Russian invasion of Ukraine - a conspiracy theory

 For the last few weeks I was utterly puzzled by Putin’s actions. They make little sense. Why has he built up the Russian troops around Ukraine, why the belligerent ultimatum to the USA (an ultimatum which was predictably hopeless)? Why the relentless propaganda campaign in Russian media about the coming war? Putin seems to be betting all his money on a war with Ukraine. But why? 

Why would he want to invade Ukraine? The cost of doing it vastly exceeds all potential benefits to his regime. The invasion is likely to endanger his rule. The human and economic toll will be staggering. Even though Ukraine does not possess a strong military, its troops have enough weapons to make the invasion very costly to Russia. And once Russian people experience the constant flow of dead and wounded, the economic collapse, the population may turn sharply against the dictator. Moreover, people surrounding Putin are not will to sacrifice their quality of life, their expensive palaces and wineries in Europe, shopping trips to the best stores and vacations at ski resorts. 

On the other side, Putin’s propaganda made his backing away from his current posture very damaging to his reputation. 

Is then Putin bluffing? Has he committed a costly mistake? Is he crazy and irrational?

I was thinking about this situation for quite a while, and here are my conclusions.

Putin is a very calculating man. I remember reading a report by some American reporters who went to Putin’s dacha for lunch and an interview. Among other things, they reported that throughout the discussion, Putin was holding a glass of champagne in his hand, and yet, he has never took a sip. For a Russian, to have a glass of wine in his hand and never take a sip? Such a behavior betrays a man of a very strong will.

But let’s go to the more objective points. Russia has suffered tremendously from the Wuhan virus, reportedly more than a million people are dead. Economy is doing badly, people are disillusioned, the conquest of Crimea is a distant memory. And things are getting worse and worse. 

A war in Ukraine may produce a quick jolt in Putin’s popularity, but the excitement will be short lived, who,eu the war won’t. So why is Putin doing it? What’s the back up plan? 

I think I found a logical solution. I believe Putin made a deal with Xi, the Chinese dictator. Putin’s invasion of Ukraine will be followed by the Chinese invasion of Taiwan. Note that invading Taiwan with its leadership in computer chips as well as computer manufacturing is a much more debilitating strike to the world economy than the Russian invasion of Ukraine. 

Does Xi want or even need to invade Taiwan? For one, it has been widely reported that Chinese economy is doing badly. The Chinese debt crisis, malinvestment, housing bubble are a well known issue. The Wuhan virus has devastated the Chinese economy. Moreover, Chinese exceedingly harsh methods to contain the spread of the virus seem to be going on in perpetuity. I find it hard to believe that Chinese people are not grumbling about it. And let’s not forget that it’s becoming more and more clear that it was China which is at fault for the virus, the lab leak theory is now well accepted around the globe. The international retribution is to be expected.

Lastly, let’s not forget that the Chinese Olympic Games will most likely cause an explosion of the virus cases in China, and the country will have to close up again - and even then its ability to deal with omicron is very questionable, as well as the efficacy of the Chinese vaccine. 

If nothing drastic is done, China will face multiple crises on different fronts, which the regime may not be able to resolve or even survive. A Taiwan invasion will unite the county though, and allow the government to implement even more drastic measures of population control. Moreover, the conquest of Taiwan has been a long dream of the Chinese politburo. But China needs some diversion - they would rather not do it cold turkey. The Russian invasion of Ukraine would be such a diversion. 

For Putin, the Chinese invasion of Taiwan would be god sent - he would be able to position himself as a middle man between China and the west. The sanctions against Russia may be dropped or eased. His control of a large chunk of Ukraine may even be de-facto recognized by the West. 

And let’s not forget that Biden is seen as exceedingly weak, and ineffective leader, America is at war with itself (and the mythical “white privilege”), nato is disintegrating, Europe in economic crisis. It’s unlikely that there will be a better time for Putin and Xi to start the conquest. 

What do you think? I give about 20% chance to this conspiracy theory to be true. But it is a very logical theory, and it explains some unexplainable things. 

Amazing turn of events

For a long while I believed that liberals support liberal policies because they are either unfamiliar with conservative arguments or unable to comprehend them. For example when NPR interviews the liberal economic experts, it’s very rare that they are challenged with the questions which are obvious to a person who a rather mundane knowledge of economics.

For example, a liberal economist who argues that the cuts to corporate taxes are a handout to the rich, is never confronted with an obvious fact that corporate taxes are taxes on consumers.

I always imagined that this is due to the fact that most of NPR journalists are wholly ignorant of the economic science. Imagine my surprise when I recently turned on the the radio, and was informed by a number of economic experts on the very same NPR that president Trump’s tariffs on the steel imports are nothing more than taxes on American consumers. Similar arguments were made on yahoo against the proposed tariffs on the Chinese imports. It was as if a gang of libertarian economists took control of these liberal institutions.

But in reality, these were the same people being interviewed by the same journalists, same left-wing experts writing articles bashing president Trump and conservatives.

In other words, the general liberal position on taxes can be be summarized as follows:

• American taxes on the US corporations are taxes on the wealthy. Any attempt to cut US corporate taxes is a handout to the richest 1 percent, a giveaway that neither the rich, nor the corporations need or even want to have. The positive effects to the economy of a cut to corporate taxation will be minimal, and the growth of the budget deficits will have a profound negative effect on the country.
• American taxes on Chinese corporations which import goods into the United States are taxes on the American consumers. Any attempt to raise the taxes on the Chinese corporations will make the goods more expensive to the American people and will cause highly detrimental effects the American economy and may lead to recession and larger budget deficits.

In summary: 

High taxes on US corporations: Good.

High taxes on Chinese corporations: Bad.

And yet some people are upset when it is said that liberals are anti-American.

In many cases it’s fair to say that liberals do not understand economic science. But in other cases their claims can be more easily explained by their general dislike of America. it’s not that they don’t understand conservative arguments - the issue is that they want to promote policies which have  negative effects on this country. 

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. 

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 pneumonia, and 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!

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.

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. 

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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".

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.

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.

 

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)
— n
	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.