemeanors"?

5. The Democrat party is determined to introduce a bill that would require "universal background check for gun purchases". I presume that the buyers would need to show their photo IDs, and the FBI would check their records for criminal activity and mental illness. Yet same Democrat party decried as draconian and racist the Republican proposals for voter IDs. I am curious if some gun activist will file a lawsuit against the background checks on the basis on their disparate impact on poor and minorities. Moreover, I would want to know why we allow mentally ill people to vote in presidential elections if they cannot be trusted to own guns. After all, votes do matter in this country, and voting for a wrong person may be more dangerous than a gun crime.

Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Let's talk about racism, Part 1

The topic of race and racism is one of the most dangerous in American public discussion. As Eric Holder, a highly controversial Attorney General said, "Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and we, I believe continue to be in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards.” He also added:

If we are to make progress in this area, we must feel comfortable enough with one another and tolerant enough of each other to have frank conversations about the racial matters that continue to divide us...
"If we're going to ever make progress, we're going to have to have the guts, we have to have the determination, to be honest with each other. It also means we have to be able to accept criticism where that is justified," Holder told reporters after the speech.

I believe that Mr.Holder is right, and I will try to be brave and honest when discussing race in America. I promise to my reader that I will not be cowed by race mongers hurling insults at me for telling the truth to power.

Exhibit 1. Race resentment from the NYT and the academia

I was reading this article from the NYT, and its fallacies became immediately apparent to me. The article is called "How Much Does Race Still Matter?" and it purports to examine the effects of Obama's election on the racial resentment in America. The first obvious flaw of the article is that all the research quoted by the author examines exclusively the attitude of White Americans versus Black Americans. The article itself concedes that there are 32% more Hispanics than Blacks - and yet, the author fails to find any research articles that examine the racial resentment between Blacks and Hispanics, let alone Asians and Blacks (and vice verse). The author also does not even attempt to discuss the racial prejudice towards White people in America - and given the ubiquity of institutional racism in universities and employment (the so-called "affirmative action"), this blindness to the obvious is unexplainable.

But what bothered me most is the article's discussion of a set of questions (put together by Tesler and Sears) which purportedly showed (if answered "incorrectly") a person's "explicit anti-black attitudes". The author conceded that not everyone agreed with these questions, but apparently, a lot of scientists did agree with Tesler.

I believe it would be educational for my readers to answer these questions (and read my own replies) and then debate which answers could be judged as demonstrating "explicitly anti-black attitudes".

1) Irish, Italian, Jewish and many other minorities overcame prejudice and worked their way up. Blacks should do the same without any special favors.

For some undisclosed reason, the questioners decided to ignore the multiple non-White minorities that were able to over-come the prejudice and work their way up in the American society. These, of course, include the Chinese, Koreans, Indians, and Japanese, Arabs, Persians, Thai, Malaysians and Vietnamese. If anything, the people from these minorities can claim higher median income than the White people. It is also quite well-known, that all minorities suffered discrimination's (and many of them are still discriminated in university admissions and job applications) both by the government and the private business. Indeed, discrimination against Asians is legal today, and is even openly promoted by the federal, state and local governments. And yet, in spite of that, these groups are extremely successful in the US. Based on this undeniable evidence, I am forced to conclude that the Blacks can and should achieve success in this country without any "special favors". I would even contend that any "special favors" would prove to be disastrous to the Blacks and the race relations.

2) Generations of slavery and discrimination have created conditions that make it difficult for blacks to work their way out of the lower class.

Tens of millions of poor, illiterate minority immigrants came to the US in the 20th century, and in spite of continuous discrimination were able to achieve the living standards far above the level of the White Americans. There is absolutely no reason to presume that American Blacks cannot achieve the same success.

 3) Over the past few years, blacks have gotten less than they deserve.

Given the wide-spread usage of "affirmative action" which explicitly discriminates against White and Asian workers and applicants, and given the fact that the US economy is mostly free, there is no evidence to suggest that the Blacks "got less than they deserve." In fact, the opposite may actually be quite true.

4) It’s really a matter of some people not trying hard enough; if blacks would only try harder they could be just as well off as whites.

Given the history of minority empowerment in America, it is beyond any doubt that the Blacks may achieve much more than the Whites if they demonstrate the same level of dedication to success as Asian-Americans and Jewish-Americans have in the 20th century.

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Liberty and justice for all: Continued

As man is free, we say he exists for his own sake and not for another's
Aristotle, "Metaphysics"

My previous article on liberty and justice (which I also re-posted on a popular political website Alexandria) received a number of responses - including a post specifically written as a direct criticism of my letter.  I will try to write a response to this post as soon as the time permits - but as a quick summary I must confess to be astonished that a post so verbose, and which clearly required some effort from the author was amazingly brilliant at completely missing the point of my original post.

But the most confused and therefore more delightful response to my article was produced by the Wired Sisters, a regular writer (or a group of writers) at Alexandria, and I decided to reproduce it here in its entirety (see below):

Whose freedom? Must the Catholic church be “free” to keep its employees from getting contraceptives on their employer’s health insurance, or should those employees be “free” to spend their health care dollars any way they deem appropriate? Should the slave owners in the antebellum South have been “free” to own their slaves, or should the slaves have been free to choose their own work and homes? Should Lester Maddox have been “free” to decide who all got to eat in his fried chicken place, or should African-American citizens of the state of Georgia have been free to decide where to eat lunch? There is no such thing as absolute freedom. Everybody’s freedom can conceivably, at some point, intersect with and impede somebody else’s. Justice lies in the balancing act between them.
At first I thought that Wired Sisters was rather confused in her discussion of liberty, that she refused to discuss "liberty" as a term with an actual meaning and instead attempted to build an emotional argument against my article. But then I thought about it some more, and reached a different conclusion - while somewhat confused, Wired Sister's did follow a certain pattern, which will become obvious when her reply is put in the proper context. In order to trace the roots of Wired Sister's thinking, I will reach into the past and seek enlightenment from our great forefathers. For example, Abraham Lincoln, the founder of the Republican Party, addressed the very question of liberty in 1864, and had this to say:

The world has never had a good definition of the word liberty, and the American people, just now, are much in want of one. We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatable things, called by the same name———liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatable names———liberty and tyranny.

It is known which definition of liberty Lincoln and his Republican Party believed in 1864, while it's also apparent what the pro-slavery party, the DNC chose as their version of "liberty". The most remarkable thing is that in spite of all the amazing changes that we have seen in our nation during the last 150 years, the demarcation line between the main political parties remains largely unaltered.

It's beyond any doubt today which party believes that liberty is "for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor", and which party thinks that liberty is "for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor." As if to demonstrate the first line of thinking, Friedrich Hayek, an intellectual leader of modern day conservatism who influenced such major historical figures as Churchill, Goldwater, Thatcher and Reagan, defines liberty as:  "The state in which a man is not subject to coercion by the arbitrary will of another or others". He continues: "Freedom thus presupposes that the individual has some assured private sphere, that there is some set of circumstances in his environment with which others cannot interfere".

Barack Obama famously counters this with "You did not build that" and "I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money". Rawls, a famous liberal philosopher argued (as summarized by Richard Posner) that "no one should be allowed to keep more of his earnings than necessary to 'incentivize' him to exert himself in a way that will maximize the social product."

It is quite obvious that the definition that Hayek and Lincoln used -  could not or would not resolve ALL the issues that society may need to confront in regards to individual liberty, but it is undeniable that we can use it as a guiding star in our discussion. For example, it's easy to see that freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of association are obvious components of the general freedom that we are discussing, while "freedom to handouts" is clearly not.

And this brings me back to the series of questions asked by the Wired Sisters - and it becomes apparent that it can be easily answered based on the values and views of the Republican Party of Lincoln and Hayek.

Of course, freedom is a gift for everyone. And yes, Catholic Church may choose which medical insurance plans it offers to its employees for obvious reasons. No one is forced to become an employee of the Catholic Church, and no one has a right to force Catholic Church to buy any particular insurance for their employees. Anyone who does not like the insurance which is provided by the Catholic Church is free to seek other employment. This is the only policy that would protect the freedom of the Catholic Church and its employees.

When the government is prescribing the type of medical insurance or payment that Catholic Church provides to its employees, it is clearly violating the freedom of association. It's quite obvious that employees have no inherent right to be provided with a specific (or any) type of insurance as a reward for their work - because that would clearly violate the rights of the Catholic Church.

The alternative to freedom of association is to have someone to coerce Catholic Church at gun point to buy an insurance chosen by a third party - which is clearly morally wrong and unjust. And let's not forget, this is exactly what the Lincoln enemies in 1864 believed in - "for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor."

In order to underline the contrast between the Lincoln's Party and the Party of slavers, let me quote two significant economists from each camp. Frank Hyneman, a famous conservative economist and supporter of individual liberty said: "The primary function of government is to prevent coercion and so guarantee to every man the right to live his own life on terms of free association with his fellows".

Paul Krugman, a liberal icon had this to say: "“I believe in a relatively equal society, supported by institutions that limit extremes of wealth and poverty. I believe in democracy, civil liberties, and the rule of law. That makes me a liberal, and I’m proud of it.” 

While it's relatively clear how a legal system can built in accordance with ideas of Frank Hyneman, Krugman's "rule of law" clearly cannot coexist with the ill-defined institutions "that limit extremes of wealth and poverty", since neither can be defined, and the government will be operating based on the whims of the electorate.

Wired Sisters' questions about the slavery are actually quite peculiar. It is true that some White people in the South (and the North) believed that Black people were inherently inferior, and thus could not be trusted to attend to his own affairs, and required the elite to be their "keepers". Moreover, freeing the slaves was supposed to be detrimental to the economy, and the "common good", and the blacks were better off as being a property of the  kind-hearted white elites than being free people competing for employment  with evil non-feeling capitalists. Apparently, it was preferable being an actual slave than being a "wage slave" (a term popular with Democrat slavers 150 years ago and Democrat liberals of today).  It's quite uncanny how DNC arguments against freedom for slaves  in the 19th century shown here and here were preserved to become the arguments against individual liberty in the 20th century.

The most amazing thing is that Lincoln's arguments targeting the Democrat Party could be used today when debating individual liberty. For example this passage from Lincoln's speech would make any supporter of individual liberty smile, because it perfectly explains why left-wing belief in anointed elites running the lives of hoi polloi is silly:
You mean the whites are intellectually the superiors of the blacks, and, therefore have the right to enslave them? Take care again. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with an intellect superior to your own.

Wired's Sisters issues with Lester Maddox can too be easily resolved if we follow Lincoln and Hayek. While Maddox bigotry against Black customers is shameful, he has a right to refuse service to anyone. While I surely sympathise with the people who are upset about his behavior, it's undeniable that no one, Black or White has an inherent right to demand someone to work for them - and this includes cooking food at the restaurant. You simply cannot force other people to associate with you - your freedom ends exactly where other man's freedom begins. No one can have a claim on other people's labor - and Lester Maddox may be an evil man, but he is no one's slave.

Wired Sisters is, of course, correct that no one's freedom is absolute, and we may think of many different situations where the definition of liberty used in this article may prove to be insufficient. And yet, the words of Lincoln and Hayek must be our guarding light, and it is quite clear that all the situations that Wired Sisters was able to conjure are easily resolved without any conflict between the freedoms of different people.

In conclusion, I want to emphasize that contrary to liberal view, there is also no inherent conflict between justice and liberty, and justice may only exist in a free society, where people are free to choose. One may also claim that  liberty and justice are inseparable...