Ted Cruz Surges in Iowa

Nearly tied with Trump in a statistical dead heat, Ted Cruz slams Obama’s weakness on ISIS with Megyn Kelly of FoxNews: [Obama says he’s going to a global warming conference “as a powerful rebuke to ISIS.” No kidding, he said that]

Strangers in a strange land

That’s how a large block of Americans feel right now. They’re the white working class who still believe in God, mother, country and apple pie.  In a Reuters/Ispos survey, 58 percent of Americans (72% of Republicans) say they “don’t identify with what America has become.” While Republicans and Independents are the most likely to agree with this statement, even 45 percent of Democrats share this feeling.

Results of the Reuters/Ispod survey of public attitudes:


Sixty-two percent of Republicans say they “feel like a stranger” in their own country.

In a few short years they’ve seen their country transformed in so many ways they don’t like. They don’t recognize it anymore. Everything that used to be solid has gone squishy. How could anybody have ever thought that we’d be arguing over whether a man can shower with your daughter and use your wife’s bathroom if he wakes up in the morning somehow feeling like he’s a woman? How could it have been predicted that the screwy idea of same-sex marriage, which had been soundly rejected in every state where people were allowed to vote on it, would be unceremoniously shoved down America’s throat by five malignant narcissist lawyers in black robes?

Barack Obama warned us that he intended to transform America. Rush Limbaugh immediately said he hoped Obama would fail. He didn’t fail. He succeeded, and it feels like totally to the white working class, and I’d bet to a sizable number of African Americans as well. At least the ones who pay taxes. Both groups feel like strangers in their own country.

Donald Trump appeals to these people because he promises to “Make America great again.” That’s a message that resonates with them. They want their country back.

A piece at Breitbart today explores this idea further. Democrats long ago abandoned the white working class because they would have needed to soften some of their liberal social policies to get them. So Democrats don’t have their vote, but Republicans cannot always count on it either because these are people who are perfectly willing to vote for “none of the above.” That’s not a selection on any ballot, but staying home on election day accomplishes the same thing.

If this voting block can deprive Republicans of victory by not voting, and they did just that in 2008 and 2012, they can also deliver a win to Republicans when they’re motivated to do so.

So what are the wizards of smart in the Republican establishment doing to win in 2016? They’re doing all they can to torpedo Donald Trump. A Super Pac for John Kasich has announced that it will spend several million dollars in an effort to take Trump out.

Like it or not, Trump is the hope of a voting block large enough to deliver Republican victory in states like Ohio, Florida and North Carolina. These are states the Republicans must win in 2016. Alienating these voters seems to be a strategy for Republicans to lose those states, and thus the Presidency.

Breitbart writer Mike Flynn says:

Trump’s campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again,” is perfectly attuned to those voters who feel increasingly like “strangers” in their own country.

Panic breeds actions born out of emotions rather than somber reflection. The Republican establishment is understandably panicked at the thought of Donald Trump capturing the party’s nomination for President. It is convinced, perhaps incorrectly, that a Trump candidacy will doom the party’s chances next year.

Its zeal to derail his campaign carries huge risks for the party, however. The Trump phenomenon is not simply the product of a media-savvy, hyper-personality candidate. It is drawing strength from very real sentiments of a huge block of voters. The Republican party may take out Trump, but it alienates these voters at its peril.

I get the feeling that the Republican establishment so wants to rid itself of conservatives they’ve decided they wouldn’t mind going back to being the permanent minority party. That’s what they were from 1932 to 1980 and they were happy with that (Democrats controlled both houses of Congress for all but the first two years of Eisenhower’s presidency and all of Nixon’s term). Republicans gained the majority of both Houses in 2012 and the leadership establishment has given every indication that they aren’t very happy about that, and are willing to see it handed back to the Democrats. They’d never admit that, of course. We can judge them more accurately by their actions than their words, however.

Churchill would know how to fight ISIS

One of barrack Obama’s first acts as President, perhaps his very first act, was to return to Britain the bust of Winston Churchill that had been loaned to the White House after the September 11th attacks. For a long time Obama denied returning the bust, but when finally busted for that lie he admitted it.

Obama could learn a lot from Churchill, especially how to fight an enemy that is threatening his country.

May of 1940 was a critical time for Winston Churchill who became Prime Minister on May 10, 1940 after a decade in the political wilderness. Hitler had invaded France on that same day. Looming on the horizon was Dunkirk which began on May 26, the onslaught by the German Luftwaffe which would kick off the Battle of Britain by the end of June, and a War Cabinet Crisis that would take place from May 25-28 in which Foreign Secretary Viscount Halifax would argue for trying to negotiate a peace agreement with Hitler. Churchill faced not only Hitler, but those in his own government who still preferred Neville Chamberlain.

Churchill strenuously disagreed with Halifax, stating “that nations which went down fighting rose again, but those which surrendered tamely were finished.” He also argued preciently that Hitler was unlikely to honour any agreement.

On May 13, three days after becoming Prime Minister, Churchill could not foresee all of these events which were to occur within a few short weeks, but he certainly had a general picture of the future he faced. While the Tories, whose sentiments were represented by Halifax, still wanted Neville Chamberlain, the people had placed their hope in Churchill. This fact weighed on Churchill when he commented to General Ismay: “Poor people, poor people. They trust me, and I can give them nothing but disaster for quite a long time.”

Churchill had something powerful to offer his people, however. Something our dear leader Obama lacks completely. Churchill described it himself, when he told his cabinet on May 13, 1940, “I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat.”

This part of his speech which he gave to that cabinet on that May the 13th contrasts sharply the enormous difference between then and now:

We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of suffering. You ask, what is our policy? I can say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us; to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: It is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival. Let that be realised; no survival for the British Empire, no survival for all that the British Empire has stood for, no survival for the urge and impulse of the ages, that mankind will move forward towards its goal. But I take up my task with buoyancy and hope. I feel sure that our cause will not be suffered to fail among men. At this time I feel entitled to claim the aid of all, and I say, “come then, let us go forward together with our united strength.”

Hope was an Obama watchword since made into a sick joke today. Victory is anathema to Obama. But we have the great speeches of better men from the past to remind us what real leadership looks like.

Ranking states for corruption and integrity

An outfit that calls itself The Center for Public Integrity has done its 2015 state integrity investigation. This was done using extensive research to grade the states based on the laws and systems they have in place to deter corruption.

You can immediately smell a rat here. Nothing they did even tries to gauge the level of corruption that actually exists, only the laws that are in place to prevent it. By this standard the prohibition era of 1921-1933 was the least corrupt period in American history. So already we can say they wasted their time on a worthless endeavor.

More evidence is that Wyoming ranks 49th among the states for integrity while Massachusetts and Illinois rank 10th and 13th, respectively.

They want us to believe that Massachusetts is less corrupt than Wyoming even though for years Massachusetts’ most powerful politician was Billy Bulger while his brother Whitey Bulger was listed on the FBI’s ten most wanted list. Before Whitey went on the run a reporter who interviewed Billy Bulger was asked why he didn’t asked tough questions of the then President of the Massachusetts Senate, which is where the real power in the state lies. His reply was, “Well, when you’re interviewing someone who has a brother who might just kill you, it’s a bit harder.” [Howie Carr’s book is the source here]

I grew up in Wyoming and my mother was an active Democrat operative. I know how corrupt Wyoming was then, and it was pretty bad. (My mom was one of the good guys who tried to expose it) It was even worse in the 1890s. A lot worse in fact. It’s still pretty bad today, but it isn’t as bad as it was when I was a kid, and it damn sure isn’t as rotten as Massachusetts and Illinois. If you want to visit an ex-governor from Illinois you’ll be visiting a prison.

The only thing worthwhile in this study is to tell us something we already knew. All 59 states (Under Obama) score pretty low on the integrity scale. The CFPI did not grade on a curve. Most states received a D or an F, and no state scored higher than a C—. But again, they didn’t measure corruption or integrity. They measured laws and laws are meaningless unless they’re enforced. Anti-corruption laws are almost always the least respected laws in the land.

In Fact, Wisconsin’s Governmental Accountability Board has been used to shield some of the most blatant abuses of power in the history of the United States. Wisconsin ranked 20th in the study.

I used the word “outfit” above to describe The Center for Public Integrity. That’s also the word the mob in Chicago goes by.

The only graph you need

Here it is, the only graph you need to understand the world you live in:
Fossil fuels are largely responsible for the success of mankind shown in this graph. Fossil fuels have lifted more people out of poverty than environmentalism ever will. But here’s the really good news: as mankind has gotten richer, stellar advancements in art and science have resulted and the environment has drastically improved as well. The worst environmental conditions on earth toady exist in poor countries ruled by tyrants and dictators. I’ve seen it for myself. I’ve been to the Middle East and must say I enjoyed my time there, but except for Israel it wasn’t because of the environment. Israel is the garden spot of the Middle East, and if you don’t believe me please immediately book a flight on El Al to Haifi and visit Mount Carmel. Israel settled a dry land of rocks and today they export flowers.

If you’d like to get a taste of what the rest of the Middle East is like, just visit your local landfill.

[Beirut is another exception to the rule, and much of Lebanon is quite beautiful.]

Below is a photo I took from Mount Carmel looking over Haifa to the Mediterranean sea. At center-high in the photo is a dome known as the Shrine of the Báb, considered to be the second holiest place on Earth for Bahá’ís. Its precise location on Mount Carmel was designated by Bahá’u’lláh himself to his eldest son, `Abdu’l-Bahá, in 1891. The Israelis resurrected it from a state of ruin (Mark Twain visited here in the 1890s and described it as a desolate pile of rocks) and continue to maintain it although it has nothing to do with their own religion. That is what the Israelis do, they show respect for all other religions, even those whose practitioners are trying to kill them. Further below is a photo of the Shrine of the Báb at night.