My Photo
I am retired from government, law enforcement, politics and all other pointless endeavors. I eat when I am hungry and sleep when I am tired.

Thursday, July 24, 2014


There is some nonsense going around about impeaching President Obama.  If I were one of the president’s advisors and backers, I’d encourage it.  But I’m not.  I’m a conservative.  I dislike self-inflicted wounds among people with whom I generally agree. 

Of course the President does deserve to be impeached.  But that’s hardly the point.  Although we may more than suspect his mentality and motives, he hasn’t committed a crime as such.  He could be impeached because he refuses to perform critical constitutional functions, while claiming powers clearly not his.  But this would be a ponderous case, involving constitutional interpretation and mountainous documentation the President’s people will never produce. His obvious malice toward Caucasians is another matter, difficult to prosecute in the context of impeachment.  A number of those sitting in the House of Representatives share his distaste for our pale folks.  So that’s a difficult sell.

No, we have entirely selfish reasons to avoid the temptation to lash out at this president via impeachment. 

Impeachment is a path away from the public’s increased understanding of the president’s manifold failures and incapacities.  Impeachment becomes the gleaming, fascinating object in the room, rather than the actual failures of this president and his party.  To impeach Obama is to hand our fate over to a million lawyers and their world of legal detail and stratagems.  It would be the usual circus of quibbles and misdirection with very uncertain results. 

This brings to mind the last time we tried this.  I deliberately placed myself in very public places to witness public reaction to the Clinton hearings.  In my naiveté I thought the public would be disgusted by Clinton’s barnyard sexual appetites and the forensic evidence of same.  I was wrong.  It was clear that the majority resented this information thrust on them, at least as much as they resented the behavior itself.  The stains on Monica’s dress just didn’t go well with their burgers and fries.  The GOP embroiled them in an ugly fight and they didn’t appreciate it.

I suspect something similar would happen with Obama hearings.  His supporters in the media would help the public see the whole business as a pseudo-racist witch hunt to depose our first black president. 

No, the wise course of action is to keep Obama around and prosper by his endless wrong-headed, arrogant, semi-legal administration.  For the time remaining, he will bestow one damaging blow to the Democrat coalition after another. 

By openly encouraging the inflow of illegal aliens he actually gets the majority population of this country to see how they are betrayed. Recent weeks have seen protests by African Americans over their displacement by cheap, foreign interlopers, who displace them on the job and in their neighborhoods.  This catches the Democrat Party in a pincer movement, as the Hispanics who are also a large part of their base are still unsatisfied at the rate of Hispanicization of our country.

The President can be counted on to support Israel more and more grudgingly.  He just cut off American passenger service to Israeli airspace.   This removal of the velvet gloves when it comes to Israel fits in well with Obamas moral compass.  He sees Palestinians as people of color to be protected.  It will grow worse from a Jewish and Israeli point of view as time goes on.  The Democrat party gets a very large percentage of its funding from Jewish sources.  Obama no longer cares. He is not running.

The President continues to advance an internationalist foreign policy that inserts our national prestige into every midget wrestling contest on the globe.  The whole world sees him as a poltroon who picks rhetorical fights that he lacks the will to prosecute.  For a supposedly brilliant man, he doesn’t seem to have the wit to see the mismatch between his high-flown pronouncements and his practical capacity.  The public doesn’t like seeing our president as an international joke.   

Obama seems to have no economic education at all.  That’s just judging by his record.  His academic records are sealed. He issues cooked numbers beyond the gift of Baron von Munchhausen, and he expects all to believe them. He thinks debt doesn’t matter but solar subsidies do. He can be counted on to keep the economy down and crawling in the wrong direction.  At some point people with some real money to lose are going to walk away and leave his party dry.

The President’s loyalty to his Attorney General makes him look biased as it is.  Nothing the Attorney General or Homeland Security Director says is believed.  They both act as the President’s henchmen in increasingly unpopular policies.  The Presidents’ signal achievement, Obama Care, is melting away under the heat of judicial review.  It will discomfit a great many voters before 2016.  The poor that it’s designed to help, his party already has.

So why try to get rid of him when we can only profit from him for the next two years?  Why interfere with his systematic dismantling of that coalition of grasping fringe groups that makes up his party?  We gain adherents every time he goes golfing while events pass him by.  Every time his favorite appointees appear before Congress, he and his party look worse in the eyes of the public. 

There is every chance that the economy, such as it is, will tank again before he leaves. He doesn’t seem inclined to start another counterproductive war, but we can be sure of his bungling foreign policy in the time remaining to him.   He will make sure that the last blue collar American still voting “D” will have leave. 

We may get an historic chance to turn our country around, but only if conservatives prepare for 2016.  They can do this by making a case that our President will only help us build. What more can we want?

Monday, July 21, 2014


Occasionally experts on the tube actually contribute something to our understanding of events.  Such happened two days ago on CNN.  They had on an expert who knew how the Russian missile launcher works and gave a convincing, commonsensical explanation of how the downing probably took place.  

It seems the launcher had at least two radars and the one that interrogates the transponder on the airliner may not have been switched on.  This is the unit that would have told them they were seeing a civilian airliner.  So the ignoramuses operating the launcher had only altitude, direction and mass of the aircraft.  I suppose they were expecting a Ukrainian transport plane, so they launched.  

Our government knows the location from which the missile was launched.  It's within the area ruled by the pro-Russian rebels.  Not much mystery there.  Those rebels are handling the crash scene about as badly as slavic yokels with access to alcohol and firearms are likely to.  The Russians let these idiots play with dangerous toys and now have egg on their faces.  

None of this changes the fact that a dispute between these related peoples is none of our business.  We have no vital interest in the area.  We made the mistake of backing one side in the endless ruritanian farrago that is Ukrainian politics.  Victoria Nuland of our Sate Department was caught red handed in this, without it seems, any career consequences.  The Russians who were already playing this game, doubled down. And so here we are, blundering about in a matter clearly more in the orbit of the EU than our own.

Let's not dignify this tragedy with the term crisis.  Let's just back up our European allies in getting compensation for the families, curb the recklessness of the Russians and in seeking a future not dependent on the east for their energy needs.    

Friday, July 18, 2014


Daniel McCarthy, one of TAC's dwindling number of adults, weighed in on the Hobby Lobby decision after a long silence.  He wanted to make his displeasure with traditional conservatives  clear, deriding their "Buy your own contraception' Snark." Why is this reasonable observation "Snark?"  MCCarthy goes into a tortured exposition that in essence grants the government's right to force citizens/businesses to purchase things they don't want.  Further, the government can then quibble with the citizen/business about the extent and all the particularities of the forced purchase.  Pointing out the obvious, that Hobby Lobby employees have multiple means both within and without their insurance coverage to avoid pregnancy is simple common sense.  It's a fact.

That's what you get when so called conservatives ceed unconstitutional powers to the state, then try to find "Conservative" positions in the mess that follows. Frankly, I don't intend to bother with his sophistical point making.

What depresses me is the tendency of McCarthy and almost all the TAC writers to feel the need to position themselves to one side of any orthodox conservative position.  It's hard to see this as anything but a posture designed to differentiate themselves from other strands of conservatism.  All well and good if you have some alternative.  But all they seem to embody in a sort of offended sensibility.  Trying not to be FOX news is hardly  a worthy exercise in itself.

They classify themselves as Burkians.  So do many Neo-cons and other political mountebanks.  They expelled all the Paleocons.  Perhaps they though divorcing themselves from their own traditions and wisdom would free them to create some new conservatism.  Someone should have told them that that is an oxymoron.  They grasp at every floating bit of the zeitgeist, like Reforma-cons, Crunchy Cons New Urban-cons, etc.  Of course these are just marketing mechanisms designed to sell books.

McCarty was just meeting with Ralph Nader, the great shaman of self promotion disguised as moral principle.  Perhaps this is the new model for TAC?

Thursday, July 17, 2014


While posting a comment in response to another commenters observation that the Iranian Revolution of 1979 was the work of the middle class, I posted the following.  It's a good summation on my thoughts on revolution in general and deserve to be reprinted here. 

@ Gordo.  Absolutely true.  Rutgers University, where I went in the Seventies was filled with Iranian foreign exchange students.  almost all were anti-Shah from what I could tell.  Quite a few are living here still, with deep chagrin.  Or perhaps they're not wise enough to see how they played into the hands of the Mullahs.

The fall of Iran is just one more example, like the French Revolution, of the middle class and lower nobility reforming themselves into oblivion.  Dictators usually fall when the  business class give up on them.  So it was in the case of Nicaragua.  The revolution begins but is then hi-jacked by Commies, Islamic extremists, or as in the case of Russia by minority oligarchs.

Starting a revolution or a reform for that matter is usually a dangerous move.   Reasonable people are rarely capable of prevailing in the tempest they call up.  It's the hard men with unlimited objectives that win.

That's why helping the Syrian opposition is so foolish.  However awful Assad may be, he is very unlikely to be followed by anyone who is not considerably worse.

I think we Americans have a hard time seeing this clearly, since our revolution turned out so much better.   We are blessed that our founders were so moderate and averse to  savage temptations.  Just so,  Robert E. Lee setting his face against continuing the Civil War as a guerrilla war.

The late Malcolm Muggeridge remarked that the crucial word association in "Revolution"  was "To Revolve."  That is, in the revolutionary context, to move ahead only to find yourself in the same place.  That always stayed with me, as with age, I notice how little changes for the better no matter how  furious we plunge ahead with "Change." 

As above, the tragic consequence of middle classes everywhere is to assume that the civil and social ground on which they stand is firm.  This leads them to tinker with mechanisms that support their own survival.  

How obvious it seemed in the Fifties and Sixties to upset the constitutional principle of free association and freedom of contract in favor of government imposed racial equality.  Equality today is as elusive as ever, but are the rest of us truly free anymore?  In the Mid-Sixties many thought that we should open up our borders to the world rather than the wellsprings of our own patrimony.  The white population that allowed that to happen will very soon be supplanted. 

And so it goes, the comfortable extinguishing themselves on the altar of good intentions. 

Thursday, July 10, 2014


The latest from my blog at the Courier Times

The farce at the border exposes us as a nation without seriousness and locked in an internal struggle typical of a system in collapse. Peasants from a country far to our south have thrown their children over our wall and into our hands. And we are paralyzed. Why? Because all sides are lying about their motives and plans.
The President and his allies want to accelerate our descent into a polyglot post western nation. For them, the more Hispanics, the better to achieve the replacement of our Euro-American population. When people like the President say our immigration system is broken, they mean it is not broken enough. They really want a lot more third world immigration.
The GOP establishment also wants more third world immigration. The business interests that own the GOP want cheap labor and are confident that their children will never have to rub shoulders with the new permanent underclass they are importing.
But neither the President nor GOP sellouts can get their way as long as a sufficient number of American citizens still believe that their culture, their country and their border mean something. So we quibble about just how to face this new crisis, which is no crisis at all. Hand wringing and finger pointing are the rule.
Political posturing by both sides fills the airwaves. The President attacks congress for political playacting while he himself bounces from one political fundraiser to another. He tells us that there is an emergency at the border while playing pool.
It should be obvious to all sentient beings by now, that no one really wants to fix the border situation or immigration. Forty five percent of all teenagers in America are from non-European backgrounds. Our taxi drivers are from Somalia and our doctors are from India. Even our gold digging hussies are from Russia. The same business class that exhorts us to vote Republican hires H1B cheap labor to replace our children on the job. Fox news is owned by an old man from Australia and his Chinese wife.
So what is it that we see on our border? A country that will not muster the will to protect its own sovereignty. We are a country that says, if you can satisfy the greed of the meatpacking industry, we won’t try too hard to prevent your entry into our country. We are a country who says that one of our parties actively wants people to invade our society and replace the natives who won’t work for peanuts. Hang out long enough and you get to vote Democrat forever. We are the country that says, we are more terrified of looking mean in the face of your children than in protecting the patrimony of our own.
What would some other country, a country with some pride and a sense of itself do?
That country would get tough with Mexico for deliberately compromising our border. Mexico is a rich country full of poor people. If we can destabilize Libya we could do the same for our nasty neighbors to our south. If we were actually serious, of course we wouldn’t have to. But the Mexicans know us only too well, and they know that we are too lacking in resolve and too divided to enforce our interests and our will in such a manner. But we could do it tomorrow if we wanted to.
Since the Mexicans won’t cooperate on their side a real country would erect a real border. It would not be a fence. It would be a minefield with sensors and snipers. A real first world nation would know that it couldn’t maintain a welfare state while allowing porous borders. Birth rates in much of the third world are exploding. It’s time to get control of our fate before theirs becomes ours. It’s that simple.
What about the children? Simple. Children below a certain age should be taken in and taken to the airport where they get a free ride home. Teenagers should be given a liter of water, a sandwich and a trip around the turnstile. Let them become Mexico’s problem. When that happens the migration will stop. Their plight is not of our making.
To do this we would need a sense of pride in who we are and a sense of who we are not. We would need the gumption to dismantle our immigration system with its courts and social workers, and replace it with something that serves our interests; that is, the interests of our citizens as they are now.

Neither the President or the Congressional GOP represent the American people.

Saturday, July 5, 2014



Rod Dreher's fixation with deviant sex and the Roman Catholic clergy got the better of him again.   His latest fascination is with Archbishop Nienstedt of Minneapolis who is accused of homosexual relations with about ten accusers who signed sworn statements. 

Dreher's approach here is the same as usual, he reprints long passages of accusatory verbiage from other journals, insinuates a few judgmental lines of his own and then throws open the discussion to his little tribe of scolds, deviates and village atheists.   

And as usual, Dreher is careful to inject himself with a placebo of faux impartiality, with, "I hope the investigation clears the archbishop."  Then in the next sentence, "If there really are ten sworn statements, however, it's hard to imagine a conspiracy that broad to smear the archbishop.  But who knows anymore about these bishops?"  Obviously a little due diligence language is in order before we get back to the fun of muddying the good archbishops name.  

Dreher's sole sources are Commonweal and a link to the Minneapolis Star Tribune.  All the quoted text is from Commonweal.   The gravamen of the Commonweal reporting is that Archbishop Nienstedt came down hard on homosexuality, gay marriage, the gay agenda in general.  The unsubtle implication is that the archbishop is in fact a homosexual and therefore had no business teaching his church's doctrine on his own condition. 

A few points of my own critique follow.

Dreher starts right off getting the Archbishop's first name wrong. (since fixed)

He fails to mention that the church investigation is, according to the archbishop, self-initiated.

Out of 58 lines of text Dreher wrote only 16.  So this piece is just Dreher passing along accusations with little if any fact finding of his own.  He's just passing along the good news of another Catholic scandal.  If the archbishop is found innocent he can and will fall back on his one line of bogus impartiality.  

Dreher can't imagine ten dishonest accusers?  I suppose he never heard of legal claims for monetary damages.  Can Dreher be that naive?  (OK, maybe he can.)  Assuming the underlying insinuation, is it beyond Dreher's grasp that some number of persons involved with the Archbishop might get together for a big payday, while paying him back for betraying the cause of gay rights?

Dreher explains his church sex fetish as a reaction to all those child sex scandals.  Very well.  But this is a story about a senior churchman who may our may not be a homosexual, and may or may not have had some sort of illicit sex with adult men.  

For all I know the archbishop may be some sort of homosexual libertine.  But the reportage makes clear that he is being targeted not for being a homosexual, but for getting in the way of the homo-agenda.  He is targeted precisely for doing the right thing.  Dreher is the homintern's useful tool in their war on the church.