Sunday, January 28, 2018

Equally distributed talent

I just watched one of those social justice warrior commercials where the announcer broadly claimed, "The world we live in equally distributes talent, but not opportunity."

This is the SJW battle cry, and the second part of that that was unsaid, was "The US is the worst offender of this unequal distribution of opportunity. And behind that is the patriarchy."

Nothing could be further from the truth. But the liberal mindset can't handle the truth. In a ironic mockery of that liberal bastion of power and prejudice, A Few Good Men, written by a liberal heroin addict, who never served a day in his life, there was one perfect line to describe the SJW world view, you can't handle the truth.

The truth, my little snowflakes, is that you are not special. Mike Rowe has been harping this for a few years now. In a grimy little sandpit in MCRD San Diego, and on the side of a muddy cliff in Camp Pendleton I learned this the hard way.

Now we're seeing this on a broad scale across the country on an election held over a year ago. They can't handle the truth. As Daniel Greenfield pointed out, this is how a civil war happens.  We have almost half of this country that believes that the US is a racist, homophobic, misogynistic, group of white men who must be stopped at all costs. W must lose our careers, our personal property, and eventually our lives. Make no mistake, that is their agenda. The strangest thing, is they have white guys on their side who believe this also. Don't believe me, look at the videos.

So, being the member of an endangered species, and slowly being backed up to a wall, gentlemen, there was one other thing the Marines taught me, one thing I suggest you all heed.

Prepare yourself

Tuesday, January 9, 2018

The Big Grift

It wasn't amazing to find the Clintons' hand up Lady Liberty's skirt, selling favors to American rivals at the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. What would be amazing, would be anyone shocked at the spectacle.

A secretary of state, who after being a senator for years, decides to have her own email server. This is an interesting development in her career, no? She was a senator before she became Secretary of State. Why now? What changed?

It was the deep state silly.

When Clinton was a senator, she didn't direct access to deep state policies and paperwork. Not really. Senators don't run agencies. Once Hillary had her own agency, she and Bill must of cooked up this scheme to milk it for all that it was worth. But they had one major problem. Any deals they made via State could not be done on a government server, there would be direct evidence.

Even more troubling, is the amount of corruption and collusion that we've seen from the deep state and the media. These people sold the State Department for hundreds of millions of dollars in the biggest grift in U.S. Government history, and the amount of obfuscation and willfull ignorance on the part of both embedded deep state employees and media outlets is astounding.

I laughed a little when I heard Trump say "Drain the swamp." It was a catchy phrase, and Trump is the master of branding things. And I knew there was corruption there, it was the small-time contractor gets contract for paybacks, but hey, the IG will root it out, they'll be some headlines, the bad guys will go to jail. Not a big deal.

Except of you're a deep state elite. The media will come out and throw their reputations away to protect you. Just look at the parade of clowns from Washington and New York, from ABC to CNN, of useful idiots pushing the Russia collusion obfusticator to derail the story on the Big Grift, and getting caught with their hand in the urine dossier.

Normally a story such as the the Big Grift would make even a Democrat run for the hills. But today's Democrat knows no shame. If the offender was a deep state elite, she had an addiction. She was a victim too. Hillary is addicted to money and power, was it really her fault?

Except if he was a white male, then he can be sacrificed. Lately we've seen a spate of deep state donor elite sacrifices, maybe as a distraction from the Big Grift, maybe it's just a coincidence. Detectives don't like coincidences. Perhaps this is a crescendo whose end result was to make Trump resign. And now the Democrats will feel some remorse. Did they go too far? Trump's still President, and they threw all these earners under the bus. Sure they were perverts and pedophiles, but we're Democrats, we've always been full of perverts and pedophiles.

No worries. We still have Soros and Bezos. The 'os will save us. 

Thursday, January 4, 2018

Civil War

This is in response to E.M. Cadwaladr's piece on the shape of another civil war.

1) "It would not look like the first American Civil War."

Agreed, for the most part. But almost all wars have their roots in the economy, as will this one. The Left want your money. They're Marxists, and like all Marxists, they want the cash. 

2) "The US is not as regionally aggregated as it was for the last civil war." 

Agreed, we are now a nation of islands. In the first civil war, the border areas where were the worst fighting raged, at least at the beginning. But this really won't matter, as the leftist islands have no weapons, and more importantly, they lack the will to actually fight. 

3) "A second American Civil War would be much more similar to the Spanish Civil War, with the leftists dominating the cities and conservatives controlling the countryside."
Yes, the leftists dominate the city, but they don't have the police, and they don't have the National Guard. We have the guns, literally. I've even had many leftists tell me that guns scare them. And with the exception of the five percent thug ratio, they absolutely will not fight. If history has shown us anything, it's that a Marxist organization will be taken over by the five percent thugs very quickly. But that's not enough to win a war, against a well trained and well armed military.

4) "The collapse of the world’s remaining superpower would take much of the world down with it. A global economic crisis would be inevitable."

The US will not collapse. It didn't collapse after the first civil war, it was in fact, significantly stronger and a bigger player on the world stage after the first civil war. With the quick capitulation of the Left, an American first strategy will put the US in a better bargaining position in world markets than its ever been.

5) "The withdrawal of American forces from bases across the world to fight at home would also create a power vacuum that others, even under economic strain, would be tempted to exploit."

America has been strategically pulling out from it's bases for the last twenty years. Obama had no clear strategy, and gutted the military. Some bad eggs have popped up from time to time, and China and Russia have been making aggressive moves. That would continue, up to the point where the war was over, after less than a year. Then look for the newly united country to reassert itself on the world stage as it did after the last civil war.

6) "Add to this the breakdown of our transportation system, dependent on oil and transecting one new front line after another. The internet would fail. It is a frail enough now. Financial systems would fail."

An armed conflict will cause shortages and outages, that's inevitable. But the lowering of taxes after the conflict, and the restructuring of government and corporate processes to a meritocracy versus the current leftist disaster will usher in an era of technology and business that will rejuvenate American culture.

As stated above, I agree with Calwadladr's view of the military, we have the military, and the police. The blue collar guys that keep the whole thing going have come over to our side after the unions failed them. And the left, will not fight. Hashtag resist is going to make the Marines laugh. We'll show you how Marines define resist. I'm sure you won't like it.

7) "...predicting a short war has usually proven to be a fool’s occupation."
Call me a fool here, but in some cases, like when one side won't fight, or is hopelessly out matched (First Gulf War) then you will get a short war. 

The question isn't how long it'll be, or how hard it will be. The real question is, what does the right do with the left after a civil war? The solution was given in a Star Trek TOS episode, The Trouble with Tribbles. The right will beam the whole kit and kaboodle over to the Klingons. Starting with the media, of course.

Wednesday, October 4, 2017

Lefty Duke Professor Claims US is violent Country, forgets to mention Demographics

Here we go again, another statist proffessor, claiming that the US is a violent country compared to the European socialism-lite utopias:

He just forgot one little detail. When you adjust for demographics, the U.S assault rate drops down to the blue line. This is usually announced by the 'comments are closed.' banner. But don't worry. Sweden is rapidly finding out how to adjust for demographics, and Germany is not too far behind. The statists will continue to claim that's the NRA and the Second Amendment. What they won't mention is that when you try to adjust that line for gun laws, it doesn't budge at all.

Monday, October 2, 2017

Preliminary Analysis on Las Vegas Shooting

1) It was well planned

The Shooter picked a good position to execute the attack. He as well armed, must have known about the concert, and probably scouted out different rooms for the attack.

2) He trained for the shooting

Due to the amount of damage done, the shooter trained for the event, with the weapons that he used.

3) It WAS political in nature

The shooter picked a Republican heavy event. Only eleven percent of liberals identify as county music fans. The shooter wanted to do as much damage to Republicans as he could, and make a statement that he wasn't powerless even though Trump won the election.

Conclusion: The shooting is a progressive terrorist attack on Republicans, the second this year after the Congressional baseball shooting. Fringe leftists are engaged in armed resistance against conservatives.

Wednesday, January 11, 2017

From the Shadows by Robert Gates

From the Shadows is a book by a member of one of the Washington establishment, Robert Gates. From the Shadows covers Gates' time at the CIA from 1969 to 1991. The book cover suggests that the book reveals the CIA under five presidents, but it mostly talks about Gate's interactions with the bureaucracy of the CIA and the various administrations, and reactions to various foreign actions. I say reactions here because they do a lot of forecasting and analysis, yet seem to be in a state of perpetual shock about events that aren't foreseen. Some highlights:

On page 47 Gates contends that detente under Nixon and Kissinger was successful, although liberals and conservatives agree (for different reasons) that detente was a failure. I would say this is faulty analysis. Viewed through the prism of history, detente was a failure, Reagan's policy of military and political strength to win the Cold War was much more successful.

On page 110 Gates contends that Carter wasn't as weak on defense as his critics contend, then details all the decisions that led to the critics making that conclusion, mostly Carter's decisions on weapons systems like the B-1. I would say that Carter's main foreign  opponents during his administration, the Iranians and the Soviets also believed that Carter was weak on defense and acted accordingly by taking the embassy in Tehran and invading Afghanistan. Here is a fundamental flaw that Gates and the rest of the Washington establishment seem to not get about leadership. It isn't about weapons systems and money, it's about backing up your words with steel when necessary. This may be a reflection of Gates service as an analyst, he was never a trigger puller, so he doesn't understand leadership, only management. He was an intelligence officer in the Air Force, but I don't really think that briefing ICBM crews in North Dakota or wherever makes you qualified as a trigger puller or head spook.

On page 190 Gates blamed his faulty analysis concerning Andropov in 1982 and the future (or lack thereof) of the Soviet Union on Andropov's short reign. But Andropov himself persuaded Brezhnev in 1981 to not invade Poland during the Solidarity movement, signaling an end to the Brezhnev doctrine which set up the conditions for the fall of the Soviet Union. Chief among those conditions being the Soviets lost their enthusiasm to intervene militarily in other states affairs after Afghanistan.

On page 208 Gates complains that the operators in in the early eighties weren't ethnically diverse enough. But he fails to mention that CIA recruited from the military officer ranks in high numbers, he himself was recruited this way. And the combat arms MOS's especially the special operations folks weren't too diverse either, even nowadays. And the special operations ranks are prime targets for CIA recruitment. This reveals another naive assumption that he doesn't explain well and once again shows a lack of realistic reasoning prevalent in the Washington Establishment and the among the CIA academics.

On page 293 Gates complains about the friction between CIA 'career professionals' and Casey. Apparently Casey and other 'right wingers' were skeptics about what the CIA analysts were putting out. Since the CIA seems to miss out on forecasting most of the main events of the latter half of the twentieth century most of the American population seems to share this skepticism. And of course there is the Iran Contra scandal which Gates spends a huge amount of time lamenting in the book. It's interesting that he talks so much about it in hindsight, nowadays the former Obama administration gives up $400 million to Iran for hostages and no one bats an eye.

On page 323 Gates sneeringly says "Finally, at least in Reagan's mind, the impression of American political and military weakness had been erased..." Gates takes down the Reagan administration at every opportunity in this novel and reveals the disdain the Washington establishment and he had for Reagan.

On 379 Gate complains that the operators complained that someone from the analytical side is taking over as Deputy Director of Central Intelligence. How did he expect them to act? How would any operator act if someone told them that a non-operator was taking control?

Don't get me wrong, the book is a good education on why the CIA gets so much wrong. Use it for that.

Wednesday, November 23, 2016

Federalist Paper No 17 Hamilton and Law Enforcement

Hamilton and Anarchy:

"There is one transcendent advantage belonging to the province of state governments, which alone suffices to place the matter in a clear and satisfactory light ... I mean the ordinary administration of criminal and civil justice."

The current political missteps of the Department of Justice have shown this to be the case, and a succession of disastrous appointments by the Obama administration to go after local law enforcement for policy transgressions such as Sheriff Arpaio in Maricopa County have certainly led credence to why the Federal Government can't be trusted with a national law enforcement agency.

And we can see now, where the feds get involved in legitimate law enforcement matters its a complete disaster. Thirteen years ago the FTC opened the National Do Not Call Registry, probably at a cost of many millions of dollars, to prevent people from receiving telemarketing calls. After 13 years and many revisions the program is completely ineffective and a waste of money. I myself receive between five and ten telemarketing calls a day, and don't answer my phone anymore, unless I can identify the number calling. The feds thought that enacting a law without enforcement would be sufficient. In 2009 the Obama administration declared victory in their 2009 Economic Report. The telemarketers are declaring victory every time my phone rings.

An even bigger failure is the feds enforcement of cyber security. My wife called me in a panic this morning because someone is sending out emails with virus attachments from an email address from her business. Someone spoofed the address, the attacker appears to be coming from China. Many of our government agencies have been hacked from foreign lands without repercussion, and many of our businesses. The federal government spends eighty billion a year on cybersecurity and many claim it isn't enough, that more needs to be spent. I beg to differ. More needs to be done not spent. But my point still is, the government does many things poorly, and as Hamilton points out, law enforcement is one of them.

This wasn't always the case. Legitimate civil rights issues were fought by the Justice Department when extreme transgressions in the South propagated . Yet know we see that any perceived social injustice, no matter how slight, even those involving statistics and not actual complaints that weren't politically motivated, will be attacked by the Justice Department when the Democrats are in power. But only for the right causes. When police officers are killed, or hunted, well, that's the states' problem.

Separation of powers was also meant to dilute the power of the federal government, with respect to the states. The word federalism itself is the system of government where the power is divided between state and federal governments. The twentieth century, and now the 21st has seen a steady erosion of federalism with the federal government taking more power with less success, more power inflicting the EPA on businesses, and the wielding of the federal budget to punish local governments that get out of line, whether it be law enforcement or education. This is the exact opposite of what the founders intended. The intended purpose of the federal government was to regulate state-to-state commerce and promote the federal defense. Erosion of local power, rampant crime, and an all powerful single federal government was the exact opposite of their intentions and the states would have never ratified the constitution if they knew the behemoth the federal government would grow into, the waste of tax payer dollars, and the wielding of power using money over the states.