Mainstream journalists unavailable to comment, their faces being buried in President Obama’s pants.
Muzzammil Hassan receives CAIR award
February 17, 2009
February 14, 2009
My 2024 Platform
Just in case I run for President of the United States in 2024, here is what you need to know.
The meaning of Neofederalism
New Federalism. A new perspective on the original positions of the Founding Fathers. It is the doctrine that government powers must be limited to as local a level as practical, whereas the federal government must be charged with the responsibility of enforcing the limitation of such powers at all levels. Government officials who violate the Constitution by attempting to exercise powers not granted to them should be promptly impeached and arrested for treason.
Why?
People need Neofederalism because the hazards of unchecked democracy are made most clear when various functions of government are permitted to operate at the wrong regional level. Great tension is frequently created when people of one political philosophy gain control of the government at the state or federal level, inflict their doctrines statewide or nationally, and thereby inevitably upset anyone who didn’t vote for them–a minority to be sure, but seldom less than 40 percent. It is necessary to bring as much government as possible to the most local level possible, so that individuals are not victimized by a government controlled by voter blocs with whom they have no direct interaction.
This is the overarching principle– that the proper chain of command be observed. The People are the final and sovereign rulers of America, and it is beyond any earthly authority to abridge their rights. The local governments should be the only ones that actually involve themselves in the affairs of individuals whenever possible. County governments should be limited to dealing with townships and municipalities as wholes whenever possible, state governments should be limited to dealing with counties as wholes whenever possible, and the federal government should be limited to dealing with states as wholes whenever possible.
Policies (more…)
February 13, 2009
It happened again and we deserved it
Unbelievable. The financial meltdown was set off by a run on money-market accounts. Half a trillion dollars was withdrawn in total, and could have snowballed into much more. What do we do? Stick our heads in the sand.
9/11/2001. Never forget
9/11/2008. Whoops, we forgot
You know what. We deserved that one. Not the attacks in 2001, but very much the financial attack in 2008. We deserved it because 2001 should have alerted us to a clear danger, but we turned the War on Terror into a masturbatory exercise in political correctness. We deserved it because we allowed the disciples of Muhammad to pervert the very counter-terrorism measures we took after the 2001 attacks into ensuring that absolutely no serious scrutiny be applied to the common core ideology that is responsible for nine out of ten— and that’s on a particularly diverse day— terrorist attacks worldwide .
If one really desired to deal a finishing blow to the ideology that gave us the September 11 attacks, and we understood that we would only be able to get away with invading one other country besides Afghanistan, the next target would have been Saudi Arabia, and certain cities in particular. Iraq would have been a good choice for a second nation only if there could have been a third. But what could have been, and what should have beeen, is not what is.
What we have in reality is a bad situation that was made worse by our choice of leader, whose domestic policies are just like George W. Bush’s except ten times more bloatedly monstrous, and without any of the redeeming qualities of at least having a clue with regard to how to deal with terrorists.
We are in for interesting times. Don’t expect His Obamitude to save you.
February 5, 2009
President Barack H. Obama is a fascist.
His Excellency the Lord President Barack H. Obama, Lowerer of the Seas, Hopeychangemongerer-in-Chief, Appeaser of the Terrorists, King of Scotland, Constitutional Scholar and Professor of Geography has written for us an article that appears in the Washington Post.
These are the actions Americans expect us to take without delay. They’re patient enough to know that our economic recovery will be measured in years, not months. But they have no patience for the same old partisan gridlock that stands in the way of action while our economy continues to slide.
This paragraph in particular stands out, because it indicates a textbook fascist mindset: Crisis-mongering, whining about partisan gridlock. We have a crisis and we must act, and we have no patience for those with the obstinance to tell us to slow down and think things over.
The natural, inevitable consequence of that thought process is the intention to punish those who dare to be ‘obstructionist’, ‘partisan’, ‘divisive’. Because how can we get things done if people keep trying to use the two-party system to the purpose for which it was intended? We need bipartisanship! Single-party bipartisanship!
That’s how it begins. Don’t be so small-minded as to think it has to include a Holocaust. Don’t be so moronic as to think racism has much at all to do with fascism. Fascism is people surrendering to the government and telling them to make their problems go away.
Of course the suggestion that the best way out of this mess would have been a concerted effort to get the government’s grubby little thieving hands off of everything is now unthinkable in the Age of Obama.
But he himself signed his name to these words. I defy him to make this disappear down the memory hole.
Cultural infrastructure
The three big pillars are education, entertainment, and journalism.
The Left dominates all of them. Why? Because Antonio Gramsci figured out eighty years ago that it was important to do so in order to advance socialist philosophy. The thing is, it holds true for any philosophy; without addressing the cultural infrastructure, you will remain nothing but a fringe group.
Without a means of providing education, you stand to lose all reliable means of reaching the next generation. Someone might be thinking, is this doofus actually coming out in support of child indoctrination? Yes. Human civilization has had thousands of years to figure out what works and what doesn’t. If we don’t teach our kids the ways of civilization, they’re going to have to figure it out from scratch. If you wonder why the social dynamics of public high school resemble primitive tribal society, that is the reason. Decades of the Left dominating the American education system has brought us diminishing education standards, with high school graduates barely able to read and college students barely capable of functioning as adults.
Without a means of providing entertainment, you are denying yourself the opportunity to say something to people in an environment where telling the story well is more important than being taken seriously. Don’t fuss about the message. Find a story, doesn’t matter too much whether it’s true or fictional, that captivates the soul. Don’t fuss about what message people may get from it. Don’t wring your hands in the cutting room saying “I’m worried this guy’s speech and subsequent action scene excessively lionizes American military forces in a setting that should be more morally ambiguous,” “Does it really make for a less authentic 19th century setting if we just say nobody smokes?” or “This ‘FREEDOM!’ scene is stirring and all, but let’s be honest– isn’t it a bit cliche?” Don’t fuss about the message. The big studios are increasingly owned by foreign parties, including the Saudis, and they are throwing their weight around when they think it matters. Then the executives wonder why their product is not well received by American audiences. The answer: because somebody was fussing about the message more than whether or not the story was itself any good.
Without a means of providing news, you are neglecting to inform the public on whatever choices they may have to make. In any nation that relies on the democratic process, failure to inform the public has absolutely disastrous consequences. It is not the place of journalists to regulate the flow of information to serve any ideological cause. Do not block information on some country’s atrocities just because you’re afraid it will lead to a war. Do not pimp some study’s latest sensational findings on global climate over another study’s more humdrum yet equally scientifically rigorous findings, just because you think global warming is an important issue that justifies fascist tactics to thwart.
Of these three pillars, journalism is the only one where significant progress has been made in breaking the Leftist monopoly. The old print and TV media haven’t changed all that much, but a significant slice of the Internet remains open to other viewpoints, and will remain so unless some form of the Fairness Doctrine is successfully rammed into the Web sector. That leaves entertainment and education.
For entertainment, the problem is simply this: Some shareholders are using their influence in the big companies for other reasons than to maximize profits. The reason it seems like every other story with a clear delineation between good and evil, or a bit of unashamed patriotism, gets reduced in the end to a nihilistic navel-gazing denouement is that the ones with the money throw their weight around and push to adjust things for an international audience (read: anti-American). But since the American audience is who has most of the money, the consequences of blowing them off should not at all be a mystery. Your Iraq war films are not tanking because the audience is weary of the war as such; they are tanking because the audience is weary of hearing war stories from the perspective of the enemy. We get enough of that in the New York Times, NPR, CNN, and so forth. We go to movies to be entertained, and we are not entertained when a nihilistic suckerpunch, or an outright calumnious accusation against real-world figures for whom we might have some appreciation, ruins the flow of what was otherwise a fine story.
One way to improve the entertainment business’s role in upholding our culture would be for a studio to begin engaging the public directly, in a Web site that allows people to vote on what proposed projects they actually want to see made into motion pictures. Then every few months the top items of interest can be developed for production. Do this and it will become immediately apparent whether people actually know what they want. If they do, then the studio should make heaps of cash making whatever gets voted to the top of the list. If people don’t know what they want, this venture will fail. It’s that easy.
For education, the problem is a gluttonous National “Education” Association more interested in their own job security and inflating school budgets than the task of raising the next generation of independent individuals. Never mind the fact that many private schools operate on per-student budgets a fraction of that of fully-loaded suburban public schools, and yet somehow manage a greater level of academic success.
A simple yet monumental achievement that ought to be attainable in the education business is to develop standards for elementary education, so as to make a clean break between elementary and high school. Once finished with elementary school the student would receive an elementary certificate, with whatever distinctions in various subjects the student earned. Then all the high school teachers should be free to assume that all their students actually completed the requirements of elementary school. This would result in a tremendous increase in efficiency, allowing high schools to be more clear about their graduation standards, and benefit the universities in turn by giving them a better caliber of student. That is, of course, assuming that the education system is in fact in the business of education. Since the evidence often appears to support the accusation that it is not, it may be necessary to spearhead this transformation of standards by means of a chain of private schools.
February 1, 2009
A silly quick picture.
What was the real difference between Muhammad and Hubbard, apart from the 1400 year difference?
