New President, Same Problems, Same Bad Solutions.

Well, it’s official. Donald Trump will be the next President of the United States. The electoral votes have been certified and the 2016 election is over. So what does this mean? Well, apart from the fact that there’ll be fewer political ads, not much.

For those (both hopeful and lamenting) expecting that Trump will usher in the Fourth Reich, you will be disappointed/relieved. For those hoping for substantive change in the way of reducing the power of the federal government over the lives ordinary citizens, for a new age of fiscal and personal responsibility, and for a renaissance of the Constitution and the ascendency of individual liberty over group entitlements, you also will quickly be disabused of such ridiculous notions.

The ensconced brokers of power are all still there, playing the same game, taking and giving nothing back. Zilch will be done about the problem of government, it’s just that the infernal machine will get a new pair of hands, pulling the levers that control our lives. Donald will do his deals with the ruling class, but don’t be surprised if you won’t be favorably included in them. The age of Trump will be not unlike the age of Obama. We will have a President who respects the application of power, not necessarily the traditions of the country nor the limitations of law. The President wants what he wants, and he’ll get it legally, if he can, but he’ll get it.

High on the Trump agenda will be some kind of a infrastructure bill, spending a lot of money that we don’t have, and doing as little good as when Obama tried it. Also, the Trump daughter’s pet entitlement program will be passed, another permanent leech on an already desiccated budget. And lest we forget, Trump will get his tariffs, which are the political equivalent of threatening to slit your own throat if your opponent doesn’t play fair. How would you like to pay four times the price you currently pay for your iPhone? Who wouldn’t?

In the end, the federal government will expand its power, balloon its debt, adversely affect commerce, and hope that the generation that pays the piper for all this can handle it while also funding our retirements. At $200 trillion in unfunded mandates and counting, I wish the little tykes luck!

Very little of any substance will change under this new regime. The car is still careening towards the cliff, only this time it’s the Democrat’s turn to feel bad about it. 2016 is the year the right officially un-friended the truth in exchange for the same feels-driven politics we used to criticize the left for. I imagine, the results will be just as spectacular.

If you are looking for real solutions to any of these existential national problems, you won’t find them in a President nor anywhere in DC. Too many voters and even leaders are too unprincipled and too uneducated about the issues to change any of this. And of those left who know better, they are more desirous of being a part of power than making tough choices that could save the US for future generations. The solution will have to come from the sovereign states.

For the people of Texas, we had better decide quickly whether it’s better to be a sad witness to a enormous car-crash or a passenger in that careening car. That cliff is getting closer each day, the steering is locked, and the breaks don’t work. Texas has everything it needs to be a successful independent nation including the legal right. Now it remains to be seen if we have the will and courage to act. We don’t have much time left to vacillate on this. Either we crash and burn or we tuck and roll.

-Ryan Thorson

Advertisements

One More Lecture From Monsignor Obama: Trumpies and Russians and Hackers, OH MY!

Today, we received another preachy press conference (thank heaven there’s not many more of these!) from outgoing POTUS Barack Obama. His focus was, of course, the current assement that Russian hacking was intended to influence the election in favor of Donald Trump.

The Russian hacking situation is bad, and everyone should be concerned, but besides saying “Knock it off!” what did Obama do about it? Last time I checked, Obama’s still President, but his standard operating procedure seems to be talk as if somebody else is. While speaking on what few positive accomplishments happened during his administration as if he personally took charge of every aspect, he likewise seemed to act like none of the negative aspects were ever his fault; he found out about every disaster first through the news and he condemns each scandal from his administration like he’s a critical outside voice standing in judgement rather than the guy running the show! The positive side of this is that his retirement should be an easy rhetorical adjustment.

He’s right that the hacking situation is disturbing, but the hack of a political party is not the same as a hack of the government nor the same as an attempt to stuff ballots. Also, in addition to Obama not taking decisive action when the hacking occurred and culprit identified, he wasn’t so “prime-directive” when he sent money and personnel to try to unseat Israeli PM Netanyahu, nor when he attempted to influence the Brexit with threats against trade relations, nor other attempts to influence elections in Canada & South America.  Additionally, and more to the point, Obama didn’t seem in the slightest concerned with the millions in foreign donations that found their way into HRC’s war chest in an attempt to influence both candidate and election!

Although I’m not too hopeful for anything substantially good out of the Trump administration, I am very much looking forward to the end of the sanctimonious Obama administration. He talked a good game, but in the end, he diminished the USA, drove up the debt and unemployment, drove people further apart, a left a world on fire. I don’t have the stomach to hear him any longer. I can’t wait till these hypocrites are gone, and we have, at least, fresher and newer hypocrites!

– Ryan Thorson

Predictions for the 2016 Election

Well, it’s finally here. The great climax of the 2016 elections is finally upon us! Either you’re eager with anticipation, filled with hope and excitement for what a new President might bring to the country, or (if you’re a realist) you wait as the flu-infected, clutching the toilet, waiting for the wretching that must soon begin. However you choose to greet Tuesday’s election, here are my predictions for that night and the next executive administration!

Trump will win Texas and a few swing states. Perhaps McMullin will win in Utah. However, I think its going to be Hillary by a nose (perhaps a bit more) on Tuesday night. While it would be more interesting to see a 269/268 split with McMullin getting a state, ultimately resulting in a House of Representatives election, I must admit that’s not the likeliest scenario. The night will be long, although.

Hillary, the favored victor, will be found to have cheated, to a certain degree, but there will be little done about it. Trump will cry foul, then try to fold that discontent into a media empire, profiting from the disaffected.

There will be no need to look out for any violent revolts (probably), for all the fierce talk of Trump Twitter trolls. The anger will remain, festering below the surface, to become… who knows what? For the time being, Trump supporters will retreat to their enclaves, FoxNews, and the rumored TrumpTV. If any civil unrest does happen because of Trump supporters, look to Hillary to press some sort of political advantage, perhaps attempting the federalization of all law enforcement, such as Obama has suggested.

Sadly, Hillary will not be indicted, as she so richly deserves. The corrupt system will continue. In fact, it’ll have a new lease on life. For Hillary, feeling encouraged by beating the rap so publicly, will be emboldened to expand it. It’ll be Tamney Hall on steroids. After all, she’s gotten away with it for so long, so why not? She may even hide it a little less. Her dutiful lap-dogs in the press will only deal with it, buried on page nine, as an inoculation against charges of bias and as something to get people accustomed to the new normal.

Because she’ll enter office weak for having made few gains in congress and having no mandate, Hillary will be too hampered to do things the legal way. However, that’s no problem if you have a pen, a phone, and a seared conscience! To accomplish anything from her bucket list, she will likely rule by executive fiat, perhaps even more than Obama did. The weak Republicans will do little to stop her but speechify, file law suits, and make other showy, yet ineffective, protests.

Hillary will not be removed from office, though she could be impeached. This even though she’ll likely monetize the White House, as the Clinton’s have done before, as Hillary did in the State Department. Additionally, she’ll also use all departments of the executive, such as the IRS, EPA, and the FBI, to attack her adversaries. The evidence for the various legal cases against her will vanish. The National Debt will balloon.

Hillary will continue the corruption of the judiciary, including the Supreme Court. The second amendment will be reinterpreted to negate it, as has been tried before. Religion and speech rights will be greatly curtailed in line with values that Hillary has already expressed. Look to the government to actively prosecute a few churches for their beliefs, perhaps even infiltrating the Catholic Church in line with the suggestions made in leaked Podesta emails. Republicans will not resist in any meaningful way; a few may even support her in her efforts, making a meaningful GOP opposition impossible.

The result of this election will be a left wing authoritarian machine in full sway, and all because a persistent plurality of disaffected Dems and Republicans gave Trump the GOP nomination, and also that the party failed to remove such a fundamentally flawed contender when they had the chance. In this, the GOP effectively gave a wounded opposition the game ball, and let them score. Although, many of these things would probably have happened under a President Trump, just more slowly. Hillary will push the envelope like a woman on borrowed time, and if the worst of her health rumors are true, she may be.

However, we may see something positive come out of this, like a flower emerging from beneath a few inches of manure. The states may become more brazen in their opposition to the federal government’s overreach, asserting their tenth amendment rights. Some, like Texas, may even pull away from the Union altogether, and Clinton may be too weak to stop it on her own. Any one of Hillary’s core policy initiatives might trigger some secession scenario, the most likely being an Australian-style gun grab such as Hillary has expressed interest in. This could happen even at the mere attempt to get it through congress.

If a new Clinton Presidency results in the restoration of Constitutional Liberty, through it being a catalyst for independence, then there’s the silver lining to a very dark cloud. Apart from that, don’t expect much good news for the next four years, just decline and disintegration. Enjoy!

-Ryan Thorson

I Will Go With Texas

I just saw a meme declaring Trump to be the best man for the job (I can only assume they meant POTUS, for if they meant manning a shine box, I might agree). Words escape me to adequately describe how wrong that is. Evan McMullin is by far the more intelligent, competent, experienced, and conservative choice. However, we’re so Pavlovian when it comes to our two parties that his chances are slim.

It may be true, MAYBE, that Trump is a little less bad than Hillary, but that doesn’t make him even nominally fit for POTUS. Trump’s election would mean the abandonment of morality/ethics by the GOP, their full embrace of big government, the continued reduction of Liberty, the head-long sprint towards suicidal debt, and death of the supposed constitutional party. Also, you might want to come to terms with the fact that Trump won’t fight for what he doesn’t believes in (i.e. The Constitution), and he rarely listens to advice, so it would be wise to not put your hope in a President Trump surrounded by handlers with cattle prods, ready to give him a mild but memorable shock when he steps out of line! If he wins, be satisfied that you beat the Democrats… before it dawns on you that you’ve become the Democrats.

I will vote for McMullin, even if it turns out to be largely symbolic. Trump will have to take his chances without me. I’m not going to affix my name to that atrocity for the chance at slightly better than the most corrupt woman of our age. Yes, perhaps Hillary will win and thusly beat the rap, but I will only accept responsibility for that in the event that it comes down to one vote in Texas. At some point, Trump has to own his being as ethically and princibly challenged as he is. I will not support a candidate who would destroy all of which I believe, only more slowly than the other candidate. And, forgive me if I find HRC going to jail poor compensation for the loss of all that (assuming that it will happen, which I doubt).

It’s clear that the solution will not come from Washington. Right now, hundreds of thousands of Texans are preparing to legally and peacefully cut the oppressive ties that connect us to that Palatine on the Potomac (no matter which emperor is selected next week) and reclaim self-determination. The rest of the country can go down the road of authoritarianism and economic ruin, if they wish, but Texas didn’t sign on for that. So, in the spirit of Davy Crockett, this government “can go to hell and i’ll go [with] Texas!” #Texit

The Houston Chronicle Goes on the Record about Texit, and I respond.

Recently, the Houston Chronicle decided to post an article dealing with one of my pieces regarding Texas independence. You can read that in the link (http://www.chron.com/news/politics/texas/article/Texas-secessionist-want-place-in-presidential-9297870.php). They didn’t quite get things right. Also, their regular respondents attempted to malign the character of those who believe in Texas Independence, and substitute the actual arguments raised with the grotesque straw-men of their own imagination. So, I decided to respond on their site in five segments. Here’s the entire response.

I would like to thank the Chronicle for highlighting the views of many concerned Texans. I’m very pleased they took notice of my article, however I would like to address a few things.

First, let me assure those that may be confused, the Texas Nationalist Movement (TNM) is not calling for a place on the POTUS debate stage. If you read the ORIGINAL article, you’ll find that I was just marveling at how it only takes 15% interest to get such a national platform, but an issue like independence, that has greater support, tends to be ignored. I hope that clears things up.

Additionally, I’d like to take issue with the Reuters quote at the end of the article that seemed to downplay the number of Americans committed to Independence. Frankly, to describe 1/4 of the US or 1/3 of the Southwest states as “‘tiny'” is absurd. Elections tip on such numbers. Here in Texas, the number in favor of independence is stronger. Additionally, TNM has collected over 300,000 pledges to vote for independence when Austin gives us a referendum. With that many who are openly committed, experience suggests that this number represents many more who have not been quite so vocal. If given a chance at the ballot box, I’m confident that Texit would win the day, much as Brexit led the way of liberation to the U.K. from their own intractable bureaucracy.

I’d also like to address some of the concerns of your readers.  Members of TNM are Texans of many races and beliefs. Many of us (like myself) are veterans, and we are all very patriotic Americans, perhaps even more than the average American. This because we are patriotic for the thing that matters most, not the soil or the government, but the founding rights & principles of the U.S. contained in the Constitution; nothing more radical than that! It was to protect the principles of natural rights that our founding fathers seceded from Great Britain, and to those principles we are committed. In fact, we at TNM are so thoroughly loyal to that idea of America that we refuse to part with even one of our blood-bought constitutional rights!

It’s easy to forget that USA was very different than any other Union formed in the world. Most countries were built on loyalties of race/ethnicity, and had traditions that included the divine right of kings.  Not so with our own system of limited government, where the individual is sovereign. In current times however, instead of having to contend with a British monarch for our rights, it is our own federal government (originally conceived to protect Liberty) that every day takes progressively away decisions that rightly belong in the hands of individual citizens and consolidates them in their own inept grip, whether or not the Constitution (the supreme law of the land) grants them such authority.

As you may know, Texas’ relationship to the federal government is contractual, and a contract is only as good as the honor of the parties involved. If you were in a marriage where your spouse continually abused you and cheated on you, all while spending the money you had laid aside for your children, it is doubtful that a reasonable person would say to you, “Too bad! You have to stay married!” Certainly the founders didn’t believe this, and the 10th amendment of the Constitution reserves all power not given the federal government for States, including the power the leave the union. Furthermore, Article 1 of the Texas Constitution recognizes the inalienable right of the people “to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.” It also asserts that the “perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government, unimpaired to all the States.” No one can honestly say that this condition of unimpaired local self-government still exists. Every day, the federal government finds new ways to insert itself into local affairs.

Now, if you are unconcerned with Washington’s unconstitutional assumption of powers that are supposed to be reserved for the states and the people, if you are un-phased by unending deficit spending, and if you are happy to see federal courts overruling Texas law with only their own biases to serve as guidance, I don’t suppose anything I say will change your mind. But if these things do concern you, then consider this: decades of work by honest Americans to change this course have at the best only slowed the rise of authoritarianism and the profligate spending of Washington. If you want to retain your rights of speech, religion, or to bear arms, then peaceful legal independence is the only way. If we would preserve our values and keep from sliding into the economic abyss, then we’ll have to go it alone. However, here’s the advantage! Overnight, all of that abuse and corruption would be gone! Texans would be free to form their own responsible government, making sure not to repeat the mistakes of the United States, while preserving its best principles for future generations. And while there can be no guarantees of Utopia, I am confident that Texans know better how to run Texas than a multitude of politicians and bureaucrats more than a thousand miles away.

It should be clear by now that we can’t save the United States. However, through regained self-determination, we might just be able to save Texas. The alternative is to accept the current state of affairs, which, make no mistake, are existential: the continuing loss of Liberty and the economic ruin that must come from a government that CAN’T stop spending money it doesn’t have. There are moments when the right choice is obvious, and this is one of them. I’m with Texas!

Ryan Thorson

 

Original Article:

http://www.thetnm.org/something_major_is_missing_from_the_presidential_debate

TNM: FAQ page:

http://www.thetnm.org/answers

Pledge your vote for independence:

http://www.thetnm.org/vote

 

 

Trump the Magnanimous?

(Trump photo : www.hollywoodreporter.com)

“Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.” – Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland *

It is a dark time for the American Republic… Prospects in the race for the GOP nomination have become increasingly dim. It seems now that there is no candidate that will make it to 1237 delegates before the party meets in Cleveland to hold their convention. Trump is currently in the lead. However, because he decided to more or less forego a ground game, he had been trailing Cruz in new delegates since Marco Rubio dropped from the race, losing in UT, CO, WY, WI, and ND. He’s since made up much of that ground by winning his home state, but will shortly run out of states he’s assured to win. Ted Cruz will almost certainly crush him in the West, and do really well in California, perhaps win. ** However, the result will be two candidates with many delegates, but no majority. This means there will be no nominee before the convention and less time to rally the troops for the general election. Additionally in bad news for the Don’s camp, many of Trump’s delegates seem poised to bolt the Trump camp for Cruz on a second ballot. ** This realization has caused a lot of panic on Team Trump. Trump has made accusations of a system rigged against him, *** his once official adviser (Roger Stone) has threatened to release to the Trump mob the hotel room numbers of delegates who might abandon Donald, **** and Trump supporters have become so brazen in their issuing of death threats to low-level GOP officials and GOP delegates ***** that even a fatwa-hurling ayatollah would be hard-pressed to compete! In such an environment, many pundits are predicting disaster extraordinaire for the GOP. There are some that fears the Republican establishment will conspire to give Trump the nomination in order to avoid blood-shed, figuratively and literally, ending with the GOP losing the election to Hillary for its lack of the #NeverTrump wing of the GOP and the other YUGE majorities of just about every demographic that will not vote for Trump. ****** Others say that if Ted Cruz becomes the nominee, Trump will bolt, taking 44% of his supporters willing to leave the GOP ******* and either runs on a third party ticket or endorses Hillary, spitting his last political breath in the face of the Republican Party. Both seem a hopeless business, but there is another possibility. Imagine that Ted Cruz wins, and Donald Trump endorses Cruz! I know! It seems crazy, doesn’t it? But there are reasons that hint at a slim possibility that such a thing might actually happen. In the following, I will present my reasoning for Trump, the magnanimous!

Trump doesn’t really want to be President

In the midst of the clowning that is the Trump circus, many might have missed the departure of a few advisors from the Trump campaign. One of these had been there from the very beginning, Stephanie Cegielski, and in her open letter announcing her departure, she made an interesting claim: Trump doesn’t want to be President. “Almost a year ago, recruited for my public relations and public policy expertise, I sat in Trump Tower being told that the goal was to get The Donald to poll in double digits and come in second in delegate count. That was it.” ******** To emphasize this point, Stephanie added, “He doesn’t want the White House. He just wants to be able to say that he could have run the White House.” ******** But now, “[Trump’s] ego has now taken over the driver’s seat, and nothing else matters.” ******** If true, this would explain why Trump seems so reticent in learning the issues, winging it so often. From his domino effect gaffes on abortion to not understanding what the Nuclear Triad is, Trump has been far removed from expertise on the issues and has shown little interest in learning about them. After all, if you don’t really want the job, why prepare for it? Donald may be in a place where he’s looking for a way out, a plan to withdraw with some semblance of dignity. If Donald goes into Cleveland almost matched with Cruz in delegates, and if Cruz bests him on a second ballot, that might be fair enough for Trump to give in gracefully. If Donald loses to Cruz, his supporters will rage and rail, but Donald might utter a huge sigh of relief, as someone who has just dodged a bullet!

Trump’s thin skin is only skin deep

Anyone who has been paying attention to this campaign season is familiar with the legendary sensitivity of Donald Trump. For a tough guy who tells it like it is and loves to dish out copious amounts of insults on his opponents, Donald doesn’t seem to take criticism well. Trump can go from zero to victim in less time than it takes for a fouled NBA player to flop dramatically on the court. However, there is good reason to believe that Trump doesn’t entirely mean what he says. This is a major reason why I defended Trump, saying that I didn’t believe him to be truly racist, but rather reckless and Machiavellian. That’s small consolation, to be sure. Continuing, some have observed a pattern in Donald, in that he seems to do much of his campaigning with a wink and a nod, almost as if Trump is breaking the fourth wall of the reality series Celebrity GOP Nominee to let us know that it’s all part of the show. This is true of many of his policy ideas, such as his supposed assurance to the New York Times that his bluster on illegal immigration is just a little something for the crowd. ********* Or consider, after denigrating Wisconsin governor Scott Walker during the WI primary, Trump later suggested that Walker would make a good running mate. ********** Even his advisors are telling us that Trump may not be 100% serious. ********** These are good indicators that Trump, once he realizes that it’s over, won’t seek a vendetta on the GOP, let alone try to start a bloody riot that will keep him from getting his next TV gig and generally hurt his name in business forever. In fact, Trump might even help them consolidate support behind Cruz rather than going home to sulk or even endorse Hillary. Even if he thinks he was out-cheated by Cruz, which is doubtlessly a position he holds solely for strategic purposes. Much like Virgil “The Turk” Sollozzo from The Godfather, he understands that it’s not personal, it’s only business.

Trump loves his money way more than his chances at a third party run

In the event of a Cruz nomination, many of the affectionately named Trumpkins will want him to run third party. Certainly, doing so would appeal to Trump’s huge ego, but there are problems with this that even Trump must see. First of all, with only approximately 16% of the GOP possibly willing to follow Trump into a third party run (Trump support is around 37% ************ of GOP, with only 44% of them willing to abandon if Trump doesn’t get the nomination *******), Trump would be destined to fail. He might cause the GOP to lose enough votes to throw the election to Clinton in a perverse re-run of Perot’s presidential ambitions, but he would not be the winner himself. Also, many states have sore loser laws; as many as 45. ************* Trump would either have to invest a lot of time and money challenging these laws or promote a longshot write-in campaign. In either event, he would probably lose. All of this would amount to Trump spending a lot of his own money, something he has been hesitant to do thus far, preferring media appearances to TV spots and ground-game. I have no doubts that Trump would risk his donor’s or investor’s funds on such a foolish venture, but he’d never leave himself unprotected. Huge monetary investment in his own independent campaign may be a bridge too far for Trump, even with his large ego. I’d bet that he’d rather make nice with the GOP than sink money into a guaranteed failure. Also, there’s a good chance that many of his hard-core supporters, folks that live by the maxim that “Trump said it. I believe it. That settles it,” would accept this and not flee the party.

There are few analogues to today’s Presidential contest. The conventional wisdom could be right, and the GOP could be headed for disaster, even if Hillary is able to keep Bernie Sanders supporters from feeling disenfranchised when she wraps up the nomination. However, since the conditions are so different from other election years, perhaps the results too can be very different from what you might expect. We can from this moment on despair and mourn the fall of the Republic and the Republican Party, or we can be cautiously optimistic that cooler heads will indeed prevail after passion has run its course. Imagine, if you will, a spot light opens on the podium at the convention that nominates Cruz, Trump takes the stage and begins, saying, “I’ve gone up against a lot of guys, KILLERS, believe me, and beaten them all; out-played them all! ‘Cuz I’m a player. Ask anyone. But I got to hand it to Ted, frankly, he outplayed me. ME! Donald Trump! That’s why there’s no one better to endorse for President of the United States than this guy! Now, let’s go and make America great again!” Perhaps we can take a page out of Alice’s book and try to believe a few impossible things before breakfast. Either that, or spend the next three months with Pepto handy to sooth our anxious stomachs as we wait for Armageddon.

– Ryan Thorson

 

* http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/alice-in-wonderland

** http://www.redstate.com/diary/creinstein/2016/04/20/new-york-never-mattered-ted-cruz-won-presidency/

*** http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/trump-whines-about-a-rigged-system-but-the-blame-lies-with-him/

**** http://www.redstate.com/absentee/2016/04/05/vote-trump-else-bestie-roger-stone-threatens-send-angry-trump-fans-delegates-hotel-rooms-video/

***** http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/death-threats-trump-supporters

****** http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-fenn/articles/2016-03-21/trump-has-deep-demographic-problems-come-the-2016-general-election

******* http://hotair.com/archives/2016/04/09/poll-66-of-trump-supporters-say-theyd-vote-for-the-gop-nominee-if-trump-is-denied-at-the-convention/

******** http://www.xojane.com/issues/stephanie-cegielski-donald-trump-campaign-defector

********* https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/02/29/did-trump-tell-the-new-york-times-he-doesnt-believe-in-his-immigration-policies/

********** http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/trump-walker-rubio-kasich-veep-221811

*********** http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2016/03/23/trump-advisor-dont-believe-things-trump-says/

************ http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-is-the-weakest-gop-front-runner-in-the-modern-era/

************* https://ballotpedia.org/%22Sore_loser%22_laws_for_presidential_candidates

Another Day That Will Live in Infamy?

This past week, the American people were confronted with the horrible visage of evil in the form of an American man and his immigrant bride, who in the name of Islam and ISIS decided to murder fourteen Americans in cold blood, and would have killed more but for the intrepid forces of the San Bernardino Police Department who conferred on the couple the martyrdom they sought. Until now, the President hasn’t formally addressed this attack, but because it seems that in the wake of the Jihadi violence that the American people have chosen to believe their own lying eyes rather than the President’s previous comments or media spin, last night Obama decided to adjust the record by finally giving an address concerning the terrorist attack, his own meager efforts in the war on terror (or whatever PC term POTUS uses), and what else he thinks should be done.  After hearing it, I don’t think this latest effort at reality distortion is going to have the effect that he desires, as it was all too naked a ploy to distract from his own imperiousness and his impotence in dealing with America’s enemies.

First of all, the President did the obligatory thing and empathized with the victims of the attack; no foul there. However he was very careful to point out there have been no direct links between the California massacre and international terrorism, which I found a very stupid thing to say. It is accurate to say that the administration hasn’t proven conclusively that the perpetrators physically met with representatives of ISIS, however, the way ISIS recruits doesn’t require a direct connection. In addition to smuggling fighters in refugee populations being transported into Western countries, ISIS exports terror by putting out propaganda into cyberspace for Western consumption, radicalization, and ultimately the commission of violent acts on their behalf. * Tashfeen Malik, the female in the terror twosome, swore allegiance to ISIS on-line just before the shooting, ** which is all she needed to do to join ISIS, and then consummated her loyalty in blood. Additionally, both of the terrorists most likely received help from someone in constructing those pipe-bombs, if only online. Ultimately, ISIS itself has claimed responsibility in these attacks **, so when the President goes out of his way to state such a qualification he comes off as defending ISIS, which is hardly going to bring comfort to families of the victims, nor the American people, who are both looking to the President for leadership in a time of crisis.

After his first blunder, Obama went on to describe how he will respond militarily. It sounded great, at first, with Obama describing his plan to destroy ISIS with a multinational coalition led by the US. However, it quickly became evident that the President had pulled a lawyer trick by using the word “continue”. He’s going to have the military “continue to hunt down terrorist plotters”, *** or that he will “continue to provide training and equipment to tens of thousands of Iraqi and Syrian forces”, *** meaning that he’s not going to change a blessed thing in his strategy, so we should all quit our complaining. The day before the Paris attacks, **** the President declared that ISIS was contained, but then they hit Paris, and Mali, and now us which is hardly proof of a winning strategy. So why doesn’t the President vow to bomb them into the Stone Age, or some similar doom? As I’ve written previously, I believe that Obama’s war strategy is to have all the optics of doing something, without really doing anything. The President could turn ISIS into a glass ashtray tomorrow, if he so desired, with a multitude of other less severe options that all end up with ISIS gone from the face of the earth. The only reason that this hasn’t happened is that the President doesn’t want it to happen. Obama believes, probably from deep within, that it is and always will be our fault when non-Westerners attack us. You have only to examine one of his many speeches where he blames America and American foreign policy for the state the world today (under other Presidents, mind you). For instance, consider this September 23, 2009 quote when he said, “I took office at a time when many around the world had come to view America with skepticism and distrust.  Part of this was due to misperceptions and misinformation about my country.  Part of this was due to opposition to specific policies, and a belief that on certain critical issues, America has acted unilaterally, without regard for the interests of others.  And this has fed an almost reflexive anti-Americanism, which too often has served as an excuse for collective inaction.” ***** Leaving aside for the moment that he falsely accuses America of acting “unilaterally” (e.g. the Iraq war) or that America acts without regard for other countries, he squarely places the blame on his own country. As consequence of this belief, he is loath to use military power on what he sees at some level as a movement of the people. Because of this and also his apparent general discomfort with the military, Obama wants to keep his war efforts to a minimum, and if his lack of might lead to the deaths of more so-called privileged Americans, he obviously sees them as acceptable losses in his efforts to avoid seriously taking on ISIS or any other hostile group that he sees as suffering from socio-economic disadvantage.

Subsequently, the President played that old tune about curtailing the second amendment. He attacked the usual suspects, such as so-called assault weapons, but he left out a few important details that would throw cold water on his gun-control fantasy. He failed to mention that the terrorists targeted a gun-free zone (again); ***** it must have slipped his mind that the terrorists had their weapons purchased in a state that has some of the toughest gun control laws of any ; ****** he forgot to discuss the bombs the terrorists possessed, ******* which are completely illegal, but widely available to anyone with knowledge and access to a Home Depot; and he gave no evidence that he realized that all of California’s gun control efforts, similar to what he wants for the nation, were powerless to protect the victims. It seems that those without guns can still die by them. Now, the President wants power to deny the purchase of weapons to people on the no-fly list. To many, this may seem like common sense, because people on the no-fly list must be bad, right? However there’s one thing we should consider before giving Obama this new power, and that’s the requirement of due process. The terrorism watch list is a quick and dirty tool of the executive that can prevent people from getting on a plane, and flying is not a Constitutional right, but it’s rife with issues and mistakes. For instance, if you are unlucky enough to have the same name as a terrorist, and you decide to take a plane to visit Grandma-ma for Christmas, you could be thrown in jail, be banned from further flights, and have to waste a lot of time and treasure to get the slovenly government to right that injustice (to read a specific example of this, follow the link below ********). In this country, if you want to deny someone of their Constitutional rights, you need to bring evidence before a judge as part of the checks and balances on government written in the Constitution. Congress is right not confer this new power on the President since it would be unlikely that it would stand up in court, being unconstitutional, but more importantly because this President has shown himself to be untrustworthy with power. I’m sure that if Congress denies him, he will once again go outside the law and claim yet another new power for himself and wait for the courts to rule against him like they’ve done 22 times before. ********* Now, you may not agree with the second amendment and have the opinion that all guns everywhere should be confiscated while we surrender our safety and that of our family’s to the tender mercies of government, putting our trust in five minute response times to save us, but for the moment the second amendment is a right that all Americans except where it has been removed by due process, and the courts have pretty consistently upheld it. In fact, the second amendment, plus all of the Bill of Rights and Constitution exist to protect the citizen from a government that can take away your rights as easy as a pen pusher putting your name on a list. I know there are Americans who believe that government shouldn’t be limited, just so long as this all-powerful government acts in favor of progressive goals, but they would do well to consider that the power they allow one Democrat politician today will still be there for a Republican tomorrow, and be sure that a supreme GOP executive could use any of the 76 Obama over-reaches ********** as precedent to abridge a freedom that they DO care about, in the name of common sense, of course. If the President seriously wants to fight ISIS, let him do so by killing the enemy abroad, stopping them from getting into this country with better screening and refusing entry to un-screen-able refugees from enemy-rich countries, and not with new restrictions on liberty that will only apply to those that don’t break the law, which is the least concern for terrorists.

The President went on to argue that Congress should give him greater latitude to improve terrorist screening and give him greater war powers to fight ISIS with, which I have no problem with in principle, but with Obama, nothing is as it seems. I know in the past, he’s requested war-powers that are too weak to make a difference and lack clarity for winning, *********** a word that, if you remember from his recent press conference in Turkey, Obama doesn’t like to use. ************ That last part should tell you all you need to know about why he hasn’t been given what he asks for: he’s not interested in victory.

I think it’s appropriate that while the President continues desperately to try to shift focus off of his failures as Commander-In-Chief and onto the restriction of our liberties that we take a moment and remember what happened in 1941 on this day, December Seventh. Our country was attacked by a coordinated effort by a foreign power, in which thousands of American’s died. President Roosevelt framed this attack as infamous, and showed resolve in declaring that we would fight on until we had the unconditional surrender of the enemy. 74 years hence from FDR’s address to congress, the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. and his administration offer no resolve to fight on until victory, but rather seek to placate our demand for justice with a show-war, while at the same time offering nuance and apologies for the enemy (See POTUS’s prayer breakfast comments from this year *************) instead of fierce condemnation and defiance, and in the end seek to use yet another crisis to expand Presidential power and diminish our rights. Pearl Harbor bore witness to infamy, but in today’s present war with Radical Islamists, it’s difficult to determine where the greater infamy resides: in the deaths of 14 victims or in a President who would risk more American deaths and make victims of us all by taking away our liberty in order to satiate his unquestioning devotion to a twisted ideology and his own lust for power.

– Ryan Thorson

 

*                             http://www.businessinsider.com/isis-is-revolutionizing-international-terrorism-2015-5

**                           http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3346861/First-picture-terrorist-Tashfeen-Malik-pledged-allegiance-ISIS-killing-14-party-attack-radicalized-American-husband-devout-laws-never-seen-face.html

***                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXRnHgfX6JQ

****                 http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/14/politics/paris-terror-attacks-obama-isis-contained/

*****               http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2012/03/23/president-obamas-hall-blame/

******                   http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/22074-san-bernardino-victims-defenseless-in-gun-free-zone

*******                                https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/12/04/california-has-the-nations-strictest-gun-laws-here-are-the-other-strictest-and-loosest-states/

********             http://criminal.lawyers.com/criminal-law-basics/bomb-making-is-illegal.html

*********           http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/no-fly-list-anti-terror-measures

**********        http://www.speaker.gov/general/22-times-president-obama-said-he-couldn-t-ignore-or-create-his-own-immigration-law

***********     http://dcxposed.com/2015/01/27/ted-cruzs-list-76-abuses-power-lawless-actions-obama-administration/

************   https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-weak-and-unnecessary-war-authorization/2015/02/16/69ae8df8-b5f7-11e4-aa05-1ce812b3fdd2_story.html

*************                http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/obama-america-winning

**************                http://www.nationalreview.com/article/398277/obamas-moral-idiocy-dennis-prager

 

Milo and Gender Inequality

Milo Yiannopoulos, author at Breitbart.com, participated in a debate with feminist Rebecca Reid at Bristol University. The following quotes are from his closing remarks, and I think they sum up the state of affairs for gender equality better than any I’ve heard, and so I wanted to pass them along. I hope you enjoy them.

-Ryan Thorson

“I want to address the men in the audience—sorry ladies, I love you, but this is for boys. The question posed to us today was whether we’ve reached an age of gender equality. I don’t think we have. We’ve overshot the age of gender equality—by a long stretch, and men of your generation are going to be the primary victims of this era. In secondary school you will have experienced a system that is tilted against boys. Your exams will have been primarily modular, not linear, a system that favors girls. Teachers will have tried to control and pathologize your boisterous behavior, branding you “young offenders” for pranks, or “cyberbullies” for typical male teenage trash-talk (taunting, after all, is how men bond).”

“Your female peers will be encouraged at every stage of their educational journey. They will be told to join a STEM field; they’ll be given—showered, in fact—with grants and awards, prizes, and encouragement. And when they do get to applying for those jobs, you will be discriminated against, just because they’re a girl. You’ll be the recipients of nothing. There are no programs for men. The suggestion for having a Men’s Officer at York University was laughed at by the student union. At University, you will be told that you’re rapists-in-waiting; that you need to attend consent classes. Your natural love and affection for women will be neutered. You will be faced with an impossible choice: suppress your natural, healthy, romantic interest in women, or risk a charge of rape or sexual harassment. And if you speak out against this hostile and unfair environment, you will be persecuted by rabid mobs of politically correct lunatics, as well as the full force of the establishment media.”

“When your studies are completed, you will enter a jobs market that is stacked against you. With companies pressured from all directions to hire women, you will be at a 2-to-1 disadvantage if you are in STEM subjects, and possibly worse in others. If you do happen to land a job, a single accusation of an inappropriate remark or any unsubstantiated allegation can destroy your reputation forever.”

“Despite all this, I’m not worried for you—because you’re men. Your incalculable, intolerable, impossible obstacles have been placed before you precisely to overcome. And overcoming is what men do best. It is the nature of men to battle on under impossible odds. We do that in war, we do that in all sorts of things, and we will do it here. Throughout your education, you will have been fed a grim history of what men have done through the centuries. You’ve been told that straight white men are worse than the Nazis. You have been told nothing good about your sex, your race, or your orientation, but I’m going to tell you something good, and it is: If the patriarchy exists, women should be grateful for it. It is what took us to space, it is what builds roads, it is what built the internet, [and] it is what protects and provides for women. If it exists, thank God it does! With their strength and determination, men have tamed the wilderness. Men built cities and the walls around us. They built the buildings that we’re in. Men’s curiosity led us to explore the oceans; their ingenuity has allowed us to reach the moon. And whenever feminism rises up and tries to ridicule you, to demean you for what you are,” “Don’t pay attention to it. Don’t listen to it. We’re not in an age of gender equality; straight white women in the West are the most privileged class in the history of our species. But we’ll be fine.”

-Milo Yiannopoulos