June 13th, 2016
By Nelson Hultberg.
You can search the history of mankind, and you will never find a successful society that, when under attack, did not clearly define its enemies and gather its resources together in order to vigorously fight those enemies by means of education, law enforcement, and military means when necessary. A society that fails to do this does not survive.
Notice the words “clearly define its enemies” in the above. We as Americans must end the pusillanimous evasion of truth regarding Islam that hangs over our society today like the grisly smell of death in a charnel house. We must come to grips with a most paramount question: “Does our President and his administration have the courage to clearly define America’s enemy, an enemy that has declared its intentions repeatedly and openly over the past 30 years and has only grown more brazen as each decade goes by?” This enemy is radical Islamic terrorism.
Barack Obama and his hopeful successor, Hillary Clinton, have steadfastly refused to mention the words “radical,” “Islamic,” and “terrorism” in their speeches and discussions. They have played the role of ignorant stooges in regards to one of the most nefarious threats ever to face our nation, a threat that high school students can grasp when explained to them. Yet these two disingenuous liberals declare themselves to be enlightened leaders of a modern America and ask for our political support so as to be able to continue directing the federal government in Washington. What bizarre conjurings dwell in their warped and pygmy minds to make them believe they deserve such a role?
Obama’s Shame
In the aftermath of the horrific Orlando, Florida massacre Sunday morning, in which over 50 individuals were killed and 53 severely wounded, President Obama came before us to speak on this atrocity. Thankfully he was able to brand this shooting an act of terror. But shamefully he was unable to utter the critically needed words “radical Islamic terrorism.” Is he going to continue to play this inexcusable role of useful idiot to Islamism as our FBI and other security forces try bravely to combat this terrorist scourge going forward? Even in face of the fact that the perpetrator of the massacre was clearly a Muslim, clearly a radical, and clearly a killer?
The gunman, Omar Mateen, shouted out “Alahu Akbar” as he was gunning down over 100 of the customers in the Orlando nightclub, Pulse. Prior to the attack he pledged allegiance to ICIS. He was born of Afghani parents, has made inflammatory comments to co-workers in the past, and was heard praying in a foreign language by police on the scene. In addition, ICIS has claimed responsibility for the shooting on their website,
Amaq News.
A sane, rational leader would have no trouble concluding from these facts that this was more than just a “hate crime.” It was an act of “radical Islamic terrorism,” and one more atrocity in a chain of atrocities that have plagued us for several decades.
Dr. Sebastian Gorka has summed up this issue quite dramatically. He is an American expert on irregular warfare, including counterinsurgency and counterterrorism, and a distinguished professor of Military Theory at the Marine Corps University: He stated on the Maria Bartiromo Show, Sunday morning, June 12th shortly after the attack:
“This should not be called a tragedy. This is not an Amtrack train being derailed. This is part of the global jihadi strategy. It is not an accident. It is war against America….It is not a hate crime. It is part of an ideological military assault on [our country]….We have arrested 101 people linked to ICIS on U.S. soil since the caliphate was declared. This attack, in part, was facilitated by the policies of this administration, President Obama and Secretary Clinton, that have allowed political correctness into the threat assessment. Today I beg the White House. Stop with the political correctness. We need to destroy this enemy before more innocent people, gay, straight, black, white, brown, yellow are murdered on U.S. soil.”
Yet President Obama, true to the leftist appeasement mindset that comprises his persona, concludes in front of the nation that we need to show sympathy for the victims and begin to think rationally about seriously controlling guns in America. Why cannot he bring himself forcefully to face the real enemy attacking us? Because he himself is a crypto sympathizer of Islam, if not an actual worshiper. Thus he cannot possibly face the fact that members of the religion he reveres could do such unspeakable acts as what ICIS is perpetrating.
Moreover the Obama administration has been open to numerous Islamic advisors and organizations for its policy determinations. Obama has also had Muslim influence throughout his upbringing. This makes it very difficult for him to face up to the stark metaphysics of Islam, which preach war and violence against the West 109 times in the Koran. This is not a religion of peace; it is a totalitarian way of life that molds young impressionable minds to migrate to Western lands and subject them to destruction. See the website, Islam: The Politically Incorrect Truth.
The Muslim Brotherhood
In his riveting pamphlet,
The Muslim Brotherhood in the Obama Administration, Frank Gaffney, former Reagan Administration official and President of the Center for Security Policy in Washington, produces four highly documented case studies on the following members of the Obama administration:
Huma Abedin – Hillary Clinton’s Deputy Chief of Staff.
Rashad Hussain – Deputy Associate White House Counsel.
Dalia Mogahed – White House Advisory Council on Faith-Based Partnerships.
Mohamed Magid – Advisor to Obama’s Attorney General and various officials in the Defense Department.
Gaffney’s conclusion? There is “ample evidence that the Obama administration has afforded individuals with documented ties to the Muslim Brotherhood considerable access to its policy-making circles….[U]nder President Obama the United States has adopted policies increasingly aligned with the demands of the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist organizations, including notably, the Organization for Islamic Cooperation.”
In addition, numerous other Muslim advisors, intellectuals and policy wonks have been part of Obama’s two terms, starting with the President’s trusted senior advisor Valerie Jarrett. Included also would be Areef Alikhan in the Department of Homeland Security, Kareem Shora on the Homeland Security Advisory Council, Mohamed Elibiary on the Homeland Security Advisory Council, Nawar Shora, a Senior Advisor to the Civil Rights and Liberties Office, Khalid Abdullah Tariq Al-Mansour, a Patron of Obama during the 1980s, and Malik Obama, the older half-brother of Barack Obama who is in charge of international investments for the Muslim Brotherhood. A simple Google search of the above names verifies them.
America is at war with a primitive and totalitarian ideology that operates under the guise of a religion. Its guiding Koran has relentlessly galvanized Muslims for over a thousand years to make war on Western societies until all the earth is under the yoke of Islam. All religions, all infidels must be subjected to the word of Allah, if not willingly by Sharia law, then by force and terrorism.
We have seen this war play out in our streets and cities throughout the country for two decades now via terrorist attacks on peaceful American citizens. This war has been hideously exacerbated because of the quisling natures of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, neither of whom can bring themselves to clearly define the enemy that radical Islam represents to us. Until a new, tough, smart and vigilant President is elected to office, we as Americans will be under siege.
Comments Off on The Orlando Shooting: Obama’s Sin
May 25th, 2016
By Nelson Hultberg.
An insidious police state is stealing over America today. We as a country have become like a freezing man slipping off to sleep in a blizzard, incapable of recognizing the demise of the liberty and honor on which we were formed. Our liberal-neocon intelligentsia are responsible for this. Their perfidy is comprised of five elements:
(1)
1) Collectivist ideologues in the schools teaching moral relativism.
2) Hubristic politicians and bureaucrats in Washington ignoring basic rights.
3) Government monopolization of the banking system that debases the currency.
4) Increasing militarization of federal, state, and local police.
5) A media that plays the role of lap dogs for statism.
These five elements almost always close ranks to support each other. They are of one mind – that capitalism (i.e., freedom) is dangerous. Leaving people alone is dangerous. The marketplace is dangerous. Thus society must be regimented from the top down via ever-increasing “arbitrary law” and “police state controls.”
This process begins in the child’s youth. We have been forming amoral, collectivist minds in our schools ever since the 1920s and John Dewey. As a result, all five of the above elements today (schools, Congress, banks, police, and the media) are comprised of “highly amoral” human beings. This means they have been taught that there is no way to rationally and objectively discern right from wrong with certainty for humans in socio-cultural interaction and in the political vision that is to lead us. In other words, our schools have instilled into our youth for the past century the doctrine of moral relativism.
(2)
Discerning Right from Wrong
But if there is no way to discern right from wrong “rationally” and “objectively” with certainty in life, how then are we as humans to decide how to act? What guides are we to turn to in handling the big issues of life such as laws to pass, business decisions to make, wars to fight, causes to join, love to pursue, youth to motivate, etc? Human nature is such that devoid of a grounding in objective moral truths that are certain, we as humans will act instinctively, i.e., in the way our animalistic natures dictate.
Such a philosophical outlook (which our Deweyite school system has been teaching since the 1920s) leads men not to high-minded enlightenment as its advocates predicted, but back to their barbaric beginnings. It shapes them into lower-form amoral creatures by the time they become adults to go out into the world, which really means they are shaped into, dare one say it, animalistic creatures. The nature of an animal is that it is devoid of the capacity for moral judgment.
We see examples around us everywhere of this descent into “primitive instinctive behavior.” Large swaths of society are now sub-human because of the philosophical teaching of moral relativism. In other words, much of human action is now considered outside the realm of morality, neither good nor evil, as merely “personal preference,” or the “necessary pragmatism” to get things done. As a result, many modern men and women no longer strive to “do the right thing” as Albert Jay Nock wrote about in the early 20th century. Instead they live by their instincts, i.e., their animal natures.
If you think this is hyperbole, how do you explain the swamp of oblivious greed that Wall Street has become? The ruthless power lust that Washington and Congress spin on? The septic sensationalism of Hollywood? The wholesale debasement of culture by our literati? The treasonous sell-out of national sovereignty by our corporate moguls? The source of these evils is moral relativism, which leads to the belief that much of human action is morally neutral, i.e., amoralism.
All of society, of course, is not devolving into amoralism. There are still many courageous men and women who strive to “do the right thing” in their lives defined by moral principle. They have had a strong moral and religious upbringing that has withstood the government schools’ relativism. No society collapses morally in unison. But rapacity and decadence grow among us today like Ebola and Malaria grow among Africans because too many humans in Western societies have been taught moral relativism in their formative years. This is what is propelling us into an American police state.
(3)
As a Man Thinketh
In 1902, James Allen penned his famous essay,”As a Man Thinketh.” Humans become what they think and believe. And we, as a people, now think the thoughts of corruption as normalcy, the thoughts of tyranny as ideal. We have bought into the sham that because our professors and pundits term themselves “liberal,” this means they are benevolent and humanitarian, and we should adopt their statist advocacies for our lives. In other words, we have been amoralized to coin a term. This is the catastrophic tragedy of liberalism and its creed of moral relativism. It becomes easy to shift human activity into the realm of non-judgmental behavior. Our intelligentsia now scorn moral judgment.
To many modern intellectuals, moral relativism is liberating because it allows one to cavort through life immersed in irresponsibility. But in the long run, moral relativism guarantees tyranny because it allows the authoritarian state to ignore individual rights and squash our freedoms. It allows politicians, bureaucrats, and the police to operate irresponsibly also.
This is the nefarious disease that collectivist liberals are infecting our society with when they pontificate on the need to get away from a strict moral code that applies to everyone. They are stripping the people of their power to condemn their state oppressors and thus to fight passionately against the dictatorial development of modern-day government.
A dictatorship needs the preachments of “moral relativism.” It needs a philosophically confused populace that lacks the self-assurance to morally contest the government’s usurpations. And it gets such a needed confusion from the collectivist ideology being taught in today’s schools, an ideology that promotes moral relativism as the only rational form of ethics.
Herein lies the most lethal danger we face and the most important question we, as a people, must ask. Is it all relative as liberals and collectivists try to tell us? Or are there moral absolutes to guide all mankind as the conservatives insist?
The answer should be obvious. Of course, there are moral absolutes meant for all mankind. Murder is evil for everyone. Theft from innocent people is criminal for humanity. Heroin is always destructive. Love transcends hate. Freedom is superior to slavery. America’s vision of “equal rights” is meant not just for the 19th century, but for all of time. Life is rife with moral absolutes. The purveyors of relativism are as evil as carriers of bubonic plague. As Toynbee showed the world, liberalism is the destroyer of all civilizations, and moral relativism is its pride and joy.
America cannot endure such infamy. Truth is out there. It is to be found, not formed, through our synthesis of reason, experience and intuition as a people. This means logic, history and religion are our guides to the requisites of life and liberty. The Founding Fathers understood this. We in the modern day must also come to understand it.
Comments Off on The Police State and Moral Relativism
May 3rd, 2016
By Nelson Hultberg.
Everyone agrees that the Republican establishment has a visceral hatred of Donald Trump, and has made it known subtly (and not so subtly) since last summer when he announced his run for the presidency. But few of us really have a clear idea of just who these antagonists of Trumpian chutzpah and populist Americanism are. And most of us would like to know more about such people. So what follows is a listing of 10 of the more prominent conservative pundits, scholars, and bureaucrats who are GOP establishment “Trump haters.”
All of them are neocons and support the big government brand of conservatism that dominates Washington today. Some of them have high visibility in the media, while others maintain a more subdued presence in the political-economic affairs of the country and are not as easily recognizable. But all of them play influential roles in the direction of the Republican Party. And all of them have voiced their dislike of Donald Trump, some of them quite vigorously. They can be considered as a “who’s who” of right-wing crony capitalism, i.e., corporatism, in addition to a police-the-world foreign policy.
They now know that they are up against a very formidable adversary in Trump who has them in his gun sights, and has the American people behind him. Their fundamental worldview, which they have given their lives to for several decades, is being shown up for what it is, a dictatorial, imperialistic, anti-American array of policies geared to gratify their warped ideology and grant them ever more personal power and status in Washington and New York. Freedom, individualism, and strict constitutionalism are not values highly prized in their playbook. Neocons do not believe in laissez-faire, and are dubious of the Founders’ brilliance for the modern world. They prefer instead a centralized statist world where American sovereignty has been relegated to the dust bin of history. They feel uncomfortable embracing the original ideas that America was founded upon. Their goal is to perpetuate the steady shift of America into a massive “conservative” welfare-state and submission to world government to whatever degree possible.
Challenging Neoconservatism With Trump’s Mayflower Hotel address on foreign policy in Washington, April 27, 2016, he showed the globalist-neocons once again why their game is up if he wins the White House. He hit all the right notes: an end to “aggression and war,” an end to “nation building,” with emphasis on leading the world to freedom by example rather than by regime change, an end to lopsided trade deals, a reworking of NATO, etc. But where he really shined was with this near the end:
“We will no longer surrender this country or its people to the false song of globalism. The nation-state remains the true foundation for happiness and harmony. I am skeptical of international unions that tie us up and bring America down….[U]nder my administration, we will never enter America into any agreement that reduces our ability to control our own affairs.”
Trump haters are now writhing in paroxysms of anguish upon hearing that he intends to end “nation building” in his foreign policy. These pseudo-patriots are horrified, for under a Trump presidency, their cushy places of prominence and intellectual respect will be scorned and greatly diminished. Their dream of “militaristic global hegemony” will be abandoned. Thus they instinctively have struck back with counter attacks to try and fend off the discrediting of their globalist way of thinking, which, of course, is what all history’s losers do when facing invalidation of the guiding ideology they have lived their lives upon. There are thousands of such prominent statists in America today on both the left and the right. Below is just a small sample of the more salient ones on the political right.
I have omitted from the list the well-known Trump haters who are politicians – such as Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Mitch McConnell, and Paul Ryan – because we all know of them. Omitted also are the prominent and outspoken conservative Trump haters, such as Glenn Beck, Erick Erickson, and George Will because they are not advocates of “militaristic global hegemony.” They merely dislike Trump for his style and populism.
The following list is 10 of the more intellectual Trump haters who are all neocons and have spoken out strongly against him. They are powerful voices in the GOP and behind the scene promoters for today’s imperial state and all-pervasive governmentalism.
* * * *
William Kristol – Editor of the prestigious Weekly Standard, a widely recognized pundit, and influential Washington political operative. Director at the Foreign Policy Initiative and member of numerous think-tanks in Washington as well as a Fox News regular.
Rich Lowry – Editor of the long-standing conservative magazine, National Review and an influential nationally syndicated columnist. Ambivalent about “American global hegemony,” but too weak to resist the orthodox neocons headed by William Kristol’s crowd. Frequent guest on Fox News.
Robert Kagan – Cofounder with Bill Kristol of the Project for the New American Century, and an influential policy pundit based at the Brookings Institution. He serves also as a contributing editor at The New Republic and speaks proudly of his statist interventionism.
Max Boot – Prolific columnist, essayist and author. Contributing editor to the Weekly Standard, blogs for Commentary, and appears in a vast array of top newspapers. The quintessential neocon who advocates unabashed militarism and nation building.
Michael Hayden – Retired four-star Air Force general who served as head of the ominous NSA from 1999 to 2005 and as the CIA Director from 2006 to 2008. One of the architects of the justification for the Iraqi War and spying on American citizens.
Eliot Cohen – Professor of strategic studies at Johns Hopkins University, he has been described as “the most influential neocon in academe.” A fervent hawk who served multiple roles in the Bush administration. Enthusiastically advocates militaristic global hegemony for America.
Daniel Pipes – Son of the famous historian, Richard Pipes, who is an accomplished historian in his own right. Author of a dozen books, he heads up the Middle East Forum and served in the Bush Administration. Grasps the danger of Islamism, but advocates wholesale regime changes to confront it.
.jpg/220px-Zoellick,_Robert_(official_portrait_2008).jpg)
Robert Zoellick – Chairman of Goldman Sachs’ International Advisors and a former President of the World Bank, 2007-2012. Served in the Bush administration as the U.S. Trade Representative and Deputy Secretary of State, also at the U.S. Treasury and State Department, 1985-1993.
Niall Ferguson – Professor of history at Harvard and a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. Prolific author of controversial historical books. Erudite champion of Western civilization, but unfortunately also an enthusiastic advocate of the neocon goal of a new American empire.
Ken Adelman – American diplomat and political policy analyst who has served in GOP administrations since the 1970s. Aggressive advocate of nation building and American militaristic hegemony wherever needed. Career bureaucrat, in the likes of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.
These are 10 of the foremost enemies of freedom and sanity in America today. They have championed two unwinnable wars that have cost America over $4 trillion and thousands of lives lost in the caldrons of Iraq and Afghanistan. They have expanded the federal government into a monster of unprecedented proportions. And worst of all, they show no signs of learning anything from their egregious and criminal irrationality. Donald Trump can consider it a badge of honor that these Orwellian humbugs hate him so passionately.
Comments Off on The Trump Haters
April 20th, 2016
By Nelson Hultberg.
Nothing is ever certain in politics. Life’s prompting events are too transitory and human nature is too capricious. But whenever a political candidate is closing in on his party’s presidential nomination, all of us invariably turn to speculating on who the candidate should choose for his Vice-President. In light of history, the office is hardly a position of immense significance. Vice-Presidents oversee the Senate, which means they sit at the front of the chamber and cast deciding votes in case of ties. Mostly, though, they attend funerals of foreign leaders and ride around in black limousines.
Nevertheless, they are important because they are there to take over in case the President dies in office. Thus they need to be of like mind to the President himself if his administration’s vision is to be extended in case of his death. This means they must convince the voters that they are worthy of sitting in the Oval Office. They must be presidential and authoritative. They must possess leadership capacity. This means that people like Pee Wee Herman and Woody Allen are not good bets for the office.
With this in mind, let’s speculate on who Donald Trump would be likely to choose as his Vice-President. The choice is considerably more important this election year because The Donald is a businessman and not familiar with the protocols of politics. Thus it is mandatory for him to pick someone who has experience in these matters to help navigate the pathways of constructing his administration. But it is also mandatory that such a VP guide be on board with the Trump vision for the country, i.e., immigration, trade, and foreign policy reform, in addition to the revolutionary house cleaning attitude that Trump has voiced in his campaign.
The Strongest Rival Strategy
Often a presidential candidate picks his strongest competitor in the primaries in an effort to unite his party around him for the general election. John F. Kennedy chose Lyndon Johnson as his running mate. Ronald Reagan chose George H.W. Bush as his. But this time around, such a strategy is really not possible.
Trump certainly cannot pick “Little Marco” as his running mate, and he will also have trouble picking “Lyin Ted” as his choice. The abusive, burlesque nature of this election with its invective dominating the airwaves clearly knocks Marco Rubio out of the running. He would be a horrid choice anyway because he’s the poster boy for open borders and a neocon foreign policy. Ted Cruz is strong on immigration, but neoconish on foreign policy and not in synch with the Trump trade vision. Thus he would be a dubious choice.
There are those who say that, despite the considerable rancor between them, Trump will need Cruz on the ticket in order to unify the party in the fall campaign. There was rancor, they point out, between John Kennedy and LBJ in 1960. The two disliked each other intensely, yet they joined forces to produce a winning ticket. Kennedy realized he could not win the presidency without the LBJ supporters enthusiastically on board. Likewise with Trump; he will not be able to win without Cruz supporters.
The flaw in this reasoning is that the Democrats in response would run ads 24-7 that show Trump calling Cruz, “Lyin Ted.” This would create a cloud over the campaign like acid rain that would thoroughly poison the Trump candidacy. Think back to 1988 when George H.W. Bush ran the Willie Horton ads. They destroyed the image of Governor Dukakis in the voters’ minds. And the Democrats could duplicate such destruction regarding Cruz. Moreover, the Kennedy parallel is invalid. Kennedy and LBJ did not engage in the level of scurrility toward each other that Trump and Cruz have.
Could Trump choose his other rival, John Kasich? Unfortunately the Ohio governor is so weak on immigration and such a neocon apologist that it would be an awfully tough sell to the voters to claim he was truly into the Trump vision. Granted, as with all VP’s, Kasich would have to subordinate his views on the issues to be Vice-President, but this kind of “sudden convention conversion” would be like a classical music buff saying he suddenly sees the superiority of rock and roll. There are other choices that would help unify the party establishment with Trump that don’t stretch the credibility gauge so drastically.
A better strategy would be to offer Kasich a cabinet post like the Department of Commerce in return for his vigorous support in the fall, especially in Ohio. As for Cruz, Trump should simply let him go back to Congress. He’s way too risky to put on the ticket. This won’t lose Cruz supporters. They are intelligent patriots who may hold their nose, but will vote for Trump in the fall.
As for Ben Carson, his halting speech style and his lack of experience in politics knocks him out. Trump should give him the Department of Education and tell him to dismantle it. South Carolina Governor, Nikki Haley, has a lot of Republican support for VP, but has denounced Trump as an “angry voice,” and besides she was born to non-citizens from India in 1972, which makes her an anchor baby. Her father didn’t become a citizen until 1978 and her mother not until 2003. Thus she is not a natural born citizen. This makes her constitutionally inelligible.
The Five Best Choices
In my estimation below are Trump’s five best choices for Vice-President. I have listed them in order of my preference. You the reader may feel differently, of course.
Michele Bachmann, age 60, served in the House of Representatives, 2007-2015, representing Minnesota’s 6th Congressional district. A solid political and social conservative, she ran for the GOP nomination in 2012. Would be enthusiastically on board for Trump’s reform issues of immigration and trade policy. She would need to tweak her super-hawk foreign policy positions a bit to be in synch with Trump’s desire to end “nation building.” But what’s most important, she would help raise Trump’s approval numbers with women.
Chris Christie, age 53, has served as Governor of New Jersey since 2010. He is the Chairman of the Republican Governors Association and is a very able articulator of the immigration, trade, and foreign policy reforms Trump wishes to implement. Christie is an Eliot Ness clone with a pitbull personality and a professorial brain, a top-notch debater who would help carry New Jersey for Trump.
Jeff Sessions, age 69, is a rock-ribbed southern conservative patriot who is the biggest supporter of Trump’s immigration and trade policy proposals in the Senate. Supported the Iraqi war, but apparently is on board with Trump’s desire to end “nation-building” and restructure NATO’s role. He has served as Alabama’s junior Senator since 1996 and would be very helpful in shepherding Trump legislative proposals through Congress.
Mike Huckabee, age 61, served as Governor of Arkansas, 1996-2007. He sought the GOP nomination in 2016 and also in 2008. He is an evangelical Christian minister and a noted author who hosted the Fox TV show, Huckabee, from 2008 to 2015. An articulate conservative politically and culturally, he would rally the conservative base by drawing in the evangelical vote.
Scott Brown, age 56, served as U.S. Senator from Massachusetts, 2010-2013, and is presently a Fox News analyst. Opponents claim he is a liberal, but he is firmly on board with Trump’s top three “conservative” policy needs: radical immigration reform, rational trade policy, and America’s return to a defensive instead of imperialistic foreign policy. Very telegenic and articulate.
Comments Off on Trump’s Vice-President?
April 14th, 2016
By Nelson Hultberg.
What are the sources of the interminable wars throughout the world today? Why are militant Muslims terrorizing Europe and America? What has caused the turmoil in Ukraine? Is Vladimir Putin desirous of reigniting the Cold War? Does he represent a dangerous threat to the West as his predecessors in the Kremlin did? What role do our own politicians and intellectuals play in this increasing eagerness for war?
The answers to the above questions will be determined greatly by one’s basic ideological beliefs. Statist mentalities, of course, see things differently than will those who espouse freedom and constitutional government.
For example, Dick Cheney will disagree vehemently with Ron Paul as to the sources, the motives, the morals, and the ultimate consequences of today’s wars. The only thing that rational minds seem to agree upon is that hatred, fear and aggression are pushing up the thermometer that measures social peace among people in the modern world. What follows is an attempt to answer the “whys” of this rapidly metastasizing problem.
The Military-Industrial Complex
In 1987, George F. Kennan, the famous historian-diplomat who shaped America’s Cold War policy of containment towards the Soviet Union in the post WW II era, wrote:
“Were the Soviet Union to sink tomorrow under the waters of the ocean, the American military-industrial establishment would have to go on, substantially unchanged, until some other adversary could be invented. Anything else would be an unacceptable shock to the American economy.” [1]
When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, many in the West expected that the massive militarization of American society existent between 1941-1991 would be cut back. The huge budget expenditures toward weaponry and fighting could be greatly reduced. Peace was at hand. But it didn’t happen. Washington’s establishment elites shifted into a higher gear of militarization instead. They quickly latched onto what Kennan was referring to. A new enemy had to be found, or the economy so dependent on a war footing would collapse. That enemy was given to them in militant Islamism’s desire to wage war on the West by means of violent jihad.
The neoconservative elites of Washington (led intellectually by Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Pearle, Robert Kagan, etc.) had always been bellicose in foreign policy affairs, and were perpetually on the make for new conflicts. Fellow compatriot, Andrew Krepinevich at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, testified in front of Congress in 1999 that what was needed in the post 1991 era was a “new Pearl Harbor,” [2] which would give the country a reason to flex its muscles of exceptionalism to the world. Kristol’s gang agreed wholeheartedly. The attack on the World Trade Center two years later would provide that “new Pearl Harbor” for them.
In other words, militant Islamism has declared war on the West. Thus the nations of the West must retaliate, and America is more than willing to do so. Its military-industrial complex, in fact, has a built in need for war in order to avoid a major collapse of the American economy.
Thus Orwell’s famous irony – that the dictatorships of modernity would eventually engage in “perpetual war for perpetual peace” – comes true. War has become a constant that all leaders resign themselves to, and many actively work for. Militant Islamists pursue violent jihad against an infidel West, while bellicose neoconservatives in America wage war to prop up their sagging economy.
This explains the Islamic source of war and the American source of war, but what is the role of Russia in all this? Are they the ominous war threat that our leaders in Washington continually proclaim them to be?
The Russian Threat
The historical view of Russia has always been that of a gargantuan imperial power that wishes to control much of the world via the Czars of earlier times or the Leninists and Marxists of modern times. America, under the guidance of thinkers like George Kennan, largely accepted this view throughout the past 70 years. But we must ask ourselves, is it still relevant? Does Vladimir Putin want to extend the ideology of the Czars, of Lenin and Marx, and perpetuate an imperialistic policy regarding Europe? Does he want to rule the world, or is he satisfied with ruling Russia?
Contrary to what the Washington elites tell us, all indications are that Putin is not an imperialist. He is basically a Russian nationalist who wants preservation and protection for Russia as a nation. All his moves and policies over the past 15 years have been toward this goal.
Unfortunately Washington’s neoconservative ideologues have a dominating need, as Kennan pointed out in 1987, to create a continual source of enemies to justify the continuance of massive military budgets to preserve their positions of power, both nationally and personally. Therefore Putin must be painted in ominous colors to the citizens of America.
Nowhere is this warped outlook more evident than in the Ukraine situation that has evolved over the last two years. David Stockman, former budget director under Ronald Reagan, has pointed out that the February 2014 coup in Kiev was not instigated by Russia, but by an aggressive Washington in conjunction with NATO. In violation of the 1990 agreement between George H.W. Bush and Gorbachev to keep Ukraine neutral, Washington’s goal was now to incorporate Ukraine into NATO and push missile bases up to the border of Russia.
Comments Off on Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace
March 22nd, 2016
By Nelson Hultberg.
George Orwell told us, “The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.” Donald Trump has spoken powerful truths to America on immigration, trade policy, foreign wars, media integrity, and Republican competence. The political establishment has responded with tidal waves of vitriol and mendacity. Consequently Trump’s path to the GOP nomination is now racked with dangerous pitfalls and hate-filled Rinos waiting in the bushes to smear his image in any way they can.
Winning the GOP nomination is hard enough for a traditional candidate who doesn’t rock any establishment boats. But The Donald is about as “traditional” a candidate as William Wallace was an English royalist. Trump is a quintessential rebel antagonist. Thus his run for the nomination must be far stronger than those of the past if he intends to win.
What this means is that Trump must get the necessary 1,237 delegates before Cleveland. If he does not get them ahead of time for an automatic first ballot victory, he has little chance to get the nomination.
This is because after the first ballot is taken, most of the delegates will then be free to vote for another candidate. A second ballot will encompass immense arm twisting and bargaining. All the forces of the GOP will be pitted against Trump at this point. All bargaining will be geared toward drawing supporters away from Trump and committing them to Ted Cruz or John Kasich, which would keep Trump from getting 1,237 votes on repeated ballots and create a deadlocked convention. It is then that a compromise establishment candidate (e.g., Paul Ryan with Kasich as his VP) would be offered to solve the dilemma. Weary Republicans would give in and accept such a compromise to break the deadlock.
This would be a disaster and divide the party, thus guaranteeing a Clinton victory in November. It doesn’t have to happen, however. In light of Trump’s impressive start in the primaries he does have a clear path to the needed 1,237 delegate majority and the nomination before he gets to Cleveland.
What follows is a breakdown of each of the remaining 20 primary states, how many delegates they represent, and what Trump’s prospects are for getting them. He presently has 678 delegates after the March 15th primaries. This means he must get 559 more delegates to reach the needed 1,237. There are 946 delegates left to win, which means Trump needs to get 59% of them.
Here’s how he can do it with some to spare. Rubio’s supporters will split mostly between Cruz and Kasich in the upcoming primaries. But Trump is leading handily in almost all these states, many by double digit numbers, which will allow him to win most of them despite the fact that Rubio’s supporters will be lining up behind Cruz and Kasich. Six of the states are winner take all based on the state-wide vote. Five are winner take most, which means that the winner in each of the state’s districts takes all the delegates in each district that he wins.
The totals below for Trump are, of course, my opinion based on an assessment of each state’s demographics and type of primary. Some primaries are open to crossover voters; others are closed only to registered Republicans. Trump does better in the open form; Cruz does better in the closed. But Trump has won five closed primaries (Nevada, Kentucky, Louisiana, Hawaii, and Florida), so he has demonstrated he can do well in the absence of Democratic and independent voters crossing over. In addition, momentum is factored in also, which is building for Trump with each state that he wins. Trump and Cruz will pick up 98% of the unbound delegates; Kasich’s count will be neglible.
* * * *
March 22nd
Arizona (58) is winner take all. Trump wins and picks up 58 delegates.
Utah (40) awarded proportionally. Cruz wins. Trump gets 15 delegates.
American Samoa (9) sends unbound delegates to the Convention.
April 1st
North Dakota (28) sends unbound delegates to the convention.
April 5th
Wisconsin (42) is winner take most. Trump wins and gets 28 delegates.
April 14th
New York (95) awarded proportionally. Trump wins and gets 55 delegates.
April 26th
Connecticut (28) awarded proportionally. Trump wins and gets 18 delegates.
Delaware (16) is winner take all. Trump wins and picks up 16 delegates.
Maryland (38) is winner take most. Trump wins and picks up 28 delegates.
Pennsylvania (71) is winner take most. Trump wins and gets 45 delegates.
Rhode Island (19) awarded proportionally. Trump wins and gets 12 delegates.
May 3rd
Indiana (57) is winner take most. Trump wins and picks ups 40 delegates.
May 10th
Nebraska (36) is winner take all. Cruz wins.
West Virginia (34) awarded proportionally. Trump wins and gets 20 delegates.
May 17th
Oregon (28) awarded proportionally. Cruz wins. Trump picks up 10 delegates.
May 24th
Washington (44) awarded proportionally. Cruz wins. Trump gets 15 delegates.
June 7th
California (172) is winner take most. Trump wins and picks up 120 delegates.
New Jersey (51) is winner take all. Trump wins and gets 51 delegates.
Montana (27) is winner take all. Trump wins and picks up 27 delegates.
New Mexico (24) awarded proportionally. Trump wins and gets 14 delegates.
South Dakota (29) is winner take all. Cruz wins.
* * * *
Trump wins 15 states and Cruz wins 5. If the above delegate estimates take place, Trump gains 572 delegates. When added to his present 678, it will give him a total of 1,250 delegates and a first ballot victory.
The GOP establishment will then have to resign itself to a Trump nomination. Hopefully Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, Lindsey Graham, Karl Rove, etc. (and their media cheerleaders such as Rich Lowry, Charles Krauthammer, and Steve Hayes) will be men about it, not crybabies.
What will then be needed is for a crucial unification to take place between June 7th and July 18th among all opposing GOP factions prior to the convention. Trump’s attitude will be important here. He must be magnanimous toward those who opposed him so viciously. And the adamant Trump haters (Romney, Rove, Graham, et al) will have to pipe down and recede to the background. Most importantly, the RNC will have to reject any underhanded rewriting of the rules to deny Trump his rightful nomination. The voters will have spoken. Without such a unifying acquiescence on the part of the elites, America will be lost to the Dragon Lady, Hillary, and her collectivist “world government” oligarchs.
Comments Off on Trump’s Precarious Path to the Nomination
March 15th, 2016
By Nelson Hultberg.
The argument over trade and whether governments should allow it to be “free” goes back to the latter 18th, early 19th century economists, Adam Smith, David Ricardo and James Mill. They could be said to be the fathers of the free trade movement that is still argued over today.
In essence, the argument says that people should be allowed to trade freely among themselves for goods and services without government intervention and restrictions in their own country and also with others in foreign countries. Such an arrangement leads to countries producing and exporting those goods that they excel in and importing those goods that they do not excel in. This leads to the benefit of everyone involved because we as consumers attain our goods at the lowest price possible. This was termed the “Law of Comparative Advantage” by Ricardo.
This is all very true. Free trade is certainly the ideal, and it should be our goal in all countries the world around. Mercantilism (i.e., managed trade by governments) leads to favoritism, inefficiency, and tyrannical statism.
A Profound Caveat
But all this comes with a profound caveat. This caveat is that “free trade” is the ideal only if it is practiced fairly and equally by all participant countries, and only if our government stays out of our domestic marketplace so that our own manufacturers can compete with the manufacturers of other countries. Unfortunately this is not the case in today’s government dominated world. Here’s why:
1) Foreign governments do not play the game of “free trade” fairly. They impose all kinds of tariffs and restrictions on our exports to them while we open our borders to their goods. China is the worst at this, but Japan and other foreign countries (especially in Asia) are close behind.
2) Our government has forced up the cost of industrial production drastically in America with its heavy corporation taxes, its monetary inflation, its massive regulations of businesses, its utopian environmental restrictions, and its coercive support of labor union monopolies that force wages up to prohibitive levels. As a result of these policies, our government has priced our manufacturers out of the world market. This has forced them to go offshore in order to stay alive. As a consequence the jobs they create go with them.
This has stripped America of millions of manufacturing jobs over the past 40 years. It is hollowing us out as a country. Manufacturing jobs are the top jobs for the working class. No nation can be a great nation without a vital manufacturing sector. We used to be the manufacturing leader of the world because we created a low-tax, low-regulation, uncoerced wage system that encouraged manufacturing.
However, this favorable market for manufacturing in America started self-destructing with the passage of higher and higher corporate taxes throughout the 20th century, along with egregious monetary inflation and the crazy-quilt of regulations imposed on businesses by the federal government in Washington. Adding further to the destruction have been the utopian environmental restrictions forced upon industry by a naive political left that has more concern for hawksbill turtles and rare bug species than they do for jobs and freedom.
There is also a fifth factor involved that no one wishes to talk about. Our favorable market for manufacturing has been hindered by passage of the Wagner Act of 1935 under FDR that created the National Labor Relations Board that acts as a support for coercive labor union monopolies. This allows unions to force wages up excessively above levels that would come about if a truly free market in labor-management bargaining was allowed to take place.
By the 1970s, the burden on our manufacturers from all this became too excessive to endure, and many of them started going offshore to more hospitable countries. Thus if we want to become a great manufacturing nation again, we must lessen these burdens we have imposed. Taxes must be lowered drastically, monetary inflation must be tamed, crazy-quilt regulations must be abolished, environmental lunacy must be ignored, and labor union monopolization must be contested. Trade must be free, yes, but it must be rational in perspective.
Rational Free Trade
The “rational free trade” argument merely says that until foreign governments start playing fairly (i.e., quit slapping tariffs and restrictions on our exports to them), and until our own government makes it easier for our manufacturers to exist, then we must play hardball with China and other nations who are taking such advantage of us.
According to this argument, the solution to the loss of our manufacturing jobs is two-fold: 1) reduce corporate tax rates and the burden of regulations and inflation drastically here in America, and 2) impose some kind of tariffs on China, Japan and others until they lift their own restrictions on our exports to them and quit manipulating their currencies so as to gain unfair advantage. This is fair “free trade” rather than the suicidal “free trade” we now partake in. It would give our manufacturers a chance to compete and consequently remain here in the U.S.
Thus the ideal of pure free trade among nations applies only if we had a world where other nations played fairly and our own government stayed out of the American marketplace. Sadly this is not the case, and until it is the case (maybe in some idyllic future 200 years hence), we need to play hardball with China, Japan and others. We need to make better trade deals.
Unilateral Trade Deals
Playing trade hardball would entail abandoning trade organizations like the WTO and NAFTA and establishing “unilateral trade deals” with foreign nations individually. This will be vehemently opposed by the Wall Street – Washington axis of corporatists dominating the nation because it would impede their dreams of phasing into global government.
However, playing trade hardball would be most indubitably in our best interests as a nation. It would benefit us as citizens in the long run because American sovereignty and prosperity would be greatly strengthened as manufacturing jobs return. If trade hardball raises prices for toys, clothing, and cars from Asia, it would only be temporary because as foreign nations open their markets to us as a result of our playing hardball, we could then reopen our markets to them. Prices would return to lower levels.
But most important to understand is that there would take place a dramatic long run improvement in American life because millions of manufacturing jobs would return to our country. Top companies would be able to once again thrive here. We would become a producer nation again instead of the consumer obsessed nation we are at present.
In conclusion there is no conflict between free trade and fair trade. If properly implemented, they are one and the same. And they will make America great a
Comments Off on Free Trade vs. Fair Trade
February 22nd, 2016
By Nelson Hultberg.
The Iraqi war was launched in 2003 by George W. Bush and the officials he gathered into his administration (Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, et al). They believed it was necessary in order to defend our country against the terrorist threat that arose from the World Trade Center attack on September 11, 2001. And, yes, they lied (or at the very least pushed unjustifiable intel) about WMD being developed by Saddam Hussein to justify the invasion.
In the minds of many American patriots and military personnel, however, the war in Iraq and our military involvement throughout the Mideast is not only not necessary to fight terrorism, it creates more problems than it can ever solve. Its cost, in both spirit and material since its inception, now weighs on our decaying society in hideous ways. What is horrifying is that our coercive intervention into Islamic affairs throughout the Mideast is, and will continue to be, neverending. This is what Orwell meant in Nineteen Eighty-Four with his satirical aspersion, “perpetual war for perpetual peace.”
MacArthur’s Warning
As General Douglas MacArthur warned President Kennedy to stay out of a guerrilla war in Indochina, [1] so too should America have stayed out of such a war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Winning guerrilla wars in the guerrillas’ home territory requires devastating the indigenous population and then occupying the country endlessly with authoritarian methods. This is not the American way; it is the way of imperialists.
Douglas MacArthur was one of our greatest, most daring generals, a consummate patriot who well understood the necessity to go to war when it was forced upon us. But he also understood the dangers of the modern day Leviathan and its manipulation of its citizens to justify war. In 1957, perhaps anticipating Vietnam, he warned that, “Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear – kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor – with the cry of grave national emergency. Always there has been some terrible evil at home or some monstrous foreign power that was going to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it.” [2]
General MacArthur was speaking 58 years ago, but does not his warning fit today’s “warmongers” in Washington who revel in stampeding the people with constant threats about terrible evils abroad? The names and events change down through the centuries, but the ploys of Lord Acton’s power lusters remain the same; they continue to spur well-meaning men to war fever with “the cry of grave national emergency.”
America’s interventionist war today in the Mideast is no different in principle than the one MacArthur cautioned us about in Indochina. In order to be genuinely won, it must bog our nation and troops down for many decades into the future. Vicious internecine fighting among the tribes that populate the area (Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, Wahabbis, etc.) has been the way of life for these primitives for over a thousand years, and American political philosophy is not going to eliminate the hostilities they hold for each other and for democracy.
Our statists in Washington are bewildered by the difficulty in getting Muslims’ to be enthusiastic about democracy and an American style Constitution. But as Richard Maybury points out in The Thousand Year War in the Mideast, Muslims have their own Constitution. It’s the Koran, and it has ruled them for over a millennium. Yet our solons imagine that they can overturn 1400 years of metaphysical tradition with gung-ho American lectures.
This is embarrassingly naïve. Change in a culture’s metaphysical views takes place over centuries, not years. It moves like a glacier sliding across a continent. And it does not respond to the butt end of a rifle. What glee our enemies must be experiencing at sight of eager Washington technocrats trying to convert Islamic cultures to democracies with gung-ho lectures and military prowess. It is such kindergarten level thinking – to believe such an approach can meaningfully alter the Muslim way of life.
Our hubris has already cost us $6 trillion dollars along with 6,717 deaths and 50,897 wounded on the battlefield in this Mideast cauldron, as our economy plunges toward bankruptcy because of our government’s reckless reaching beyond its financial and spiritual supply lines. Yet the region is now engulfed in far more grisly chaos than before. Great nations fall precisely because of this kind of blindness, this kind of senseless waste and inhumanity that the Bushes and Obamas of history so callously heap upon their fellowman.
Confronting Terrorism and ISIS
ISIS is the evil spawn of Islamic extremism that stems from Muhammad’s calls to kill all infidels. There are 109 specific passages in the Koran advocating such. ISIS is thus a vile and dangerous sector of the Islamic faith and must certainly be confronted. But contrary to neoconservative claims, America does not need a massive military presence in the Mideast to handle this barbaric cancer. ISIS can be defeated by organizing a coalition of troops from among the Islamic countries (Iraq, Iran, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc.) along with the Kurds. America should provide strategic weapons, bombing and training; but we must not succumb to the siren call of the “warmongers” and put American troops in the field. This is the Muslims’ neighborhood, and they need to clean it up.
Ultimately the Islamist threat to America can only be stopped by our returning to the rational immigration policy of “National Origins” that prevailed prior to 1965. This would allow us to pick and choose who we wish to allow into America, which would allow us to ban Muslims as immigrants until they get their jihadist-motivated religion reformed. This is why we don’t need to put our troops on the ground in the Mideast. The real fight is at our borders.
From the start our military efforts should have been quick and surgical in Afghanistan and geared only toward ferreting out Osama bin Laden rather than a multi-front war that included Iraq and the imposition of democracy on Islamic primitives. Our present approach is tragically self-defeating; but this is the level of historical acumen and strategic perception possessed by the neoconservative pundits that George W. Bush ushered into power.
There is no more lethal combination of flaws for men to possess than ignorance and arrogance. Those intellects who have studied history and grasp the flawed nature of man realize this. We fear greatly the dreadful consequences of allowing ignorant and arrogant men such as George Bush and Barack Obama to lead us as a nation. The foreign policy apparatchiks they both gathered around them are neoconservatives whose drive for “militaristic global hegemony” has been in effect since Paul Wolfowitz and Bill Kristol gained the ear of Bush in 2001. It is costing us as Americans our freedom and our country its sanity. The body bags will not cease, the gargantuan debts incurred will not recede, and America’s relentless collapse into an insolvent despotism will not stop until a rational ruling ideology comes to power in Washington. Let us hope it begins January 20, 2017
Comments Off on The Warmongers
December 2nd, 2015
By Nelson Hultberg.
I recently wrote an article, “Trump’s VP Choice and Eligibility,” which you may have read and passed on to others. If anyone has disputed the article to you, linked below is an updated and much better version that should settle the issue once and for all. The law of the land states that Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal are ineligible to be President because they were born of alien parents and thus not “natural born.” But the law also states that Ted Cruz is a “natural born citizen” and thus is eligible for the Presidency.
Anti-eligibility advocates are correct about Rubio and Jindal (and as we will see below probably about Obama also). But they have gone one bridge too far when they try to say that Ted Cruz is not eligible. The official law of the land states clearly that he is. See why here:
http://newswithviews.com/Hultberg/nelson110.htm
This revised version of the article gets more extensively into the two laws that prove Cruz’s eligibility: the Naturalization Act of 1795 and the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.
What anti-eligibility advocates don’t grasp is that unless the Supreme Court is willing to overturn these two laws, the issue of “natural born citizen” has officially been defined by Congress, which they have a constitutional right to do. The fact that the Supreme Court has let the 1795 law stand for 220 years and the 1952 law stand for 63 years tells us that they are satisfied with this congressional definition of “natural born citizen.”
In other words, the Supreme Court has actually made its determination as to what a “natural born citizen” is by refusing to intervene in the congressional passage of the 1795 Act and the 1952 Act.
This is a very important part of how jurisprudence progresses in America. Legislation is passed by Congress, which then becomes the law of the land. If this law is deemed “unconstitutional,” the Supreme Court intervenes to strike down such a law. But if it is not struck down, it is deemed “constitutional.”
Thus until the Supreme Court overturns the 1795 and 1952 immigration laws, they form the backbone of what an “American citizen” is, whether natural born or naturalized. The chances of the Supreme Court overturning these two laws are nil.
Moreover, contrary to the beliefs of anti-eligibility advocates, the term “citizen” is not inferior or secondary to “natural born citizen.” The fact that the term “citizen” is often used in U.S. immigration law instead of “natural born citizen” is because the two terms are interchangeable, with the term “citizen” actually being the superior (or inclusive) term. In other words, there are two types of citizens, natural born and naturalized. Thus whenever the law uses the term “citizen,” it means both natural born and naturalized unless clarified otherwise. This has been the case since 1795.
These two laws of 1795 and 1952 are why the Obama eligibility challenges never went anywhere. Obama was born from Ann Dunham, a natural born citizen, which means he was natural born. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 validates this. And it doesn’t make any difference where he was born, inside or outside the borders of the U.S. Section 3 of the Naturalization Act of 1795 validates this. But there is a very important question that we have to ask:
Why then did Obama produce such an obviously forged birth certificate that was immediately torn apart by hundreds of document experts as a fabrication? Something was being covered up. But what?
Here are three of those analyses:
Sheriff Arpaio of Arizona’s investigation – 5 min. video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikaajbOEWpk
Obama Birth Certificate Faked – 7 min. video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s9StxsFllY
Jerome Corsi Article on Zbest analysis of the forgery
http://www.wnd.com/2011/06/316749/
To answer why Obama and his advisors produced such an obviously forged birth certificate, perhaps they were trying to cover up the fact that Ann Dunham and Obama’s father were not legally married, which is a requirement under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. Barack’s father was previously married and never divorced. Thus his marriage to Dunham was not legal, just a temporary contrivance to allow him to stay in the U.S. and finish his education.
If this was so, then Dunham would have officially produced a child out of wedlock, which apparantly would still qualify her baby as “natural born,” but only if she was physically present in the U.S. for a year prior to the birth. The 1952 act states:
For persons born out of wedlock, the person is a U.S. citizen if all the following apply: 1) the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the person’s birth, and 2) the mother was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the person’s birth.
I’m presuming that this means one year directly preceding the birth, i.e., while she was pregnant. So perhaps Obama and his advisors were trying to cover up the fact that Ann Dunham was not legally married and not in America for one year directly prior to the birth. Why precisely they released the forged birth certificate we do not know, but obviously they were trying to cover up something. Was it something that made Obama NOT a “natural born citizen” and thus not eligible? We can’t be sure.
But there is one thing we can be sure of. Hundreds of computer and photo shop experts have testified that the released document in 2011 was highly altered with numbers and names changed and with layers added, thus, making it not a single document released intact by the Hawaii Department of Records, but a “constructed document,” i.e., a fabricated document by rather amateurish computer people (probably some low level operatives in the administration). Hundreds of experts have testified to this fact of fabrication. Yet not one expert has come forward to testify to the released document’s authenticity. The Obama administration has relied on the gullibility of the American public and the compliance of the media to allow their forgery to pass.
What’s important to realize, however, is that the eligibility issue in regards to Obama is probably too murky to make fruitful. But Obama can be clearly attacked on the grounds of forgery. This is a felony punishable by prison. Obama and his henchmen are definitely guilty of committing a major crime. Merely view the above two videos and read Jerome Corsi’s article for verification.
Now that Obama’s term is winding down, he’s not going to be impeached on the eligibility issue or even the crime of forgery. His term will expire before any such cases could be brought in front of Congress and won. But it would be fitting justice if Obama was eventually taken to criminal court on the crime of forgery. In this way the truth about the man would be known, and his place in history would be rightfully discredited.
Thus if conservative activists would like to tackle the criminal case of forgery, there are valid grounds for proceeding. Perhaps some group with the legal chops and money to back them up will take on the challenge. Perhaps a Trump Justice Department will be willing to prosecute such a crime. That would be true “patriot justice.”
In the absence of such a challenge and prosecution, we will just have to live with the fact that the 44th President of the United States was a most despicable human being and a Marxist arch enemy of everything our country has stood for over two centuries. Hopefully his term in office will stand well into the future as an example of the horrible damage a Marxist ideologue can do to our country by becoming President. God help us if Hillary follows in his wake.
Comments Off on Political strategy? Cruz, Obama, and Eligibility
October 31st, 2015
By Nelson Hultberg.
Contemptuous disgust is the emotion that patriots feel these days when we have to endure bureaucrats and talking heads on television, or anywhere else for that matter. But contempt and disgust are far too mild to describe the reaction of most of us in the wake of the GOP presidential debate in Boulder, CO on Wednesday night.
Could there be any more embarrassing of a performance on the part of the American media than that provided by imperious John Harwood, snide Becky Quick, and buffoonish Carl Quintanilla? If we were watching Homer and Marge Simpson strutting around in a nudist camp, it would be more cringe worthy maybe.
The horrifying aspect of this abysmal TV charade is that the three CNBC moderators are no doubt feeling like they shined in the spotlight thrust upon them. Because of the “self-induced blinders” that blot out reality for liberal know-nothings, they are probably feeling proud of themselves. This, despite the fact that a sixth grader could see they were puerile, illiterate, and excruciatingly biased.
The Night’s Winner
The evening was saturated with rancor and stupidity, yet several wonderful moments were given to us.
Ted Cruz clearly stood out as the winner of the debate with a brilliant attack on the moderators that brought patriots of America to their feet cheering. Thirty minutes into the proceedings (marred by shocking fatuity from the questioners) Cruz was asked about the spending bill just passed in the House. He deftly sidestepped Quintanilla and seized the moment to unload on the god-awful behavior of CNBC.
Shakespeare’s famous quote – “There is a tide in the affairs of men” – came to mind while watching Cruz’s brief but brilliant oration. Or perhaps English professor, John Keating, in Dead Poets Society, telling his students to “Seize the day.” It was great theater, and it was a signal that there is a strong, articulate conservative waiting in the wings if Trump falls because of the narcissistic load he carries and if Carson slides into the likable but unqualified for the White House category of political aspirants.
“Let me say something at the outset,” Cruz fired back to the doltish Quintanilla. ”The questions that have been asked so far in this debate illustrate why the American people don’t trust the media. [huge applause] This is not a cage match…look at the questions – ‘Donald Trump, are you a comic-book villain?’ ‘Ben Carson, can you do math?’ ‘John Kasich, will you insult two people over here?’ ‘Marco Rubio, why don’t you resign?’ ‘Jeb Bush, why have your numbers fallen?’ How about talking about the substantive issues the people care about?” [thunderous applause]
Cruz then scolded the moderators as if they were schoolboys: “The questions that are being asked shouldn’t be trying to get people to tear into each other. It should be what are your substantive positions!” [more thunderous applause]
Cruz is highly intelligent, a Harvard graduate, and a polished debater. We just saw with his sterling performance in Boulder why he must not be counted out. His poll numbers are meager at present, but his audacity is huge. He seized the moment, which is what leaders do. They react spontaneously in the face of danger or evil or stupidity and dazzle with their oratory and their conviction.
The Rest of the Pack
How did the rest of the candidates fare? Not nearly as well as Cruz. Rubio stood out with his assertive speaking style and personality. He has an agile brain that spews information in an engaging, staccato manner. It’s a winning approach for debates. But unfortunately he is not a true conservative; he is very weak on immigration and the principles of freedom. He strikes me as a cherubic Machiavellian who will always be suspect. Not a man we want in the White House.
Donald Trump was strangely subdued as if he was trying to dial it back and appear presidential. The Donald has a big problem. If he tones it down, he loses his charisma and drops in poll numbers. But if he continues to fire up the furnace of insults he puts himself on the path to inevitable disenchantment from the electorate. Verbal brickbats and ridicule can only carry one so far. My guess is that he is drifting into the danger zone, and with his mediocre performance in Boulder, his “aura of inevitability” will start to show cracks in the coming months.
Jeb Bush, the poor little brother and tag-a-long of the Kennebunkport presidencies, seems so forlorn trying to bravely follow in his father’s and brother’s footsteps to do his family’s bidding. But his enthusiasm is, like manliness at a soiree of fops, noticeably absent. The stature of his father and the Texas charm of his brother are nowhere to be seen. The first two Bushes were disastrous from a patriot’s perspective, but Big Jeb is a lumbering giraffe that makes them look like fleet gazelles in the arena of politics. Life has cruelly placed Jeb last in the dynastic dream of grandfather Prescott, and unfortunately the country has soured on Bushes. Thus the ponderous Jeb is left to flounder in futility as luckier and more self-assured candidates speed past him.
Ben Carson is the human embodiment of Winston Churchill’s famous quote about Russia, “a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.” Sphinx-like in his persona, he gazes out at the world with mystery written all over him. Is he wise and profound, or is he just bold and opportunistic? A brain surgeon certainly must have a steel core and a calm disposition. He must possess a level of courage that escapes ordinary men. And I’m sure Carson has all these attributes. He is totally unflappable, but his demeanor borders on the somnolent. Could this man govern the most powerful nation in the world in the tempestuous times that are descending upon us? Immense doubts linger in one’s mind. Being president of zonked out America in a world of ISIS, mastodonic China, and the cauldron of conflagration that humans have made of modernity will require more than the requisite skills for brain surgery.
John Kasich, Carly Fiorina, Rand Paul, Chris Christy, and Mike Huckabee make up the rest of the roster. They have as much chance of winning the GOP nomination as a pond of toads has of winning the Mirror Ball on Dancing With the Stars.
What are we to conclude from all this? Ted Cruz would make a fine president. And CNBC’s three stooges make CNN’s talking heads look like Tom Jeffersons when we know they are the spawn of Saul Alinsky breast-fed by Hanoi Jane.
– See more at: http://constitutionalrightspac.com/articles/cnbc-idiots-and-the-gop#sthash.0q1Q7Ofq.dpuf
Comments Off on CNBC idiots and the GOP
September 18th, 2015
By Nelson Hultberg.
Enormous gloom descended upon this writer as the latest round of GOP debates finished up. I realized there will be no rational patriot defender of America running for President in 2016. The Democratic side of things offers only semi-socialists; no hope for patriotism and freedom there. But surely, I thought, someone with a consistent grasp of patriotic freedom will show up among the GOP aspirants for the White House. Not to be. There is nothing but debilitating confusion over fundamental principles from all comers.
Three of the four important issues facing our country were discussed. Immigration, tax policy, and foreign policy were the three. The fourth, monetary policy, was not included in the questions. Unfortunately nowhere was there a candidate with a proper grasp of immigration, taxes, and foreign policy. Some came close, but always contained fundamental flaws in their advocacies. Lets examine them.
Immigration Policy
On the discussion of immigration, our champion Mr. Trump inexplicably ignored the three major magnets drawing illegals here, which are jobs, welfare services, and education. He kept defensively reacting to the establishment smears that deportation of illegals is impossible because it would require rounding up 250,000 illegals per month for two years and deporting them. This is ridiculous. First of all it won’t require rounding up anyone. All it will take is to remove the three major magnets of jobs, welfare, and education for all illegals, and they will gradually self-deport over the next decade. They will simply leave and go back home all on their own.
The second mishandling on the immigration issue by Trump was in his bumbling effort to explain the 14th Amendment’s anchor-baby loophole. The neocons kept insisting that this would be a long grueling fight that would take years and require a new Constitutional Amendment. Not so. The wording on the 14th Amendment clearly states that it applies only to those who are “subject to the jurisdiction [of the United States].” This means it does not apply to aliens, i.e., illegals. The creator of the 14th Amendment, Senator Jacob Howard, stated so unequivocably in the floor debate on the amendment in 1866:
“This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.” [The Congressional Globe, May 30, 1866. Debate on the Senate Floor. Remarks of Senator Howard.]
Thus Congress can at any time pass a law to nullify our present ill-conceived granting of automatic citizenship to the babies of aliens.
Tax Policy
Ben Carson was the only candidate who got tax policy correct. He advocated a 10% flat tax for everyone with all exemptions and special breaks eliminated. But unfortunately he didn’t know how to defend it properly. He failed to point out that such a flat tax is the only moral form of taxation under our system because it is the only tax that comports with “equal rights under the law.” Carson rambled on about the practical implications, which have never been adequate to gain the public’s acceptance, and never will be.
The only way to sell a flat tax to America is to demonstrate that it provides “equal rates” for everyone, which means “equal rights” for everyone. Progressive taxation mandates different rates for different classes of people, which means special privileges for certain classes. Progressive taxation allows the Goddess of Justice to lift the blindfold and say, “First tell me who you are and what your status is in life. Then I will tell you how the tax laws apply to you.” This is arbitrary law, the harbinger of every dictatorship that has come down the pike of history. The neocons such as Bush, Trump, and Christie chimed in for progressive tax rates.
Foreign Policy
There was one sane voice on foreign policy, and that was Rand Paul. He clearly and patiently explained to the rabid interventionists (i.e., all the rest of the candidates except for Carson) that the Iraqi war was a huge mistake, that there are times of trouble when a country just cannot resort to violent intervention to solve its problems. Diplomacy, sanctions, trade incentives, etc. are available, but military force is just not an option.
Ironically one of the most rabid of present hawks, Trump, was against the Iraqi war in 2003. But today he’s just itching to put troops on the ground in the Mideast and spread Americanism around with the butt ends of our rifles, which will, stimulate more terrorist attacks, not less. See my article, Confronting Islamic Jihad, for the proper solution.
Carson was against the Iraqi war, but was also against going into Afghanistan. This is a major blunder in logic. We were attacked by Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda forces who were anchored in Afghanistan. When the Taliban government refused to relinquish him (after several months of demands), then we had not only the right, but the duty, to invade and do whatever was necessary to capture bin Laden.
We played this card right, but then succumbed to neocons, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Wolfowitz, and pressed our bet by going into Iraq to take out Saddam Hussein and establish a democracy. The ignorance and arrogance of the George W. Bush administration drove us into the “tar pit” that General Schwarzkopf warned us so forcefully about back in 1991. And unfortunately it appears that the next round of Republicans are hell-bent to get back into the tar pit.
Carson is thoroughly confused, however, with his refusal to go into Afghanistan which we had a clear right to do, but botched by hanging around forever trying to instill democracy. We should have simply bombed the Taliban into oblivion, then gone in to capture bin Laden, and if we failed, then withdraw and resort to clandestine, commando-oriented espionage in the manner of the Israelis’ pursuit of Adolf Eichmann.
Conclusion
America is in serious trouble, more so than ever in her entire history. Militaristic mega-statists dominate both the Democrats and the Republicans except for Rand Paul and Ben Carson. And unfortunately they have serious electability problems. Paul doesn’t have the moxie to play in the political big leagues. And Carson’s somnolent persona, mystifying inconsistency on foreign policy, and inability to grasp the moral fundamentals of just tax policy doom him eventually to also ran status.
This leaves us in the hands of Donald Trump, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, or John Kasich – all neoconservatives who will further centralize our system and drag us back into Orwell’s “perpetual war for perpetual peace.” Ted Cruz is excellent on domestic policy, a staunch libertarian-conservative. But once in the foreign policy arena, he shucks his freedom hat for the war helmet of the neocons. Carly Fiorina is a fine articulator of policy with a grasp of details and statistics that would dazzle MIT professors, but she has a shrewish countenance that projects meanness rather than joy. Not a good formula for winning any political office, let alone that of the U.S. President.
Statism hangs over our country like the stench of a death ward in a crowded hospital. If we don’t begin a reversal of guiding ideology in the next decade, we as a free country will cease to be. What evolves will be a monster state of militarized collectivism that ushers in a lawless and regimented misery in all the aspects of our lives. Constitutional freedom will be one more “anachronism” abandoned by a sick and decadent array of intellectual and political leaders.
Comments Off on GOP candidates: Dazed and confused
September 15th, 2015
By Nelson Hultberg.
“Know thy enemy,” said Sun Tzu, the famous Chinese military strategist of the 6th century B.C. Wise words, indeed, and we need to apply them toward the Islamist enemies we face today. What is it that motivates their fanaticism, their worldview, their hatred of the West? There are several factors, but there is one that is primary. It is the ideology of Islam. Since it is ideology that is the main determinant of history, this is where we must start if we are to “know our enemy.”
Islamic cultures today differ from those in the West quite drastically, which is certainly in itself not a bad thing. The diversity of cultures is part of the majesty of human civilization. But only if those differences are sane and peaceful. Is Islamic culture sane and peaceful? Let’s find out.
Wise men and women realize early in life that what socio-political systems we end up with are largely due to the level of rationality that our top intellectuals embrace. For example, America became the greatest nation in history because her intellectuals of the 18th century were brilliant students of reason and history. And they enshrined a constitutional vision of “strictly limited government” that created a free and prosperous way of life that had never before been approached by mankind. It lasted for about 125 years until 1913 when the “progressive intellectuals” of the day began to subvert it. But for one brief moment in history, as Ayn Rand put it, there was a Camelot on this earth.
Our departure from reason is destroying us today. Unfortunately starting around the 11th century, Islam’s leading scholars began this process also. They brought about a fateful departure of Islam from the Hellenistic emphasis on reason as one of man’s prime tools to decipher reality, truth, and goodness, etc. Islam’s most important thinkers abandoned all respect for rational thought. The inexplicable “will of Allah” became the fount of all that happens. Herein lies the profound root of Islam’s tragic fate today.
In a contentious debate over the role that reason plays, Muslim scholars of that era swung the pendulum away from Greek rationalism, which destroyed any hope for their cultures to advance scientifically and technologically. Western scholars embraced Greek rationalism and as a result life in the West took off; but life in Islamic lands began a 900 year descent into backwardness. Consequently today’s Islamic societies wallow in primitivism. Science has been warped into an elusive, distrustful power; many of their intellectuals consider science to be blasphemy against Allah.
The Closing of the Muslim Mind
In his provocative book, The Closing of the Muslim Mind, Robert R. Reilly explains this tragedy and all the baneful implications that have unfolded from it. Muslim modernity has become an impossibility because of Islam’s rejection of what is termed, in the West, man’s God given reason. In the minds of Muslims, life is not a cooperative venture between God and man; it is a predestined stage play that Allah has willed absolutely. “Inshallah” (if God wills it) has become the standard theme of discourse in Mideast countries. Natural law is dismissed, cause and effect are illusions, all human actions and all of life’s events are a product of Allah’s will. There is no free individual will and thus no individual responsibility other than obedience to the Koran. Humans can know nothing about morality and must subject themselves without question to Allah’s commandments.
This tragedy, Reilly tells us, came about as a result of two opposing schools of theological thought that predominated in the infancy of Islam between the 9th century and the 11th century. These two schools were the rationalist Mu‘tazalites and the literalist Ash‘arites.
The Mu‘tazalites maintained that the Koran was created at the moment in time of its revelation by Allah and was meant to be interpreted by human beings using reason. It was to be applied via jurisprudence to society and adapted to the needs of propriety and justice as discerned by logical thought. Man possessed free will and must exercise it. Aristotelian wisdom was integral to the Mu‘tazalite school.
The Ash‘arites maintained that the Koran was not created, that it existed infinitely with Allah. It was not meant to be “interpreted” by human minds; this was blasphemy. The Koran’s doctrinal dictates must be taken literally and applied thusly to Muslim societies. Reason was a tool of corruption because it assumed that man could discern right and wrong with his mind. This led to questioning the will of Allah, which destroyed his omnipotence. Philosophy was a deceptive maze of word games conjured by sinful man so as to stray from absolute allegiance to Allah.
Because the Ash‘arites won this debate, Islamic culture turned away from the Hellenistic influence that had built it into a first class civilization between 800 A.D. and 1100 A.D. Philosophy was denounced and exiled from the arena of scholarly endeavor. Learning the convoluted dogmas of the Koran became the sole purpose of theologians. Jurisprudence became frozen in the stultification of theological minutia and authoritarianism.
This fateful adoption of Ash‘arite literalism led to the rejection of all the requisites of civilizational progress (individual freedom, objective morality, science, causality, critical thinking, equality of rights, etc.) that took hold gradually in the West to build its cultures. Such is the root of Islam’s primitivism today.
Islamism Is the Enemy
From this cultural backwardness has sprung a pervasive bitterness and humiliation among Muslims, which in turn has spawned radical “Islamism.” The intellectual leaders of Islamism play to Muslim bitterness by preaching the need to restore the original Islamic glory via Jihad, terrorism, and world conquest in somewhat the same manner that Hitler preached the glory of Germanic conquest over Europe as a salve for the humiliating defeat of Germany in World War I. It’s important to note, however, that Islamism is just the fundamentalist part of Islam. As Reilly points out, most Muslims “find terrorism morally repugnant and alien to Islam’s core teachings.” But Islamist terrorism still has a dreadful appeal to growing cults of bitter minds conditioned from birth to believe that “reason” is impotent and “will” (with its concomitant of force) all-important.
Hatred of the West then is primarily Islamist hatred. All Muslims disapprove of the Western way of life because of its emphatic materialism, but the virulence of Islamism does not contaminate the majority of them. Virulent hatred saturates extremist, fundamentalist Muslims who have fashioned a cause of Jihad and world conquest in order to assuage their feelings of humiliation and bitterness over the backwardness of Islamic culture in the modern world.
Because of the prevalence of their anti-rational worldview, Islamic countries have thus been reduced to manipulation by clever authoritarians who master the doctrines of Koranic tradition persuasively enough to get control of their respective governments. Since critical thinking is scorned, the people end up tolerating puritanical customs in the process that are often primitive. Life is backward and holds no hope for change until a reawakening of reason, philosophy, and free will can take place.
Thankfully there are growing numbers of scholars who are trying to change Islam’s direction. Thinkers such as Tunisian-born Latif Lakhdar, Dr. Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd of Egypt, and numerous others reject the radical anti-reason approach to the Islamic religion and are working to alter its fatal destructiveness and restore Islam to that way of thinking when it was a high civilization, when it kept alive the wisdom of Greek rationalism during the Dark Ages. But for the time being the Islamic mindset is an enemy to the West.
Robert Reilly’s The Closing of the Muslim Mind brilliantly explains the mystifying intellectual reasons for modern Islamic Jihad and the dark, impotent cultures that prevail throughout the Mideast. If we in America are to know this enemy, then we must grasp what the ideological roots of it are. Robert Reilly’s book is a great place to start.
Comments Off on Roots of Islamic fanaticism
September 1st, 2015
By Nelson Hultberg.
“The West is empty, even if it has not yet become really aware of it. An extraordinarily inventive civilization, surely the only one capable of meeting the challenges of the third millennium, the West has no soul left.”
“At every level – nations, races, cultures, as well as individuals – it is always the soul that wins the decisive battles. It is only the soul that forms the weave of gold and brass from which the shields that save the strong are fashioned. I can hardly discern any soul in us.”
So wrote the great French novelist, Jean Raspail, in 1973 in his harrowing, apocalyptic novel, The Camp of the Saints, that foretold the coming disastrous immigration dilemma facing the nations of the West today. Raspail was far ahead of his time – with a brilliant flair for discerning the “big picture” of humanity’s precarious swings regarding culture, ideology, power, and politics.
The literati of the day heaped huge scorn upon Raspail for daring to tell them truths they were fleeing from. The mainstream press of Europe and America declared his disturbing novel to be a “preposterous, appalling screed.” Time magazine called it a “bilious tirade.” Columnist, Linda Chavez, labeled the book “racist, xenophobic and paranoid.” Almost to a man the media attacked Raspail with a frenzied hatred dripping from their reviews.
Admittedly the book has some racist verbiage that is off-putting. But these prose indiscretions committed by Raspail are picayune in comparison to the monumental message that he is delivering to his fellowman so lost in the decadent sewers of modern day apathy. The book is a didactic masterpiece, one of those gritty, salient sermons of fire and fervency that the daring minds of civilization create every hundred years or so when the societies around them are careening off into insanity. And is this not what modern society has been doing throughout the twentieth century?
Of course, this is what makes history the majestic but tragic enigma that it is. Humans continually wish to avoid the law of nature that is ingrained in their existence like the bloom is etched into the seedling of the rose. The natural law cannot be avoided, yet man never learns. He presumes he can climb to the moon on a rope of sand, that freedom no longer requires adherence to rights, that equal honor and fortune are prizes to be given to everyone no matter what their contribution to society, that nations are not based upon ethnicity and tradition, but upon arbitrary legal contrivance and can house multicultural hordes of aliens who do not share a common language, ideology, or system of values.
It is to this terrible default of humanity in regards to the fundamental truth of “ethnic nationalism” that Raspail directs the vision of his novel. And because the establishments of our day are the horrid progenitors of such a terrible default, they became ghouls in their reaction to The Camp of the Saints.
The Purpose of the Novel
The novel is not meant to be a realistic prediction of what will come about if we don’t recover our sanity and pride of nation. It is an allegory in the best tradition of fables like George Orwell’s Animal Farm and John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress. It is a literary method dating back to Homer and the ancient Greeks. It is a stark warning that if we don’t get control of unchecked immigration, if we don’t muster the will to defend our borders and our cultures against invading third-world aliens, our cherished civilization in the West will come to a hideous end.
The story begins with a million Indian peasants setting sail in a flotilla of ships from Calcutta in the Ganges Delta. They are motivated by the extreme poverty of their lives to seek asylum in the plush countries of the West. Their purpose is to land on the southern shores of France and present themselves as a dilemma to the governments of Europe: Take us into your culture and assure us of a comfortable lifestyle, or meet us upon our landing with force to deny us entrance. The strategy of the flotilla leaders is that the elites of Europe have become so jaded and amoral that they will capitulate and grant them asylum. They lack the will to defend their countries against such an invasion.
The journey’s destination is announced as it begins and spreads throughout the Western media. The flotilla takes 50 days to arrive on the southern shore of France. During this 50-day period, the political and social leaders of Europe are awash in leftist political correctness waxing ecstatically about how wonderful such a migration will be for humanity, how humane the affluent can now show themselves to be by integrating these million poverty stricken unfortunates into their homes and families. This will show the world how generous we really are by giving up our lifestyles to welcome the wretched of the earth with open arms. (Raspail foresaw the despotic sham of PC well ahead of his fellow literati.)
What happens when the ships arrive and land is not what the intelligentsia of Europe anticipates. It is a ghastly desecration of all the values that sustain stable and humane life. The ships meet little resistance upon landing because most of the inhabitants of southern France have fled northward. The military prove useless because years of PC propaganda have destroyed their will to resist such a tragedy with brute force. Mass desertions take place as the soldiers opt to default on their role as defenders of the nation’s integrity. The aliens infiltrate the country grabbing what they can of homes, land, and resources. Because of their successful invasion, they inspire millions of the lower income masses already inhabiting Europe to rise up and revolt also. Chaos ensues. The citizenry of Europe is turned upside down. Only small enclaves of sanity survive. The contagion spreads also to America and Russia.
The ideology of the alien flotilla’s members is decidedly anti-Western. It is rife with bristling hatred of the wealth they see all around them and are unable to match with their own productivity. Thus they intend to seize it.
Imagery and Message
The book’s style has a few flaws. Raspail makes no effort to create sophisticated dialogue, and the character development is neither subtle nor edifying. But such flaws pale to insignificance in light of Raspail’s towering testament to fundamental truths that modern man is refusing to face in a fit of craven political correctness. The graphic imagery and overall message gleaned from reading this apocalyptic tale are spectacular. It’s as if a giant media blackout surrounding the mysterious deaths of a town’s citizens over the years has been lifted, and we can suddenly see that the cause of the tragedy was a plague of virulent germs that, from the beginning, was deceptively portrayed as healthful by the authorities.
Our germs today are intellectual – the professorial and literary elites of America and Europe who have, for many decades, inexcusably poisoned the youth of the West with their rabid ideologies of collectivism and egalitarianism. They have taught modern-day Americans self-hatred because 150 years ago misguided ancestors practiced slavery. They have injected insufferable guilt into wealthy people for being successful. They have taken a robust capitalist quality of life and turned it into a despicable criminal endeavor. They have corrupted all the rules of logic and all the traditions of honor to destroy the pride Americans have in the free country they built.
Jean Raspail saw all this coming in 1973. He was a visionary who tried to warn us about the deep hostility to high-minded life that our socialist lessons to the young contained. He tried to tell us about the final denouement that our paroxysm of self-flagellation would bring. We now face the consequences of 80 years of left-wing madness masquerading as rationality. Immense tumult and cruelty lie ahead.
Comments Off on Camp of the Apocalypse
August 20th, 2015
By Nelson Hultberg.
The talking heads of the establishment are heaping scorn on Donald Trump like squawking crows defecate on those underneath the phone lines where they sit. The long knives are coming out of the sheaths of the New York-Washington literati. Everyone is attacking Donald Trump. But why is such animosity spewing from our media, our corporations, and our academic leaders toward this bodacious entrepreneur turned politician?
Why? Because Trump represents something untamed and untamable. He represents an outsider who refuses to play the game of “politics as usual” that the good ol’ boys have been playing throughout the past 80 years. What the establishment fears about Trump is that he doesn’t need to play the role of sycophant to their corporate-banking-bureaucratic combine that rules America.
Oh, the Donald makes use of the power elite combine when he sees that it is in his best interests to do so. But he does not need the corporate-banking-bureaucratic combine like the media sycophants and academic courtiers do. He is big enough to transcend the power elites that dominate the country. Thus he cannot be bullied. And this is why the major networks hate him so; it is why Megyn Kelly and Bret Baier were oozing hostility during the debates. Because they choose to live their lives as appeasers of power, sycophants despise those who do not bow and scrape as they do in front of power.
Can Trump Govern?
Donald Trump is independent and defiant; that is indisputable. But is he presidential material? Can he govern the nation in this time of immense trouble? We might just be about to find out; the man defies all naysayers.
His recently released immigration plan is sending shock waves through the power corridors of the establishment. Alabama Senator, Jeff Sessions, who is our most brilliant immigration hawk in Washington has stated, “This is exactly the plan America needs.” And it is, indeed, a revolutionary set of policy proposals. Finally a presidential candidate who is willing to tell the voters the truth on immigration. Here are its basics:
1. Build a wall and make Mexico pay for it. Until they do, the U.S. will impound all remittance payments derived from illegal wages, increase fees on millions of Mexican visas, and if necessary enact tariffs on all Mexican imports.
2. Enact nationwide E-Verify, which will bar all illegals from employment in the U.S.
3. End birthright citizenship. No more automatic awarding of citizenship to babies of illegals because they were born inside our borders.
4. End welfare abuse by immigrants. Applicants for entry to the U.S. must certify that they can pay for their own housing, healthcare and other needs.
5. Enhance the penalties for overstaying a visa. Individuals who refuse to leave at the time their visa expires must be subject to criminal penalties.
6. Detain all illegal aliens apprehended crossing the border until they are sent home. No more catch-and-release.
7. Defund sanctuary cities by cutting off their federal grants.
8. Mandatory return of all criminal aliens to their home countries.
There are other secondary features regarding the hiring of more ICE officers, cooperation with local gang task forces, treatment of H-1B visas, etc., but the above are the important features that need to be sold to the American people.
Flaws In the Plan
Unfortunately there still lingers Trump’s intention to select those who are “good illegals” and allow them to remain in America. My god, what a fiasco that would turn out to be. The bureaucrats in charge of such a “retention board” would surely allow 90% of the illegals to stay. This is the reality of Washington and its corporatist ideologues. Wake up, Donald! There is only one stand to take on illegals: they all must go home and apply for entrance through the front door. Only by setting the bar at the most severe level can we hope to keep the leaks and exceptions at a minimal level.
In addition, Trump’s welfare plank in the immigration plan mentions only the denial of welfare services to legal immigrants. But welfare services also need to be denied to illegal immigrants. Far more important.
The policy of allowing illegals to educate their children at taxpayer expense is not mentioned in the plan. Eventually a Trump administration will have to face this issue. But basically, the plan is an excellent start toward solving the alien invasion of America.
Skewering the Buffoons
The importance of Donald Trump can be found in the fact that through the sheer force of his personality, he has opened up gaping holes in the GOP establishment’s credibility. He is skewering the buffoons of the GOP like John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, and the gaggles of big spenders that prance around Washington. He has declared the neocon hierarchy of the GOP to be what it is – a coterie of greedy, stupid statists who have no interest in the good of the country, only in more legislative controls and entrenchment of their power in Washington.
Unfortunately the war going on between Trump’s camp and the establishment honchos smacks of the Mussolini-Lenin conflicts when the Fascists and the Communists were rising to power in early 20th century Europe. It is a conflict between rival gangs of collectivists to see whose vision of massive government control will prevail. It is not a fight between advocates of freedom and advocates of statism. At least so far it has not shown itself to be such. But there is still time. Trump, however, will have to follow up his very promising immigration plan with several policy positions on the side of freedom and constitutionalism as adverse to GOP business as usual.
For example, will Trump support elimination of progressive tax rates? Will he strengthen his stand against amnesty by abandoning his acceptance of “good illegals?” Will he endorse federalism? Will he propose the end of nation building in foreign policy? Or will he do what the GOP corporatists do, endorse privileges for the banks, unions, minorities, and welfare recipients while imposing democracy throughout the world with our military?
Red Flags In Foreign Policy
As reported in the Los Angeles Times of August 16, 2015, Trump says he wants to defeat Islamic State militants “by taking over a lot of the oil and certain areas of Iraq.” When asked about sending U.S. ground troops to do that, Trump said, “That’s OK.”
This is frightening. Trump would drag us back into the quagmire of a guerrilla war in the guerrillas’ home territory. These types of wars can only be won by becoming a permanent occupying force – perpetual war for perpetual peace as Orwell put it. Militant Islam does not threaten us militarily. The danger it represents to us must be fought, not by invasion of Islamic lands, but at our border by simply denying Muslims entrance to our country as immigrants.
Donald Trump is, indeed, a maverick. He has no trouble calling out the pygmies and exposing the charlatanry of the Democrats and Republicans. He has cajones as they say. But does he have the overall mindset to truly stand for freedom and the Constitution? Such a stand requires a certain level of perception in political-economy that identifies why statism is not just pragmatically lethal, but also morally wrong. Does Donald Trump have that level of perception? We are going to find out. The man is certainly defiant in face of the quislings, which is so needed these days. But is he a true patriot, or is he just another corporatist like George W. Bush?
Comments Off on Is Trump the Real Deal?
August 17th, 2015
By Nelson Hultberg.
Can anyone stop the overweening lunacy of the banking oligarchs? No more than anyone can stop pythons from devouring rabbits at play. Our bankers are not honorable. They are not farsighted. And they have set in motion forces that no human effort can avert. Moreover they long ago formed a deathly co-op with history’s most deplorable criminal element – the state. This has given them a free pass to indulge in ugly asset corpulence and hideous irresponsibility. It has hidden the true state of their criminality from realization by good men and women. The banking oligarchs and the power they have over us today are the result of a long train of poisonous ideas descending upon the American republic over the past 120 years.
It began with the coming of socialism to Europe and its Fabian migration to America at the turn of the century. Capitalism, the Fabians preached, is the root of all evil with its insistence on gold as money. Its freedom is no longer possible in the modern world. It brings to mankind uncontrollable booms and busts and horrific poverty. There is no cure for capitalism. It must be burnt at the stake of its egregious altar – free banking. Free banking is responsible for wild cycles, and gold stifles productivity when needed. Only by centralizing the great network of free banks that capitalism creates and shifting from rigid gold money to flexible paper money can abundance and stability be brought to modern life. Thus was ushered in America’s reign of “easy money” with the inception of the Federal Reserve in 1913.
The Lure of Easy Money
Prior to 1913 we had resisted the lure of easy money, a curse that goes back to early civilization. Governments of history have always partaken in monetary debasement to create the illusion of prosperity. Our Founders realized this and preached against any kind of paper money. But their wisdom lasted only 125 years.
Easy money is like promiscuous sex. The two lures promise sensual delight and prosperity, and they do deliver such for various periods of time to their partakers. But ultimately they erode self-worth (for the female) and degrade the store of value that money represents for society. Bleakness and disaster are their ultimate denouements.
The media of the day, however, were eager to endorse this glorious shangri-la of perpetual prosperity that was sold to them as the Federal Reserve. “All progressive thinkers now realize,” they hammered home to us, “that banking must be centralized and controlled in Washington. Only then can booms and busts be eliminated. Only then can true stable wealth be produced.”
The fact that just the opposite has taken place over the past 100 years of this maniacal experiment in giving to government the power to create money escapes the awareness of pundits on the political left because clarity and reason do not move pundits on the left. Getting more out of life than they are willing to put in moves them. Denying the existence of Natural Law moves them. These two obsessions blind them to the irrational mega-statism that they so ritualistically worship in face of every problem that life thrusts upon us. Their worldview belongs to Alice in Wonderland. Words mean what they want them to mean. Objective reality is optional in their mind.
Because the pundits of the left have been taught the misconceptions of socialism, they fell prey to John Maynard Keynes in the 1930s who believed that capitalism had reached its “mature stage” and would never again be able to “generate sufficient demand.” Thus it needed massive government intervention into banking and the creation of money by those in Washington.
But capitalism has no such thing as a “mature stage.” It is eternally renewable as long as it is left free to recharge itself. The flaw in Keynesianism is that it was not capitalism that brought us the Great Depression; it was government intervention into capitalism via the Federal Reserve and its irresponsible inflation of the money supply that created a massive boom throughout the 1920s that had to eventually crack up and collapse.
All Keynesianism does is to exacerbate the normal cycles of laissez-faire and turn them into dangerous monster cycles via massive injections of credit, i.e., DEBT. If left on a gold standard, this cannot happen. Only the normal cycles of laissez-faire will come about, which quickly self-correct if left alone. Keynesianism is the classic case of government intervention creating economic distortions that it then uses as an excuse for more interventions, which then create more distortions. Eventually the distortions reach epic proportions such as we have today.
The solution is to restore a free-market in banking. Take the control of money out of government hands and let the marketplace determine what is to be used. It will always pick gold and silver, which cannot be inflated and thus will not bring about massive booms and busts. Keynes was catastrophically wrong in thinking that gold and the free market caused the Great Depression. The cause was the paper inflation that came from the creation of the Fed in 1913. Numerous Austrian economists have demonstrated this quite brilliantly – Murray Rothbard in America’s Great Depression and Ludwig von Mises in Human Action, for example. It is this crucial mindset that our intelligentsia must grasp if we are to get back to a free society and avoid the New World Order being prepared for us by the banking oligarchs.
The Tragedy of Modernity
Thus the tragedy of modernity. Political collectivists have swept over our country like a plague of infected rats in the days of Black Death. And they are destined to bring the same degree of upheaval to us that came to Europeans in the 14th century because of the rodents infesting their societies. Pathogenicity is not limited solely to physical life. It also plays a very prominent role in ideological life and comprises the evil factor in forming the tidal waves of history that sweep the shores of human endeavor over the millennia. The other side of the equation is that of salubrity and heroism which drive humans toward truth and propriety. Herein lies the great clash of good and evil that we find to be the metaphysical base of all meaning for our lives.
Unfortunately the pundits of the left like Paul Krugman, Thomas Friedman, and talking heads like Chris Matthews and Rachael Maddow dominate the scene and are lost in the utter irrationality of their philosophical fundamentals learned long ago in the formative years of their Fabian youth. Together with the equally warped neoconservatives, they control ten times the air space that the American freedom movement controls. Thus the country drifts toward an apocalyptic collapse.
What is coming is the end of the world as we know it. There will be no recovery from the Marxian-Keynesian disease and its vast rodent spawn of minds like Krugman, Friedman, Matthews, Maddow, and their 20th century mentors. There will be only chaotic economic crashes mixed into a steady, drizzling dissolution of culture and hope, prosperity and faith, politics and freedom proceeding from now into an indeterminate future.
But out of every downfall comes the inevitable effort to right the requisites of existence. Humans are seekers of truth in the long run. They desire the good rather than the evil even though they get hypnotized by the latter for long stretches of time. So for those of us who grasp the overwhelming idiocy of the collectivist Weltanschauung, sanity drives us to seek out one of two avenues: 1) drop off the grid and find a safe haven to ride out the coming storm, or 2) attempt to forge a resistance movement to fight the purveyors of what surely will be a Tyrannical World Order foisted upon us by the banking oligarchs in the coming storm. Both avenues have their appeal. One’s particular persona will dictate which is the preferred.
Comments Off on The banking oligarchs
August 8th, 2015
By Nelson Hultberg.
Seventeen GOP candidates for president of the United States paraded in front of us in Cleveland on August 6th. The establishment media crowed enthusiastically to the viewers about the import of this gathering to our lives as Americans. Chris Wallace and his fellow questioners milked the affair for all the drama they could squeeze from it.
Unfortunately this two-tiered debate was just one more exercise in the miserable irrelevancy of the media’s handling of “political affairs” in America today. With each passing year the nation drifts deeper into economic ineptitude, a macabre government intervenes further into all the nooks and crannies of our lives, and our culture sinks relentlessly into an abysmal preoccupation with gays, transsexuals, drug addicts, and other sundry oddities of life. Decadence and despotism loom all around us. There are scores of monumental issues that need to be discussed today openly and fervently by our media. But instead we got irrelevancy and default on the real problems that our country and culture face. Why were not the following paramount issues presented to the candidates in depth?
1) States’ rights versus Washington power.
We as a nation were formed under the concept of “federalism,” which means that all legislative power is to emanate first on the local level, then on the state level, and last on the national level. Yet over the past century, this fundamental principle of federalism has been destroyed. Washington dominates our lives like a one-eyed Cyclops, arrogantly and stupidly. The first duty of a president today should be to lead Congress in eliminating federal bureaucracies and returning power to the states and localities. This cannot be mere lip service for political appeal; it must be a vigorous, organized effort by the president to dismantle the stultifying ABC bureaucracies in Washington. The president must go in front of the American people repeatedly on TV like Ronald Reagan did to explain why massive bureaucracies such as education, energy, welfare, transportation, etc. must be turned back to the states and reduced drastically if we are to stave off bankruptcy as a nation, even phased out of existence if the people will it.
2) The Federal Reserve’s role in inflationary booms and busts.
Since 1972 there have been no limits on how much monetary expansion the Federal Reserve can bring about. Consequently the Fed has been expanding the money supply over the past 43 years at annual rates never before seen in the history of mankind. Thus the money supply has been growing far faster than the growth of goods and services, which is what creates inflationary booms and then the inevitable economic busts.
Congressman Ron Paul advocated ending the Fed as the answer to this problem. He is right, of course, but such a termination will take decades to bring about. The people have to be educated first as to correct banking and monetary policy. Thus in the meantime what do we do to stop the Fed from creating the booms and busts?
Fortunately there is a temporary practical solution to bridge the gap between today’s Fed corruption and a future with no Fed. The late Milton Friedman advocated a 4% automatic expansion of the money supply every year. This would remove responsibility for monetary growth from the arbitrary decisions of the FOMC and make it a simple computerized function by law. Money would grow at 4% annually, which would match the average GDP growth in a free economy. This would result in zero percent price inflation, which would bring stability instead of booms and busts. The Friedman plan is not a perfect solution, but it would buy us time until we could educate the people as to why and how we are to terminate the Fed. To avoid a depression, it could be phased into slowly.
3) Magnets drawing the illegal immigrants to America.
There are five primary magnets that draw illegals into our country. They are jobs, education, welfare services, the anchor baby loophole, and the privilege of Spanish as a public language. No wall or fence will ever stop the migration of Mexico into America. Only by removing the five magnets can we stem this invasion. Talk of “securing the border” without removing the magnets is for deceivers and humbugs. No problem can be solved without going to the root causes of the problem. The roots of illegal immigration are the five magnets. To eliminate them we must do the following:
Enact E-verify and enforce the criminal laws on the books regarding the hiring of illegals.
Mandate English as the official language for America in her public schools. Eliminate schooling and welfare benefits to illegals. Begin the process to end the anchor baby loophole of the 14th Amendment.
4) Should marriage be decided in the courts or by the culture?
Gays and lesbians are humans with the same rights as heterosexuals, and they deserve to be treated with the same respect and civility that one conveys to all other human beings. But they do not have the right to mandate their acceptance through the courts. Whatever acceptance in society they are to gain must come voluntarily through reason and persuasion.
Obviously gays and lesbians have a right to equality under the law, but this means only that they have the same right as all other citizens in society to form a “contractual union” and have it upheld by the law. It does not mean they have the right to coerce their fellowman by judicial decree into accepting such a union as a “marriage.” Marriage has, for thousands of years and for very sound reasons, been legally defined as between opposite sexes. Judges do not have the right to change this; only the people do. The determination of what constitutes marriage must be returned to the states and handled by a vote of the people.
5) Our police-the-world foreign policy.
In the Founding Fathers’ eyes the role of foreign policy was not to solve other nation’s problems, nor to dictate their forms of government. It was to defend our country’s security and survival. Our actions and alliances abroad were to be centered only around self-defense.
Is today’s aggressive foreign policy concerned only with self-defense? Or is it a policy driven by the egregious goals of corporate-government-banking combines? Is it America First? Or is it world hegemony dominated? Unfortunately it is the latter due to the neoconservatives rise to power over the past 30 years. It is their Wolfowitz Doctrine that guides Washington today. This doctrine maintains that America has an obligation to establish hegemony over all other nations via force in order to provide for a stable world because we are the only reigning superpower.
The question we must ask is: How can Washington justify the “spreading of democracy” through endless war and killer drones and think it is somehow pursuing justice? No nation has the right to dominate their neighbors because their technological superiority has made them the sole superpower. Such a foreign policy is imperialistic; it will bring America nothing but oppressive debt, international hatred, and quite possibly nuclear confrontation.
A Substantive Debate Needed
The above five issues are of vast importance. The survival of our country and our culture are at stake. Why were not clear cut questions asked of the candidates about federalism and states rights, about the role of the Fed in booms and busts, about immigration magnets, about the courts usurpation of the people’s right to define marriage, about self-defense vs. world hegemony? Because today’s media are not interested in substance and freedom, that’s why. They’re all about dog and pony shows and the further expansion of statism.
Comments Off on The GOP Debate – Miserable Irrelevancy
July 28th, 2015
By Nelson Hultberg.
Such a promising start for Donald Trump, but it didn’t take long for The Donald to show that he’s every bit as craven as the rest of the Republicans. Turns out, he actually stands for amnesty. Here is what he is now saying as reported by Roy Beck of Numbers USA:
On Friday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Trump said he was “a very big believer in the merit system” to “work something out” for “some of these people have been here, they’ve done a good job. You know, in some cases, sadly, they’ve been living under the shadows.”
“Well, the first thing we do is take the bad ones, of which there are, unfortunately, quite a few. We take the bad ones, and get them the hell out. . . . We have to get the bad ones out. Then the other ones — and I’m a very big believer in merit system. I have to tell you. Because some of these people have been here, they’ve done a good job. You know, in some cases, sadly, they’ve been living under the shadows, etc. etc. We have to do something. So, whether it’s merit or whether it’s whatever, but I’m a believer in the merit system. If somebody’s been outstanding, we try and work something out. But before we do anything, Joe, we have to secure the border….”
These comments are in line with an earlier report from TMZ.com:
Donald Trump says if he’s elected president, he’d let undocumented workers who are productive stay in the United States, but if they just sponge off the system and don’t contribute … he’d have them deported.
Trump tells TMZ he’d create a “system of merit,” saying people here illegally should have “a road to legal status” if they work hard and contribute to the country.
Trumps says it’s unrealistic and inhumane to attempt to deport all of them. Thus, the merit system. He says many undocumented workers are “hardworking people” who deserve a chance to live the American dream.
* * * *
This kind of mealy mouth talk is, of course, no different than what all other Republicans have been saying in response to the immigration travesty heaped upon us by the liberals.
There is only one way to solve the “illegal immigration problem.” We must remove the magnets that are drawing the illegals into America. There are three primary magnets, which must be eliminated. Any other approach is appeasement and will meet with failure. Here are three steps that, if taken, will end the problem conclusively and permanently:
1. Mandate English as the official language for America. If Spanish is offered as a public language (as it presently is), then it is all the easier for illegals to live and thrive in the U.S. In the early part of the twentieth century, legal immigrants had to learn English in order to become citizens. This is one of the first requisites in order to maintain a stable culture. A nation needs a common language.
2. Eliminate all welfare benefits to illegals. Giving basic welfare services to illegals is nonsensical and greatly increases their desire to infiltrate our country. This must be ended. Such an approach will sound harsh to sensitive souls, but we are going to incur extremely harsh consequences without such a termination.
3. Enact E-Verify and enforce the criminal laws on the books. Harboring a criminal is a crime in any rational society. Thus the hiring of illegal immigrants becomes a crime; it is aiding and abeting. This is why it is punishable under the law. But in order to justly do this, employers have to be given a means to check citizenship status. Therefore, E-Verify must be enacted. Does this threaten us with a national ID? No more than we already have with our Social Security number. E-Verify merely opens up the data base to all private employers so they can easily verify an applicant’s citizenship.
Thus we don’t need any official government deportation program to round up illegals and expel them; they will simply return to where they came from on their own once the above three policies are enacted.
When you have millions of fire ants invading your back yard, which is full of honey pots, you must remove the honey pots if you want to stem the invasion. Thus the only solution is to eliminate the magnets that bring the illegals here. Humans are clever enough to find there way over, under, and around walls and fences. Only by removal of the magnets can this problem be solved.
Our problem today is that both Republicans and Democrats are obsessed with the illusions of multiculturalism. Both are poisoned with altruistic guilt concerning the poverty of the Third World. Both are blind to the balkanization morass into which they are driving America. Thus we are cursed with pygmy politicians pandering for votes and wishing to ease amnesty in under euphemistic guise. If we allow amnesty to take place, the next wave of illegals rushing to America will be 40 million instead of the present 25 million. Unfortunately Donald Trump has shown himself to be just another “pygmy politician.”
According to ImmigrationCounters.com, the true number of illegals in America is in excess of 25 million, not 12 million. Just as the Federal Government is lying to us about price inflation, it is also lying to us about the number of illegals in the country.
Fifty years hence, our children will not be thinking kindly about the polyglot of third-world cultures and disparate languages that we have bequeathed to them. It won’t be “America the beautiful” that we have passed on to the future.
As I wrote in Breaking the Demopublican Monopoly in 2010:
“Instead of a return to the soundness of the original American concept of strictly limited immigration and assimilation, we are cursed with Republican corporatists and Democrat multiculturalists wishing only to tinker around the edges of the monstrosity that Senator Ted Kennedy gave us with the 1965 Immigration Act. Today’s “conservatives” have become no different than the “liberals” and their legislative masochism for America.
“Despicable indeed. But a nation gets the politicians it deserves, and we have reaped an assortment of quislings that now slither around in the most fetid of Machiavellian muck.”
“This immigration disaster that so many intelligent men and women refuse to see developing, and thus are helping to foment by their cavalier default, is going to be ripping through our culture over the next 50 years like crude biker gangs swooping into the havens of an old, respected college campus to stake out living quarters. If we fail to stem its tide, there will be a hideous upsetting of all the vital interweavings of morality and sociological customs that take many painstaking decades to construct, and which are the sine qua non of free, ordered civilization. This should be chilling and galvanizing to Americans upon contemplation.”
Comments Off on Trump backs down
July 16th, 2015
By Nelson Hultberg.
The members of the U.S. political establishment are in full panic. A colorful, renegade patriot has just stood up to the ideological perversity that they have used for decades to exploit the lives of Americans and the meaning of our country. GOP leaders are writhing in paroxysms of fear at thought of The Donald on stage to compete with mega-state sycophants such as Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, and Mike Huckabee. Thus all stops are being pulled out to smear this brazen interloper who refuses to bow and scrape to the egregious perfidy that marks their careers.
What embarrassments our corporate, political, and media honchos are with their rush to cancel all contracts they have with Mr. Trump as punishment for his chutzpah. Because they have throughout their adult lives scorned “love of country” as a disease afflicting right wing bubbas, these quislings can’t conceive of a man who doesn’t care that million dollar contracts have just been withdrawn from his future. They can’t grasp that there are grander things in this world than wealth and power, that there are such a things as “love of country” and “adherence to the principles of liberty,” and that these virtues transcend their pusillanimous visions of the good life.
What Donald Trump has is what the Founders of America had and what T.R. Fehrenbach wrote about in 1968 in Greatness to Spare: The Heroic Sacrifices of the Men Who Signed the Declaration of Independence. Trump has the strength of will to sacrifice wealth and power for freedom and honor.
The Declaration of Independence ends with the following words: “For the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”
Fifty-six patriots signed on to this bold and revolutionary act of defiance in 1776. In doing so, they enshrined themselves into history’s hallowed halls that only the salient and the brave are able to enter. All of these fifty-six were well aware that what they were doing was “high treason” under every law accepted in that day, and as a consequence they could be hanged by the British as criminals. Yet none of them recanted – though almost everyone of them met with misery, hardship, persecution, torture, loss of reputation, the burning of their homes, and even death for fourteen of them. Despite this, they were steadfast in pledging their Lives, their Fortunes, and their sacred Honor.
This is the mindset that stirs in the brain of Donald Trump. This is the mindset that is so foreign to the political left in this country, and unfortunately also to many so called conservatives on the right. This mindset of the patriot. It transcends all the shallow materialism and amorality that establishment figures revel in so compulsively. It is the sterling stuff that built America, and it is what must be recaptured if we are to restore America.
Unpopular Truths
George Orwell wrote that, “The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.” This is what Trump has signed onto; and he is fully aware of it. He knows that he is destined to be blistered by the media sycophants and corporate quislings who have been selling the country out over the past 50 years on the issue of immigration and amnesty for the hordes of illegals that are flooding into our country.
But like the fifty-six who signed America’s Declaration of Independence, Trump knows that there is something more profound and monumental to commit one’s life substance to. It is “adherence to principle.” It is the vision of freedom and limited government that the Founders bequeathed to us. So all of you in the media and corporate world, smear Donald Trump all you wish. You are now up against a man who is not afraid of the “unpopular truths” of life. He will be standing on that stage with your puppet candidates who have built their pedestrian careers mouthing platitudes of obedience to the mega-state. Donald Trump represents a powerful threat to the pseudo-conservatism of the political right; and its representatives know it.
Trump is willing to touch the third rails of today’s politically correct arena – illegal immigration and multiculturalism and the grievous damage they are doing to our culture. He speaks truth to power because he has lived a life of power and is not afraid of its treasonous holders on both the right and the left.
Trump may or may not win the nomination, but no matter how the race unfolds, his presence will be extraordinary. He will open up the campaign to a much needed airing of the ugly ideology of mega-statism and how RINO sycophants perpetuate it. He will rally millions of patriots out there in the heartland who don’t care that The Donald is a bit over the top and hyperbolic. They forgive him because, despite all his wealth, he is one of them. He is a man’s man and a full blooded patriot who is willing to pledge his life, his property and his sacred honor to the American cause.
No man’s life can be meaningful unless he is willing to commit his intellectual and physical energies to a cause that is bigger than himself. Our corporate moguls, banker elites, and institute heads have never understood this. They are lost in the swamps of collectivism, materialism and narcissism. They are what is wrong with America. The patriots of the conservative and libertarian movements are what is right about America.
Immigration Truths and Fallacies
Trump understands that America has always been a nation of immigrants. But never has she been a nation of “unrestricted” immigration. From the beginning of their formation of America into a nation, the Founders were acutely aware of the need to lay down rules for entrance into the country and the acquiring of citizenship.
The Founders realized that the eternal verities such as our inalienable rights do not change from the past to the future, but immigration rules are not eternal verities; and they have little to do with individual rights. They are basically matters of public policy that will always be subject to both quantitative and qualitative revision with the passage of time.
In other words, entrance into a country is not a “right.” It is a “privilege” granted by the citizens of the country involved. If those citizens decide that their country would be better off with a small, selective stream of immigrants instead of a large and indiscriminate stream, then it is their right to bring about such a border policy. There is no such thing as a right to enter any country one chooses.
As the Supreme Court rightly ruled in the latter 19th century, “It is an accepted maxim of international law, that every sovereign nation has the power, as inherent in sovereignty, and essential to self-preservation, to forbid the entrance of foreigners within its dominions, or to admit them only in such cases and upon such conditions as it may see fit to prescribe.”
Those libertarians of America who oppose a tough stand on immigration must rethink their reasoning. Tight borders are based upon one of the most libertarian of all principles – the “right to freedom of association.” This means humans have the right to form into groups and establish rules for entrance into their groups, whether it’s a family with a fence around its yard, or a country club with a gate at its entrance, or a labor union with closed doors and by laws, or a country with tight borders and a Constitution. There is no such thing as a “right” to go wherever we please as Judge Napolitano and the Libertarian Party maintain. Immigration is not a fundamental “right.” It is a conditional “privilege” conveyed by the members of the group one is seeking to enter.
This was the view of Washington, Jefferson, and the Founders in 1787. [2] It was, as we just saw, the view of the Supreme Court in 1892. And it must become America’s view again. No individual has the right to enter a country uninvited.
All property in the world is owned either individually by persons or collectively by groups. The owners of a house and yard decide who can enter their house. The members of a country club decide who can enter their club. And the citizens of a country decide who can enter their country. The government is not destroying rights by denying entrance to certain people to the country it governs. It is merely expressing the rightful will of the owners of the country.
Donald Trump is going to be appealing to the “owners of America,” i.e., the people, not the corporate, political, and media elites who are today’s destroyers of America. The campaign of 2016 might just become a huge turning point in our history.
Comments Off on Donald Trump: American Patriot
July 4th, 2015
Greece defaults. The Dow plummets 350 points in one day. Ugly, ominous DEBT builds up like a giant snow cliff hanging over the economic valleys of the West. Is this the end of the Great Keynesian Charade brought to us by the collectivists with the advent of 1913 and the Roosevelt revolution of 1933? Not quite; but the end is near. It sits just beyond the “fiscal can kicking” that our government banking oligarchs have fashioned for us from Milhouse Nixon to Hussein Obama. A few more years of such illusory “policy making” will be all that is needed. The DEBT avalanche that we have contained far longer than wise men ever thought possible will begin its descent and crash into our lives. It won’t be a slow form of destruction either; it will be a huge and horrific crash that will wipe out much of the quality of our way of life overnight.
It will begin as the marketplace reasserts its control in the bond market, and interest rates begin to climb in defiance of the Fed’s massive rate suppression over the past decade. China and the world’s buyers of U.S. Treasuries are not going to continue ponying up in the Treasury auctions like they have been doing for so many decades. In fact they are now beginning to get rid of U.S. Treasuries, and this means they will surely be buying far less of them in future auctions. This will mean interest rates must go higher. The days of Washington borrowing its way to power and phony prosperity are numbered.
With higher interest rates will come more pressure for the Fed to simply print money in order to fund the egregious prodigality of the welfare state that FDR and LBJ gave to us. With such blatant printing will come price inflation and a fall of the dollar’s value throughout the world, which will then spur further rises in interest rates. The Keynesian chickens of “pseudo prosperity” that we have been enjoying for 80 years will come home to roost in a devastating decline for America. The boom will be replaced by the bust, and it will be massive.
If the Chinese Yuan is admitted into the IMF’s club for reserve currencies this October (which is a serious possibility), the dollar will lose huge amounts of its attractiveness around the world. It will sell off steadily and disastrously over the next decade. Prices will scream in America. Standards of living will plummet. Such an event combined with the past 80 years of Keynesian monetary illusion cannot end well for America. We have broken the natural laws of economics for so long that we will have to now pay for our sins like all prodigals do. And it will not be a pretty sight.
The Charlatanry of Keynes
The question is, can our authorities grasp the fundamental flaw underlying the Keynesian ideology that lies behind the boom-bust nature of our modern economy? This flaw is that Say’s Law is valid, and that Keynes was a charlatan to try and convince us that it was no longer applicable to modern times. As Jean Baptiste Say (the famous 19th century French economist) told us, “supply creates its own demand,” and no amount of credit expansion by government bankers is going to increase demand beyond what can be created by the productiveness of our people. At least there can be no “increased demand” that is genuine and stable. Keynesian demand is equivalent to the high that a dope addict experiences. There must come a total destruction and crash to balance out the high that the credit expansion created. Therefore government juicing up of demand by “priming the pump” with liquidity injections of credit to the people will not make us all richer in the long run. And that is what is important – the long run. [For a detailed explanation of why this crash must take place, see my article, Keynesianism’s Ugly Secret.]
Can our authorities grasp all this? Very doubtful. Thus America’s crash will drag Europe, China, Japan, Australia, and the rest of the world into a protracted depression that will be more devastating than anything in history. Calls for renunciation of American sovereignty will be heard everywhere. A world bank will be championed. Capitalism will be blamed even though we haven’t had capitalism since the 19th century. What we have is economic fascism, the merging of corporate power and state power. But all of this will elude our authorities. They will be in full panic mode and looking for a way to cling to power and climb back to some semblance of prosperity.
All of this will bring so much disorder, so much suffering, so much outrage among the people (who will not understand the Keynesian sources of the problem) that they will tolerate massive government centralization and martial law. They will scorn what is left of the Constitution. They will kowtow to demagogues preaching the need to nationalize the banking system and enact a massive redistribution of wealth through punitive progressive tax rates. They will agree with the Marxian mindset more and more. They will tolerate Marx’s “new kind of freedom.”
Can this disaster be averted? No, the crash cannot be averted. But what’s important is can America be revived after the inevitable crash that is coming? Can the revival be genuine, i.e., a restoration of the Founders’ vision of limited government? That is the paramount question that we now face. Is there enough patriotic desire for the real America among the people for them to want to restore it? Or will we succumb to Orwell’s nightmare and become Oceania (North and South America), while the rest of the world becomes Eurasia (Europe and Russia) and Eastasia (China, Japan, Australia, Korea, the Philippines, etc.). Three regional governments to dominate the world.
Lincoln’s Nationalization
This is the direction that we are headed. This is what is in store for our children. This is the price we paid when, 155 years ago, we began the nationalization of our government under Abraham Lincoln and the mercantilists of his day. It was with Lincoln that the Hamiltonian political philosophy finally gained power in our country. Till then we were Jefferson’s “Republic of States” relying on free enterprise, gold money, and a strict separation of powers, i.e., “federalism.” With Lincoln we shifted into mercantilism and political nationalization culminating with the Federal Reserve and the federal income tax in 1913, which led to the Great Depression, which led to Keynes in 1936, LBJ in 1966, and the Nixon to Obama government banking oligarchy.
[See Thomas J. DiLorenzo’s, The Real Lincoln and Hamilton’s Curse for two brilliant expositions of this treasonous departure from the original purpose of America.]
The collectivists have held power ever since Lincoln. Sometimes it’s Republican collectivists, and sometimes it’s Democratic collectivists who win at the polls. But always it’s collectivism. Always it’s more centralization of power. Each domestic economic crisis has brought us more centralization of government in Washington. And this next economic crisis, being a world crisis, will bring us world centralization of power. Regional government will be the beginning. We already have the forces set in motion with all the modern fervor for the North American Union (NAU) in which America, Canada, and Mexico are merged, first economically, which, of course, will eventually require political union in order to be workable.
Orwell’s world is coming. It will take a miracle to stop it. Americans will have to rebel and demand the restoration of what they know deep in their souls is their birthright – freedom in both the political and economic realms. Political leaders who grasp the Orwellian-Keynesian source of our problems will have to appear after the crash to galvanize the people. Americans still have a love of freedom inside them; but they will need both intellectual and political leaders to clarify this and inspire them to be true to the country once again.
We live in epic times. A high-tech Dark Ages of Orwellian-Keynesian slavery to government banking oligarchs looms ahead. Where will you, the reader, stand in response? Will you fight such ignominy, or will you stay with the collectivist herd to enjoy the fruits of redistributed wealth and government privilege? If you are a true patriot, you already know where you will stand.
Comments Off on The Orwellian-Keynesian Path
April 21st, 2015
By Nelson Hultberg.
Our government bankers print money today like loons in an asylum spew absurdity. Glib media shills lure us every night into a disgraceful indolence. And our corporations lust like spoiled children after mega-billions of illicit lucre. Cataclysm is coming.
No one with a minimal awareness of history, politics, and proper economics today has faith that our society can continue much longer at its present level of govenment privilege and debt accumulation. There is a Grand Piper that must be paid, and he will manifest in any number of scenarios, none of which will be pleasant.
One thing is for sure; the next two decades are going to be tumultuous and tragic. The events that unfold will be far more radical than we dare envision today. Paradigms in banking, politics, and philosophy will be overturned. Wrenching lifestyle shifts will be forced upon millions. Something akin to what happened in the Soviet Union after the fall of Communism in 1991 will take place in America. Our ruling regime will collapse and bring Russian style economic hardship to us all.
How exactly things unfold will depend upon whether the nation’s intelligentsia bring themselves to seriously question the shams of statism, or whether the government-media-academy triad is able to continue bamboozling them. What is extremely unnerving is that whoever wins this battle to control the destiny of our country will determine the fate of freedom on the planet for hundreds, perhaps thousands of years. A monumental clash of ideology and propriety looms up ahead.
Why We Are Disintegrating as a Society
America’s dilemma is this: we are being propelled toward an Orwellian style despotism that’s purpose is to centralize government power in Washington, phase out American sovereignty, and move our country as much as possible into subordination to the United Nations and eventually alignment with Canada, Mexico, and Central America into a regional government. The world is moving toward the nightmare of Oceana, Eurasia, and East Asia in Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, which will extinguish freedom and merge mankind into a tyrannical egalitarianism.
Why is this happening? Such is the influential force of ideology. We are being destroyed because of what historian Clarence Carson called a “collectivist curvature of the mind” that took over our intellectuals back in the early twentieth century. This curvature of the mind functions as the grand fueling mechanism for the goals of government centralization and ending our national sovereignty.
It’s horrifying, but every year our schools form the “best and the brightest minds” into collectivist apparatchiks to go out in the world and work their way into the power centers of society. The schools do this via false teachings in philosophy, economics, political science and history. This “ideological indoctrination” teaches every new generation that capitalism is an evil, exploitative, racist, warmongering system and must be phased out of modern societies. It teaches that national sovereignty is anachronistic and must be given up. Such indoctrination is being done very subtly and sophisticatedly, but it is a powerful, pervasive theme instilled into all our children from the first grade on.
This is why we have so many bankers, corporate moguls, political statesmen, authors, pundits, artists, publishers and priests working today to undercut the country. Being “the best and the brightest,” they were taught in their youth that capitalist America is an evil nation. They, thus, have gone out and risen to positions of power with a globalist worldview that believes economic freedom can’t work in the modern day, that American sovereignty is an anachronism belonging to the nineteenth century. Since they are the nation’s intelligentsia, they are immensely influential. Their socialist-collectivist worldview is spread to the masses who then elect legislators sympathetic to such irrationality to Congress and the White House.
Making a Difference
All quite clear and horrifying. But how are we, as mere laymen with no access to national media or huge fortunes, to confront this destruction of freedom and sanity in America and throughout the West?
We must take a page from the story of the old man and the starfish. After a huge storm had brought a mini-tidal wave to his beach community one night, there were tens of thousands of starfish washed up on the shore that next morning. Amidst the masses of starfish the old man could be seen patiently picking them up and tossing them back into the sea. Along came a young lad in his twenties with green hair, eyebrow rings and a scornful face. He started laughing and mocked the old man with cynical derision. “You have to be crazy, old timer. You can’t possibly save those starfish; there’s thousands of them. You’re wasting your time you fool. YOU CAN’T MAKE A DIFFERENCE!”
The old man looked up at the insolent youth and smiled. He then reached down and picked up one of the struggling starfish and winged it far out into the water, replying to his tormentor, “Made a difference with that one, didn’t I?”
Everyone of us has to choose whether we will try to make a difference or give in to indifference. Will we fight to inform our neighbors or succumb to the easy road of apathy? Will we opt for principle or popularity? Will we succumb to the statist thugs on the far left, or fall for the anarchic screwballs on the far right? The “mean” of Constitutional sanity beckons to the percipient among us. Will it survive the tumult ahead?
Not everyone, naturally, has the time and mental wherewithall to forcefully fight the “ideological indoctrination” destroying our country today. But many of us do. Our power lies in our minds and the strength of our personalities. We who possess this inner strength feel compelled to spread the word in any way we can for as long as we live. We feel compelled to wing as many starfish back to life as we can.
The apathetic and cynical will scorn all this as senseless, just as the green haired youth did. They will choose to remain wards of the state and sanction their enslavers. This has always been the nature of most humans. When such wards see others fighting valiantly against seemingly insurmountable odds for the freedom they have scorned, they are subconsciously humiliated because they are not deep in the thick of the fight themselves. They have chosen to avoid the fight and sanction the tyrants who are destroying our way of life. Thus they must find a way to salve their consciences. That way is to caustically mock the Davids who go up against the Goliaths, to smear the Rolands of Roncesvalles that history hands down to us as heroic exemplars.
A Diplomatic Nuisance
You the reader have a paramount decision to make regarding all this. It is High Noon for the cause of freedom. Will you fight with the heroic exemplars? If you choose to fight, then your first necessity is to become aware of WHAT is happening and WHY it is happening. That awareness can only be found via fervent curiosity and a committment to the study of libertarian and conservative literature.
Your second duty is to emulate Paul Revere and warn all those in your sphere of influence. You do this by making a diplomatic nuisance of yourself, by pleasantly pestering your comrades to wake up to the elite’s usurpations growing by leaps and bounds in our lives. You do it by convincing them that there are grander values in life than shiny new SUVs and country club memberships. There is something called the American way of life that requires personal independence.
Time is short. Collectivism steals over us like crack cocaine filters into a ghetto. It devastates everything of worth in its path. All the stoic traditions of strength, all the great lessons of logic, all the revered truths of Nature that have been handed down to us throughout the centuries are being assailed. The weasel-tyrants and their unctuous lackeys have gained control of the intellectual, political and banking power centers of our country, but they can’t control the ultimate factor – the truth – because they can’t control our minds unless we let them. They can’t prohibit defiance. Solzhenitsyn showed us this. They can’t extend their enslavement UNLESS WE SANCTION IT!
What the elites fear is a populace with the strength of William Wallace fighting King Edward at Sterling Bridge in 1297, the daring of Washington’s band crossing the Delaware in the dead of winter. They fear those willing to fight for the original America. Up against such heady citizens, our collectivist tyrants will scatter like feeding jackals in face of approaching hunters. Our job is to build an army of such heady citizens.
You can help by joining the cause. Read the books of freedom and sound money, and pass them on as the early Americans did with Common Sense. Bring people to the website where you are reading this essay. Bring them to AFR’s website. Bring them to a state of urgency. Bring them to the truth of our Constitution and to the laws of Nature and Nature’s God. Nothing other than this kind of effort will suffice.
You cannot help truth and freedom by watching moronic TV shows at night. That is how the elites control you. They flood the airwaves with mindless entertainment. It’s today’s version of Brave New World’s “soma for the masses.” Today’s TV is for zombies and dullards. The same applies to our movies. Next time you’re in the theater, look around you at all the hoi polloi stuffing their faces with popcorn and their psyches with over the top violence and trashy sex.
Aldous Huxley was the first to point out that modern totalitarian regimes leave the “activities of sex” alone, but regiment the “activities of production.” This allows those who are servile to think they are still free as they vote away their REAL freedom – their freedom to acquire and keep wealth, to associate with whom they please, to speak and worship as they please. Look around you. There are far more servile people in this human race than there are independent people. This is the reason why dictatorships dominate the history of man; the majority of humans want to be ruled. They want to relinquish their meaningful freedom; it requires too much self-assurance and grit.
Logic and History
The cause of America is the cause of REAL freedom. It won’t be found with the malefic forces of statism on the left, nor with the eccentric cults of anarchism on the right. Both are living death, a fool’s game for those devoid of the capacity to see the big picture, i.e., to see that the spectrum of reality is not two-poled, but three-poled with multifarious gradations and a golden mean of truth in between. The nature of human existence is complexity, wrapped up in mystery, contained in inconceivability, subsumed under the power of Truth. We will never create a free society by denying this and ignoring the results of logic and the record of history. This is what statists and anarchists do.
REAL freedom is impossible without a grasp of logic and a deep knowledge of history, which teach us that the cornerstones of freedom are: equal rights, strictly limited government, gold money and self-reliant people. The statists violate logic and ignore history because they are callous brutes who place power above all and simply don’t care. The anarchists violate logic and ignore history because logic and history show their political system to be unworkable.
The truths we learn from logic and history are the disinfectants we must hurl into Washington’s swamp of political leeches who are sucking all verity from our lives. When the Washington leeches have so stultified our nation that ghastly ruin prevails throughout, then is when the crackup will commence. All readers should take note. A meltdown is coming; a revolution will follow.
We must make sure this revolution goes in the direction of the Founding Fathers, not in the direction of the statist left, nor in the direction of the anarchistic right. Statism and anarchism are like Aids viruses; they will always be deadly to life. It is to Aristotle, Locke and Jefferson that we must turn. They will always be sustaining to life.
Comments Off on America’s Coming Crackup
