June 27, 2016

France and Germany may Resurrect the Holy Roman Empire

Timothy Birdnow

After Brexit, the French and Germans plan to create a new Holy Roman Empire (sans holiness or Rome). According to Pravda:

"France and Germany plan to create a European superstate. The two countries already work on an adequate draft law, Polish TV channel TVP reports.

The new superstate is said to replace the European Union. German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier is to present the details of the project at the meeting with foreign ministers of the Czech Republic, Poland, Slovakia and Hungary.

According to TVP, the document suggests the introduction of the joint visa system and the refusal from own currency and army. The member-countries of the European "superstate", will not be able to have their own armies, penal codes, security services, tax systems, currency and central banks.

Issues of border control and refugees remain open. The powers of the North Atlantic alliance on the territory of the participating countries will also be limited.

Polish Foreign Minister Witold Waszczykowski stated that the project could be a recipe for the disintegration of the European Union."

End exxcerpt.

This would be an anti=Holy Roman Empire, with the two softist, most wishy-washy major European nations creating a state that will quickly fill with Muslims in sharp contrast to the kingdom of Charlemagne. the Battle of Roncevaux Pass saw the Franks fight to the last man against the duplicitous Saracens of Spain. Sadly the modern French have only one value worth anything to them; multiculturalism. They wouldn't fight for their country in any way at this stage. Neither would the Germans.

They aren't the same men they used to be.

Read about the Song of Roland[ here.[/link]

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:52 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 283 words, total size 2 kb.

The Yellow Rose of Texit

Timothy Birdnow

With the success of Brexit - the as-yet unconsummated referendum demanding British independence from the European Union - others are now talking about starting fresh, and perhaps the most interesting concept is Texit. You've got it, compadre; there is renewed interest in secession by the good people of Texas.

According to The New York Daily News:

" After the United Kingdom voted Thursday to leave the European Union, a group of Texans are pushing for a Texas exit, or Texit — the Lone Star State’s chance to break free from the U.S. and its federal government.

The Texas Nationalist Movement is urging the state to hold a Brexit-style referendum over the possibility of Texas seceding from the rest of the country.

"It is now important for Texas to look to ‪#‎Brexit as an inspiration and an example that Texans can also take control of our destiny,” the group’s president, Daniel Miller, said in a late night Thursday statement, shortly after America’s ally across the pond voted to leave its transcontinental bloc. "It is time for Texans to rally with us and fight for the right to become a self-governing nation.”

The campaign claims to have a 260,000-signee strong petition encouraging the state’s governor to hold the vote."

End excerpt.

And according to RT they plan a 2018 referendum.

Texas fought a revolution against perhaps the most formidable opponent in the Western Hemisphere at the time (in fact, the U.S. was expected to lose the Mexican War ten years later by most European observers) and retained independence for a decade, despite being invaded several times by their former masters. Santa Ana surrendered and signed the peace treaty but Mexico never did, and many in that country refused to accept Texan independence. The Mexican War finally settled that issue along with the annexation of the Lone Star Republic.

Texas outlasted any other independent nation that became part of the U.S. These included the Great Bear Republic (California) which lasted one day, the Republic of West Florida (proudly represented by the Bonnie Blue Flag) which lasted three months, the Republic of Hawaii, which lasted four years, and the Confederate States of America which made it five years. Despite being very poor at the time, full of hostile natives, and subject to repeated Mexican invasions the Republic of Texas endured and has gone to the place of legends. Many in the Lone Star State would love to bring it back. Texas now has one of the largest economies in these United States, has what are now decent ports (they used to be nearly unusable during the Republic days but dredging has made them quite useful) and has plenty of oil and gas, as well as a strong agricultural segment.

According to IBTimes Texas would have the 14th largest economy in the world. it would be the 40th largest in land area, and according to the IBTimes article:

"Its gross domestic product of $1.2 trillion, or 8 percent of the entire U.S. GDP, placed it just behind Spain, and one notch above its neighbor Mexico, in the 2011 rankings compiled by the International Monetary Fund.

To power all of this, Texas has a lot of oil, producing about 2 million barrels per day. Houston, the largest city in the state, calls itself the energy capital of the world, and with good reason: Oil giant ConocoPhillips (NYSE: COP) is based there, as well as many other energy firms. Exxon Mobil (NYSE: XOM), the biggest company in the world by revenue, has its headquarters outside Dallas.

So, the basics of a successful nation are there. But as Frank Zappa once said, "You can't be a real country unless you have a beer and an airline."

Even under that definition, Texas would do just fine"

End excerpt.

Indeed, Texas has the now-hard-to-find Lonestar beer, which was founded by Adophus Bush and bears a similarity to Budweiser albeit it is better these days, and they have the Spoetzel Brewery aka Shiner brand, which is good in it's own way. I visited the Shiner brewery when I was down there; very nice tour and multiple samples at the end.

Texas also has a fine wine industry, with 350 bonded wineries making it fifth in the nation. Texas has it's own cuisine (TexMex), it's own music, it's own cultural traditions, it's own unique history, and produces plenty of food. It also has been a solid provider of military personnell, and a Texas nation would do just fine.

Given the decline of the u.S. and the inability of the central government to act in the national interest it is perhaps time to consider saving a remnant of the nation we once loved. America is destined to fall, barring Divine intervention, and partitiion is the best answer at this point. Nobody could possibly pay off the staggering American debt; a new country could start fresh. In the end I think this is the only long-term hope for the American experiment.

Remember the Alamo!

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:41 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 837 words, total size 5 kb.

Hillary's smugness in 2008 and now

Jack Kemp

You may recall that I wrote a piece about Hillary's smug attitude going into a debate with Obama. I said that for me to have such a smug look on my face before a debate with Obama, I'd have to be in possession of a photo of Obama in bed with two men - and a giraffe!

The NY Post story today from the Secret Service agent's book explains that look on her face. http://nypost.com/2016/06/25/clinton-white-house-was-a-den-of-cocaine-and-mistresses-ex-secret-service-officer/ Hillary was either high at the time she was in that debate or had been taking a lot of cocaine in the months before and it still had a residual effect on her brain and bloodstream. For another example, Don Imus, a self-admitted cocaine addict, got kicked off a radio station in NY for viciously insulting the Rutgers University women's basketball team before they played for the NCAA Championship, a team consisting of mostly or all black players. No sane public person, even the late Robert Byrd, would go on a NY radio station and make such vile remarks. It all makes sense now with Hillary. This is how she can keep a straight face making the remarks that she does - she's stoned half the time. It's how she can go to a Wall St. firm and tell them how great they are in a speech, even though she hates them. She was high or had a few (8, 9, 10) shots of gin before she left her limo.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:35 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 253 words, total size 1 kb.

Obama Bashes Whitey in Speech at Entrepreneurship Summit

Jack Kemp

I hate this lowlife more and more each day...I consider him and the Democratic Party my blood enemies.
Obama Bashes Whitey in Speech at Entrepreneurship Summit (Video)
Jim Hoft<http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/author/jim-hoft/> Jun 24th, 2016 2:23 pm 20 Comments<http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/06/obama-bashes-whitey-speech-entrepreneurship-summit-video/#disqus_thread>
Barack Obama spoke at the 2016 Global Entrepreneurship Summit Friday in Palo Alto, California. This was his first speech after the Brexit vote left another mark on his years of failed leadership at home and abroad.

Here's Obama speaking:

[obama whitey california]
During his speech to young entrepreneurs Obama took a swipe at whitey.
Obama: When people can start their own businesses it helps people and families succeed… It offers a positive path for young people seeking to make something of themselves and can empower people who previously have been locked out of the existing social order, women, minorities, others who aren’t part of the old boys network.
Did you catch that?

According to Obama only women and minorities aren’t part of the "good old boy” networks – run by white men. And, according to Obama, all white men are granted privileges within the "good old boy” networks.
This man is so offensive – and ignorant.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:35 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 201 words, total size 2 kb.

Trump Campaign Flounders

Jack Kemp

One of the few very good writers at American Thinker, along with my friends (whose names I should best not mention, should that would get them banned), is Sierra Rayne. Not only should they make him a major editor, but some conservative political party should make him their spokesperson. I may write in his name for President this November.



June 27, 2016
Trump's campaign enters dangerous territory
By Sierra Rayne
Donald Trump's campaign is now nearing the event horizon of a political black hole, or more crudely, beginning to circle the toilet bowl.
If Trump thinks he can win the general election by continuing to go forward with what has gone on over the past week, the Hillary Clinton machine is about to teach him a lesson of epic proportions.
On Saturday, Trump uttered more incoherent statements regarding his immigration policies:

Donald Trump has revised his proposed ban on foreign Muslims, with spokeswoman Hope Hicks saying Saturday that the presumptive Republican presidential nominee only wants to ban Muslims from countries with heavy terrorism.
Hicks said in an email that her boss took this new position -- which is a dramatic scaling back of the position he first took in early December -- during a policy speech nearly two weeks ago. In that speech, Trump did not mention Muslims and called for a temporary ban on "certain people coming from certain horrible -- where you have tremendous terrorism in the world, you know what those places are." At the time, it appeared that Trump was expanding his ban to include more people, not limiting its scope. ...
During one of four stops along the 18-hole course, a reporter asked Tru
mp if he would be okay with a Muslim from Scotland coming into the United States and he said it "wouldn't bother me."

Afterwards, Hicks said in an email that Trump's ban would now just apply to Muslims in terror states, but she would not confirm that the ban would not apply to non-Muslims from those countries or to Muslims living in peaceful countries. ...
In an interview on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" on Dec. 8, Trump said that customs agents or border guards would be charged with asking people: "Are you Muslim?" If the answer was yes, then that person would not be allowed into the country, Trump said.

After seven months, one would think this policy would be coherent, but it is about as far from coherence as possible. One could drive through the holes in the ever-evolving "policy."
Asking Muslims if they are, in fact, Muslim, is not a rigorous test, and if you just ban Muslims from "terror states" -- whichever ones these are -- that is equivalent to building a dam only partway across the river. The river will just flow around the obstruction and follow the path of least resistance.

One suspects Ms. Hicks is in well over her head as being the face of Trump's campaign. Odds of Trump winning in November with this team out in front dealing with the forthcoming onslaught? Zero.

Given the shared political strategies and strategists between the right-of-center parties in the U.S. and Canada, it is -- unfortunately -- not surprising to see Trump's campaign currently headed in the same direction that befell Stephen Harper's campaign in Canada last fall. Harper's team tried to play it too cute, and repeatedly walked away from policy positions on hot button topics such as immigration that were not only wildly popular among the base, but also had substantial support across the spectrum. In the run-up to Canada's vote, Harper's team took the wrong approach time after time, and the base walked because of the unprincipled and incoherent flip-flopping. The result was a Liberal Party majority government, which clearly the conservative "strategists" didn't see as possible (or did they?), but which the vastly more intelligent conservative base could see coming as clear as day.
Trump has fallen into this same hole.

While the polling data is highly biased against Trump, the real state of the race can be approximated by correcting for the known biases and following trends in key sub-indicator groups whose results are probably close to accurate. And this data unequivocally showed that Corey Lewandowski had Trump's campaign on a successful trajectory prior to his firing last Monday. If Reince Priebus likes the decision, and Megyn Kelly clearly detests Lewandowski, and S.E. Cupp also isn't a supporter, and Michelle Fields thinks he "wasn't good at his job," there is a metaphysical certainty Lewandowski's firing was wrong.

It looks like Trump's own children may have sabotaged his campaign, perhaps irrecoverably:

Later that day [Sunday], Ivanka, 34, a businesswoman, delivered an altogether tougher message to her own father, Donald Trump, who views her as his most important political adviser.
Flanked by her brothers Donald Jr, 38, and Eric, 32, she told him he risked losing his audacious bid for the White House if he did not make radical changes to his campaign.
It was a pivotal moment for Trump, marking a shift away from the tactics he used to defeat 16 rivals for the Republican nomination and the beginning of his battle with Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee.
The Trump children, along with Kushner, 35, an investor and owner of The New York Observer newspaper, demanded the head of Corey Lewandowski, Trump's campaign manager. ...
Paul Manafort, 67, a top adviser and campaign veteran brought in when Trump faltered in the primaries, had told Ivanka that if Lewandowski stayed, he would walk.

Manafort is an issue. His known linkages with a wide range of problematic regimes around the world -- from the Saudi royal family to Pakistan's radically Islamic security services -- has cancelled out the possible attacks that Trump could have levelled at Clinton for her connections to troublesome foreign entities.

Polling data, when corrected for bias, also continues to show that the Muslim ban policy is a clear winner. Whoever gave Trump advice to walk this back made a critical error. Voters on the right are uber-cynical this cycle, and any hints of flip-flops will lead them to walk across the aisle as revenge for the betrayal, or sit at home. Even worse, Trump's flip-flops still remain on-line across his own websites, leading potential voters into a collective pea soup fog of nonsense.
Marco Rubio said on Sunday that Trump's Muslim ban "not going to happen." He may be right, but not for the reasons he thinks. Trump himself doesn't appear to really want a ban, despite what he says one day, and then rejects the next.
In their defence, primary voters chose the least worst option this time around -- which perhaps shows just how terrible the options were. Trump was occasionally taking the right positions on the issues that mattered most to the base: immigration and trade. Nobody else that had a real chance to win was talking the talk that the base was looking for. Backing Trump in the primaries wasn't a mistake; the base didn't have a serious alternative that touched on the values they are concerned about.

Trump is now losing support from all sides of the ship. Polling data over the past week shows this with clarity. Even correcting for known bias, the latest data shows Trump has lost the large lead he held over Clinton prior to firing Lewandowski, and is now probably behind Clinton, or at most, tied with her. Some prominent moderate/centrist Republicans -- such as George Will and Hank Paulson -- are starting to line up behind Clinton. Although Will and Paulson hold far too many unconservative positions, some of their complaints regarding Trump are on-target. Watching Trump flounder across the map on issues the moderates may eventually have been convinced to grudgingly support, or at least not vigorously and openly oppose, sealed the deal.

Bernie Sanders' supporters appear to be headed towards Clinton as well. Those who supported Sanders, whatever their ideological faults, tend to value principles, which is why many of them used to see a principled Trump campaign as a potential second choice versus the pragmatic and unprincipled Clinton. But now that Trump has repeatedly burned his bridges to principled policy positions on a range of issues, Sanders' base will almost assuredly head towards Hillary.
Giving a blazingly successful campaign manager the unceremonious, and apparently undeserved, public boot and subsequent insulting security escort to the door, coupled to a now undeniably wishy-washy immigration stance that no commentators can continue to defend (particularly with now diurnal variability), was the last straw for some in the conservative base as well.

The conservative commentariat and base, possible Sanders cross-overs, centrist Republicans -- Trump has displeased them all, for many to the point of no return. This ship is starting to sink, which was the all-too-predictable outcome -- perhaps even intentional -- once the GOP establishment took over the Trump campaign. In many ways the establishment wanted Trump to lose more so than did the liberals, and they may have gotten their way once Trump opened the gates willingly and let his enemies inside his own campaign.

Falling into a classic political trap is not a presidential characteristic voters are seeking.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:34 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1537 words, total size 10 kb.

Amer. Thinker goes further downhil

Jack Kemp

David Lawrence, the Literature PhD. and lout, once again shows us who he is in a blog piece about e.e. cummings - and AT doesn't edit is garbage. I'm so impressed - NOT. He quotes e.e. cummings to insult the Polish people. Real classy, Lifson, JR Dunn.


anna<https://disqus.com/by/annamadry/> • 2 hours ago<http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/06/ee_cummings_understood_liberalism_comments.html#comment-2751112846>
Why end with nonsense "The poets like Cummings always get it right?" Sometimes they get it right, sometimes they don't. "Generalizations are always lies" [including this one] - I borrowed this from a Pole who as a poet was always right. Thank you, Czeslaw.

JackKemp<https://disqus.com/by/realclear-61d26317d2dcbece8895348570aace73/> anna<http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/06/ee_cummings_understood_liberalism_comments.html#comment-2751112846> • an hour ago<http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/06/ee_cummings_understood_liberalism_comments.html#comment-2751146056>
"Poles, trolls, Black Lives Matter, transgenders"
David, did you mean political polls - or is this a deliberate insult to Polish people? If you meant political polls, you realize that you have to do your own editing at Amer. Thinker because no one else will. You have a PhD. in Literature. Use it.

anna<https://disqus.com/by/annamadry/> JackKemp<http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/06/ee_cummings_understood_liberalism_comments.html#comment-2751146056> • an hour ago<http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/06/ee_cummings_understood_liberalism_comments.html#comment-2751155679>

No, he meant the Poles, and yes, it is an insult. An idiotic and cheap one.
Let me explain. Poland didn't exist in the 19th century. The country lost its independence at the end of the 18th century, partly because of selfishness of the elites (the usual thing). For over a century political discourse in Europe was dominated by so called "Polish question" when Voltaire and the like pondered the issue of disappearance of once powerful nation (now you see, now you don't) .

Personally, I've been pushing for some time the suggestion that American geniuses who praise, praise, praise the insane American economic polarization look at Poland of the 18th century. They might see similarities.
Now the ladies. Independence of Poland and Ireland were hot topics among the 19th century liberals.
And I was referring in my comment, of course, to Czeslaw Milosz.

JackKemp<https://disqus.com/by/realclear-61d26317d2dcbece8895348570aace73/> anna<http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/06/ee_cummings_understood_liberalism_comments.html#comment-2751155679> • a few seconds ago <http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/06/ee_cummings_understood_liberalism_comments.html#comment-2751197614>

Thank you for the clarification, Anna. The writing was worse than I thought.
This is the same David Lawrence who wrote at Amer. Thinker a while back that someone holding up a cardboard sign in the NY subway was a lazy ex-serviceman - as if a self-made cardboard sign carries the same level of proof as a government DD214 form or military i.d. card in proving they are actual veterans.
David, wouldn't you be happier writing for The Daily Kos? They are definitely more the style of an "ex-liberal" such as yourself.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:33 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 412 words, total size 4 kb.

A pro journalist & myself take AT to task

Jack Kemp

On June 24, James Lewis, who has written some pretty good pieces at AT, wrote an incoherent, virtually drunk blog piece called "Neo-fascist Grillo wins in Italy." Lewis talked about Grillo's victory but never describes what he won in Italy.

This lead to an interesting exchange of comments between "mynameismendy," a former pro journalist, and myself. James Lewis never answered my question, as perhaps he was "too busy" - or too embarrassed by the incoherent crap he wrote.


JackKemp • a day ago
James, I am not familiar with Grillo's election run this year and I am going to have to go to Wikipedia or elsewhere to find out for what his movement just got over 50 percent of the vote - because this piece doesn't tell me for WHAT he or his party won 50 percent of the votes. Was it seats in the Italian Parliament so that he will be the new Premier or Prime Minister? Did he win the Eurovison song title? This piece violates basic journalistic standards. Perhaps if we all lived in Italy, this clarification I ask for would be unnecessary, but here in the USA, the clarification I ask for is vital. Grillo won what, exactly?

Do they have any editors at AT who do any editing nowadays? And please don't blame me for being "unsophisticated." There are many readers here who wouldn't know Grillo from Harpo, Chico or Groucho. By the way, a visit to Wikipedia and a search engine does not clarify what Grippo won recently or what he was even running for. If he had the parliamentary votes to form a government and to be the new Prime Minister or whatever of Italy, I think Wikipedia and the Bing search engine would have informed me of that.

mynameismendy replies to JackKemp • 9 hours ago
I used to be a reporter. The writing and editing is pretty atrocious overall. Many pieces ramble incoherently with no real narrative drive. But a gem sneaks through now and then which makes the site worth visiting. Maybe a cash infusion to hire some top notch editing and story shaping talent.

JackKemp replies to mynameismendy • 12 minutes ago
mendy, when you say hiring some top not "story shaping talent," that's unclear to me, as that phrase could mean either paid editors or paid writers - probably both. I posted over 300 articles and blog pieces at AT from 2004-2013, being grateful that I got in on an open tryout based on a recommendation from a former AT writer, my having had no experience and learning much "on the job." It appears to me that the economic model at Amer. Thinker doesn't seem to involve being able to afford - or wanting to pay - their writers. I coined a phrase for this business model (not unique to AT): "serfing the web." The few editors they have I believe get payment, but as you say, they don't do top notch editing. I have no knowledge of how much money this website makes and what they might be able to afford in the way of additional editors - or demand of their current paid editors.


Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:31 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 540 words, total size 3 kb.

June 26, 2016

National Survival is Not Nationalism; Brexit and the New World Order

Timothy Birdnow

Helen Dyer forwards this. Please read my comments below:


From 'Brexit' To Trump, Nationalist Movements Gain Momentum Around World

When Donald Trump arrived in Scotland Friday morning, hours after the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee was quick to draw parallels between the U.K.'s political earthquake, and his own campaign for president.

"People want to take their country back," Trump said, "They want to have independence, in a sense. And you see it in Europe, all over Europe."

And while Scotland itself voted overwhelmingly to remain in the European Union, Trump is right. Right-wing nationalist movements, fueled by anger toward political elites and mistrust of immigration — and primarily backed by white voters — are gaining more and more momentum on the continent……

In recent decades, nationalist movements have shifted from vocal minorities to powerful parties that gained control of governments in places like Hungary, have lost national elections by the slimmest of margins in countries like Austria, and, this week, forced the United Kingdom out of the European Union…….

A contempt for the elite ruling classes

"People feel, quite rightly, that they have no real control over political systems — that the political class does what it wants and it sort of ignores ordinary people," Mounk says. "And to a large extent, that's because of the necessities of globalization."

Simple solutions

Mounk says the basic approach of many populist, nationalist candidates can be boiled down to this: "I embody the will of the people. And the problems that we face are actually completely straightforward," he said. "The problem is that the elites are corrupt. They're in cahoots with minorities, with business interests. And all that needs to happen is for me to be elected

Is nationalism here to stay?

It's clear that the factors galvanizing nationalist sentiments aren't going anywhere any time soon. Western democracies continue to become increasingly multicultural. Globalization will remain — despite attempts to stop it, like the U.K.'s Brexit vote.

And the most powerful factor — economic stagnation — appears more likely to remain, too. The Brexit vote triggered market turmoil around the globe Friday, raising questions about long-term economic affect of the move.

So nationalism will continue to be a powerful political tool, and it's clear Trump will embrace the theme through the November election, seeing Brexit as fuel.

End excerpt.

First, let me state unequivocally that we are using very bad terminology here because THIS IS NOT NATIONALISM! Even many on our side speak glibly about Nationalism and fall into the trap laid for us by our leftist buddies. Conservatives are not and never will be Nationalists. Nope. Didn't happen and won't happen. Yet we allow ourselves to be tarred with this logo, even often apply it to ourselves. But it is a terrible libel and we must correct the language if we are to not wind up with our heads rolling around inside the guillotine basket.
The horrors of Fascism and Naziism left a permanent stain on an ugly ideology known as Nationalism, and the Left, ever able to squirm and twist things out of joint, besmirched the Right by confusing Nationalism with Patriotism, with a desire to maintain the Nation State. They have so successfully confused the two that we use the words interchangeably, and as a result you can either be a Nationalistic fascist pig or a globalist. But the reality is the Right in the 19th Century were very concerned with Nationalism as a movement, for it was born not of the Conservatives but of that most chic or radical Leltist, Jean Jacques Rousseau. Roussea ccreated the concept of Nationalism as a tool to break the power of the Church and the nobility. He believed Christianity was a superstition, and an evil one at that, and he also understood it wasn't going away without some more appealing competitor. Roussea greatly admired Islam, but there was too much bad blood between the Muslims and Christendom to seriously consider making everyone bow toward Mecca, so he came up with the next best thing. Rousseau believed that the nation was the expression of the collective Will, and that all power and authority belonged with the People who were the definers of all things, not God and not any religion. Rousseau was something of a Monist, a man who sought indivisibility rather than plurality. He loved the Aunschluss of Church and State afforded by the Koran, and he hoped to create a new secular Faith by doing the same in Europe. Instead of worshipping a transcendent God he would have us worship a Nation, a mystical higher power. And, just as Christ had His Church, so too the Nation is run by7 a State, a government. This was the genesis of Fascism, which was unequivocally a product of the Left. Nationalism was never about respect for country and independence and all about elevating the State to the godhead.

Rousseau also created the internationalist type of Socialism, and the two branches have been fighting ever since. See, Fascism and Marxism were cut from the very same cloth, only they disagreed on how to establish the utopian society. But their goals were the same; empower the State, forcibly control economic activity, promote atheism and secularism, Provide a grand utopian vision, Create a "new Man". Both are revolutionary movements intended to overthrow the old ways of existence, to replace them with a new social, economic, and political order. The fact is the Nationalist has as little use for Conservatives as the Marxist. When we speak about "nationalism" when referencing patriotic movements and a desire to maintain independence from an encroaching supranational order we do ourselves a great injustice. We are Patriots, not Nationalists. It is an absolutely critical distinction. WE aren't the guys who gave the world Hitler.

That was the Left, the very people who are fathering the New World Order today.

That said, I also take umbrage with the NPR writer's claim that;

" Right-wing nationalist movements, fueled by anger toward political elites and mistrust of immigration — and primarily backed by white voters — are gaining more and more momentum on the continent…"

End quote.

Pardon me, but does this author not remember the Occupy Wall Street movement? That came on the heels of a number of mass protests at International economic summits, like the G8 meetings, where Leftists protested the world order promulgated by the elites. Who is angry about rule by the elites? Looks to me like both sides of the political divide, lest Bernie Sanders would not have made any headway in the Democratic race. Trying to cast this as purely a movement by "right wing" nutcases is not only disingenuous but factually incorrect, and it is a lie designed to marginalize the general anger at the leadership both in America and in Europe.

Black Lives Matter is as much fueled by the anti-globalist forces as anything.

Which brings us to the next logical error in this piece; …

"It's clear that the factors galvanizing nationalist sentiments aren't going anywhere any time soon. Western democracies continue to become increasingly multicultural. Globalization will remain — despite attempts to stop it, like the U.K.'s Brexit vote."

End quote.

First, we were told by these self same elites - including NPR - that globalization was such a great deal for us, that we would all be rich and happy if we stopped thinking locally and started thinking globally. But the exact opposite happened, with the global perspective leading to stagnation and social and political upheaval. In other words, they lied to us about what would happen. What is it that people see emerging from this dream of a world without borders? The nations of Europe and America are being overrun by aliens, aliens who have no intention of enculturating and becoming part of the host but rather seek to overwhelm and overthrow the nations they have invaded, and this with the blessings of the political leadership, who see people not as free children of God but as economic commodities to be used in their service. So, if you cannot get labor cheaply enough you simply import poor people to take the jobs, and to hell with those whose jobs have been stolen. Free people are a pain in the neck, always demanding accountability; better to have an ignorant rabble whose purpose is simply to work and pay taxes. The elites don't actually care about the people in any nation. They want people to be interchangeable, like machine screws.

And the people of America and Europe (and Australia) have a culture and way of life worth protecting, yet they see their leaders eager to erase that very culture and way of life. What the Left fails to understand (or more likely doesn't care about) is that this is our home, our land, our possession. It is as if someone simply moved into your house and took over, relagating you to one small room. A great deal of effort is expended on the part of everyone - especially the wealthy and elites - to protect their homes and property, up to and including the use of the military to kill potential thieves, yet the public is being told that we must not take steps to protect our collective property i.e. our nations. We are racists, bigots, colonialists if we seek that.

But borders are absolutely necessary to the smooth functioning of our world. One of the first things a child learns is to respect the boundaries, to not wander in the street or run away in the grocery store or whatnot. That is the establishment of borders, and it improves over time as children learn that the toy belongs to the other child and he can't just take it. Borders are the key to all civilization. The elites are attempting something profoundly arrogant and stupid, namely, trying to erase political boundaries in some crazy misguided attempt to create world government and to allow themselves to make money off people in other countries. It's never been done and likely won't work. I submit that our current economic doledrums are proof that globalism is a bad idea.

Clinton, Bush Jr., and Obama have all followed the globalization model and we haven't had any real economic booms as a resullt. Reagan did not follow that model and America - and the world - got rich. Granted, we had a boom during the Clinton years, but that was riding the tail of the Reagan legacy, and it was paid for through illusory means. Clinton gave us the tech and housing bubbles.

The author concludes:

"And the most powerful factor — economic stagnation — appears more likely to remain, too. The Brexit vote triggered market turmoil around the globe Friday, raising questions about long-term economic affect of the move."

End excerpt.

Posh and drivel. Again, globalization was supposed to set the economy roaring, not stagnate it. Why is Brexit going to cause permanent economic dislocation? Britain will still have a strong economy, a large market that will now be better positioned to act outside of the draconian, Byzantine regulations and rules imposed by the European elites in Brussels. They'll be able to stop the influx of aliens who are swallowing British jobs and consuming british social services. They will be able to relax the strict pollution standards imposed by the E.U., thus making british goods cheaper and more abundant, reducing the need for cheap Chinese imports. And it will bestir national pride, a sense of Britishness that goes hand in hand with robust economic activity. People have to have a sense of themselves, have to feel a part of their country, or they have little motivation. The European elites sought to remove this as a way to create their Frankenstein's monster of an uber-country, and they offered in return a stronger social safety network and promises of an easier life. But Man was not made to simply take leisure, and productivity declines in a nation where nobody wants to work or accomplish anything - precisely the conditions that Europsocialism promotes. Ennui is inevitable, an anti-everything and boredom with life. Bored people don't produce, and even though they may consume they don't do it with any real goal, they merely exist. A nation that has lost a sense of itself and replaced it with mere existence will fall.

The economic chaos of Brexit was a momentary thing, and understandable when considered. Of course investors would worry; they put all their eggs in the E.U. basket. But it will come back. Britain will be stronger than she was as part of that cespool.

Anyone remember the Austro-Hungarian Empire? Everybody hated it. It was a rat's nest and it collapsed when the pressure of the First World War was applied. It was exactly what the European Union is, a multicultural entity with no national identity or sense of purpose. It had nothing to keep it alive, and nobody missed it when it passed. The E.U. has all the same failings.

So, as always, the taxpayer-funded propogandists at NPR not only miss but fail to swing the bat at all, instead kicking a soccer ball. It's time we re-evaluate the narrative we have been given for decades. The problem with lies is that they catch up with you eventually, and the whole "world without borders" and "free trade" business is imploding. Brexit showed that people are not so far gone as to committ suicde with a smile.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:55 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 2265 words, total size 14 kb.

Clinton White House was den of coke, mistresses

Jack Kemp

I hate this lowlife more and more each day...I consider him and the Democratic Party my blood enemies.
Obama Bashes Whitey in Speech at Entrepreneurship Summit (Video)
Jim Hoft Jun 24th, 2016 2:23 pm 20 Comments
Barack Obama spoke at the 2016 Global Entrepreneurship Summit Friday in Palo Alto, California. This was his first speech after the Brexit vote left another mark on his years of failed leadership at home and abroad.

Here's Obama speaking:

obama whitey california
During his speech to young entrepreneurs Obama took a swipe at whitey.

Obama: When people can start their own businesses it helps people and families succeed… It offers a positive path for young people seeking to make something of themselves and can empower people who previously have been locked out of the existing social order, women, minorities, others who aren’t part of the old boys network.

Did you catch that?
According to Obama only women and minorities aren’t part of the "good old boy” networks – run by white men. And, according to Obama, all white men are granted privileges within the "good old boy” networks.
This man is so offensive – and ignorant.


He is a vile little weasle. Obama ignores the very fact that his half blackness is what has gotten him everywhere in life, that he would never have been anything had he not ridden the Affirmative Action gravytrain. HE is the good old boys network posterboy!

At best Obama would be working in the Alinsky machine in Chicago as a common vote thief.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:54 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 271 words, total size 2 kb.

Conservatives face liberal ‘firewall’ on Supreme Court

A.J. Cameron

Expanding upon Mr. Horowitz's points, the literal 'elephant' in the room at this time is Mick Mobster Ryan. He is pro-amnesty and illegal importation. I say importation, because, by purposely and systematically destroying our immigration laws and offering rights intended only for legal residents, this equates to importation.

Another issue is international law. It wasn't long ago that Justice Kennedy more than suggested referencing international law to rule on U. S. legal issues. Compounding this issue is the fact that, embedded within TPP, are provisions‎ to use international law to settle legal issues, not U. S. law. Mick Mobster Ryan and Zipper-Lip McConnell are conspiring with the puppet president to ramrod TPP through during the lame duck session, following the General Election. This will 'encourage' Reps and Senators to vote for this treason, because the next election for the Reps and 1/3 of the Senate will be two years away.

We have a lot of praying to do and a lot of work to do to rescue our sovereign republic, rights and freedoms


Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:53 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 183 words, total size 1 kb.

New Video

Selwyn Duke sends this our way:

Another video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcGv-t8QAhY&feature=youtu.be

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:53 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 11 words, total size 1 kb.

Great Article Title

Jack Kemp

I've got nothing to say about Brexit that's not obvious, but I'd add this title to an article:

"Britons throw Churchill bust back at Obama"

Some commenter on Lucianne.com said of Hillary's attempt to interpret the Brexit vote as a need for continued establishment leadership, "Talk to the hand." I'd say in reply to Hillary, "Talk to the finger."

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:52 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 64 words, total size 1 kb.

Welcome Hackers! Hillary E-mail Scandal

Dana Mathewson

What more has to come out before they throw this witch into prison?


A 2010 decision temporarily disabling State Department security features to accommodate Hillary Clinton’s private server effectively laid out a "welcome mat" for hackers and foreign intelligence services, a leading IT official who oversaw computer security at the Defense Intelligence Agency told Fox News.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:51 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 64 words, total size 1 kb.

Calendar Girl; Hillary Faked Her Sec State Calendar

Jack Kemp

Hillary Clinton Faked Her Calendar To Hide Meetings With Donors

I know, I know. It is heartbreaking and gobsmacking that Hillary Clinton, while on the dole as US Secretary of State, met with major donors and favor seekers behind closed doors and then falsified her official calendar to hide those meetings. Me, too. I am saddened and dismayed. My faith in the world is shaken to its very foundations.

"Television cameras rolled when Hillary Clinton appeared on the central balcony of the New York Stock Exchange to ring the opening bell — just minutes after she attended a private breakfast in September 2009 with influential Wall Street and business leaders.

But the identities of her breakfast guests would be left off of her official State Department calendar — omissions that are among scores of names and events missing from Clinton's historical record of her daily activities as secretary of state, an Associated Press review found.

Now the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Clinton met that morning with a dozen chief executives, most of whose firms had lobbied the government and donated to her family's global charity, the Clinton Foundation. The event was closed to the press and merited only a brief mention in her official calendar, which omitted the names of all her guests — among them Blackstone Group Chairman Steven Schwarzman, PepsiCo CEO Indra Nooyi and then-New York Bank of Mellon CEO Robert Kelly.


Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:50 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 248 words, total size 2 kb.

UK follows James Bond's example...

Jack Kemp


Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:49 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 8 words, total size 1 kb.

Clinton White House was den of coke, mistresses


This makes Trump look like Ronald Reagan, in comparison to Hillary...


Clinton White House was den of coke, mistresses: ex-Secret Service officer
By Daniel Halper
June 25, 2016

Gary J. Byrne has devoted his life, and risked it, to serve his country — as a member of the US Air Force, a uniformed White House Secret Service officer, and a federal air marshal.
And he believes it is his patriotic duty to do anything he can to prevent Hillary Clinton from becoming president of the United States.
As someone who guarded the Oval Office during the Clinton presidency, Byrne, in an exclusive interview with The Post, tells how he witnessed "the Clinton machine leaving a wake of destruction in just about everything they do.”
He says he has also seen Hillary’s "dangerous,” abusive, paranoid behavior.
"It’s like hitting yourself with a hammer every day,” says Byrne, pounding a fist into his open hand, of the former First Lady’s explosive anger.
In his new book, "Crisis of Character: A White House Secret Service Officer Discloses His Firsthand Experience with Hillary, Bill, and How They Operate,” out Tuesday, Byrne makes no apologies for his anti-Clinton motivations.
" ‘America first’ is in my blood,” he writes, sounding very similar to another presidential hopeful.
Modal Trigger

Byrne says he wants Americans to "vote [their] conscience,” but pledges to make sure "they have all the information that they need.”
For one, he thinks the Clintons’ own behavior bred an immoral White House culture.
Byrne revealed to The Post during the interview that Clinton staffers used cocaine on the job.

"There were some drug issues,” Byrne says. "Some people would come in to work in the morning, and they were barely walking, they would drop stuff off at the office, and go to the restroom where they would come out minutes later happy as a clown.”
He also exposes the "jogging list” for the first time.
"In the beginning of his first administration, when President Clinton was jogging outside, women who were dressed as if they were going clubbing or working out, started showing up at the southeast gate,” Byrne explains. "The agents . . . would get the women’s names, and run them to see who they were. If the women wouldn’t cooperate, they would be ushered out of the jogging group.
"Agents … insinuated that this list was used by President Clinton to try to meet these women,” Byrne says.
The book details how the president had as many as three mistresses during the same time period, including former Vice President Walter Mondale’s daughter, Eleanor, who Byrne once discovered "making out on the Map Room table” with Bill Clinton.

What bothered Byrne more than the infidelity was the way Bill Clinton programmed the entire White House to accommodate his cheating ways.
Hillary, meanwhile, was a human minefield. The Secret Service was convinced Hillary posed a physical threat to her husband, and even gave him a black eye, Byrne writes.
She also cursed out her security detail, and she and Bill would often try to evade the Secret Service, making it difficult to protect them and putting agents at greater risk, Byrne says.

But what sticks most in Byrne’s mind is the personal destruction the Clintons wrought in his own life – the fear and turmoil he
had to endure as authorities subpoenaed and harassed him as they investigated the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
It all could have been avoided, Byrne maintains, if Bill Clinton had simply told the truth.
Byrne’s revelations have come under fire recently, with some critics doubting he had the access to the Clintons he claims he had, and that his book details do not align exactly with his testimony to prosecutors nearly two decades ago.
Hillary Clinton’s spokesman has ripped the book, telling Page Six "Gary Byrne joins the ranks of Ed Klein and other ‘authors’ in this latest in a long line of books attempting to cash in on the election cycle with their nonsense. It should be put in the fantasy section of the book store.”

"Anybody who asserts that what I’m saying is not true,” Byrne says, his voice cracking with emotion, "they don’t know any better or they’re flat-out lying.”
Yet, he confesses, "I’m not completely comfortable telling the story, but I am telling it.”
He says a number of people could vouch for his access, including George Stephanopoulos, the former Bill Clinton communications director; John Podesta, Hillary’s campaign chairman, who worked in the Clinton White House; and Jennifer Palmieri, Hillary Clinton’s current campaign communications director, who worked near Byrne in the White House.

As for his testimony during the Ken Starr investigation, Byrne — who never signed a non-disclosure agreement with the Secret Service — says at the time he gave narrow answers to specific questions, as instructed.
"f my testimony wasn’t true, I would end up doing seven years,” he says.
To prove he’s being truthful, he says, he’s willing to undergo a polygraph test — if Hillary takes one too.
Byrne says he is not committed to Donald Trump, despite sharing his slogans.
"The only thing I’ve ever heard about Donald Trump,” says Byrne, "was that he built a lot of buildings and he gave a lot of money away to charity.”
But, he says, he will never vote for a Clinton.
"I know what the public image of the Clintons is and I know what the real image is,” he says. "And the real one’s dangerous.”

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:48 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 920 words, total size 6 kb.

Once the Whale is Gone there is Nothing Left to Eat

Jack Kemp forwards this:


Paul Krugman’s Democratic Party

John C. Goodman
Posted: Jun 25, 2016 12:01 AM

Paul Krugman may understand the Democratic Party better than most Democrats do. The New York Times editorial writer describes Democrats as a "coalition of social groups, from teachers’ unions to Planned Parenthood, seeking specific benefits from government action.” More often than not, what these groups want from government is at someone else’s expense.

That isn’t just a characteristic of the party. That’s what the Democratic Party is.
There are also groups that support Republicans: gun owners, small business owners, evangelicals, etc. But Republican groups tend to not want anything from government. More often than not they just want to be left alone. As Krugman sees it, Republicans are far more concerned with general principles or ideology.

Although Krugman often likes to characterize Republicans as Ayn Rand individualists, the typical Democrat is far more self-interested – in a bad sense of the word. Democratic groups tend to base their loyalty to the party solely on what political favors the party can deliver to the group.

There are no overriding principles here. The party is always seeking opportunities to take from Peter and give to Paul. Paul can be rich or he can be poor. Ditto for Peter. All the really matters is that Paul promises a bigger reward (in terms of votes, campaign contributions, etc.)

Think of the political system as a sort of Hobbesian jungle, in which there is dog-eat-dog rivalry among people who are only interested in what’s in it for themselves. Think of fighting over a fixed pie, for which one man’s gain is another man’s loss.

Who loses out in such a world?

* People who don’t vote (e.g., children, prisoners, unemployed youths, etc.);
* People who always vote for the same party regardless of what it does (e.g., African Americans); and
* People who are in groups only temporarily and who have no opportunity to organize politically (e.g., people who fall in and out of poverty or people who contract expensive-to-treat health conditions).

Scour the entire country and you will be hard pressed to find a Democratic politician who is trying to reform inner city public schools. The reformers are almost always Republicans or wealthy people (who may sometimes vote for Democrats). Who cares about reforming the prison system? In Texas it has been a conservative think tank and Republican politicians. Who cares about lowering the barriers to a job (occupational licensing, union monopolies, minimum wages laws, etc.)?

The White House has actually come down on the right side of occupational licensing – complaining that almost one third of all jobs in the country require a government license. But most of the time the Obama administration has marched in lock step with other Democrats – favoring the haves over any (often minority) newcomers to the job market.

Although the teachers unions are a huge factor in Democratic Party politics, the teachers will vote for a Republican over a Democrat at the drop of a hat if the Democrat threatens their agenda. And this is true of most groups that make up the Democratic Party coalition. It has not been true of African Americans, however.

As I wrote in a previous post, black voters have tended to vote for the Democrats no matter what they do. That may be why so many black families must send their children to the worst schools, why they tend to receive the worse city services and why they are disproportionately the victims of environmental degradation – as in Flint, Michigan.
When Democrats passed the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), they rarely spoke about the need to insure the uninsured (who, per Sen. Chuck Schumer, basically don’t vote). Instead, they talked about the pre-existing conditions, a middle class problem. Even here, however, it appears they were speaking to the large population of people who feared that pre-existing conditions might become a problem in the future.

Those for whom pre-existing conditions were an actual problem at the time were a small, disorganized group with no political power. That may explain why so many insurers in the (Obamacare) exchanges have narrow networks that exclude the best doctors and the best hospitals and have outrageously high out of pocket limits for lifesaving "specialty drugs,” needed by cancer or AIDS patients. In the health policy world, it is only the Republicans and right of center think tanks that have shown any interest in changing perverse insurer incentives.

The idea of a party made up of special interest groups is not new. It dates back to the 1930s and the Roosevelt coalition. Franklin Roosevelt successfully put together a voting alliance that included farmers, union members, southern segregationists and others – people who had nothing in common and basically didn’t even like each other. They voted for the Democrat’s because they got something they wanted for themselves, even if they detested what the party was doing for others.

The pinnacle of this type of coalition building was the National Industrial Recovery Act, modeled after the Italian fascist model in Italy. (See some of the history here.) Before it was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, the act allowed (and even required) every industry and every profession to establish a cartel – setting prices and wages and controlling output.

The problem here is what economists call the "fallacy of composition.” In each separate market the producers benefit by enjoying monopoly rents. But that doesn’t mean that the aggregate effects are good. Just the reverse. Creating a monopoly in every market is terrible for the economy as a whole.

And that is the fundamental problem with Democratic Party politics. Think of political jurisdictions where there basically are no Republicans. Think Detroit, Michigan. Think Puerto Rico.
Think of sharks in a feeding frenzy, eating a dead whale.

Once the whale is gone, there is nothing left to eat.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:47 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 996 words, total size 7 kb.

June 24, 2016

Socialism v. Racism

Wil Wirtanen

Comment on one of the articles I read


§Socialism Vs. Racism

A young black kid asks his mother, "Mama, what is Socialism and what is Racism?”
"Well, Child.....Socialism is when the white folks work every day so we can get all our governmental entitlement stuff for free.
know.....like our free cell phones for each family member, rent
subsidy, food stamps, EBT, WIC, free school breakfast, lunch, and in
some places supper; free healthcare, utility subsidy, and on and
on.....you know, that’s Socialism.”
"But, mama, don't the white people get pissed off about that?”

"Sure they do, Honey. That's called Racism.”

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:47 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 106 words, total size 1 kb.

Christians for Islam!

William Been

I just received this youtube and think it is very important to share. It ties in directly with the mass email I sent a few minutes ago concerning the concerns for America and the 2016 election.

I have a collection of documents involving one of the nine groups featured in the youtube, being the Church World Services group. Their actions and intent are frightening as they believe they are doing God's work by populating the one free Christian country in the world with Muslims. Perhaps I am a lousy Christian but I believe the very existence of Christianity is being threatened by these actions which is validated by 14 centuries of Muslim attempts to dominate the world as directed by Mohammed. The complexities dealing with this subject matter are immense and troublesome but will share info with all of you within the next week.


Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:31 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 150 words, total size 1 kb.

Advertising Companies to Cooperate in Promoting Radical Progressivism

A.J. Cameron

This comes from a good friend, locally.

On a day when freedom loving people all over the world should be celebrating the Braveheart-like Brexit (in spite of the Scots), we receive this sobering news.

Freedom can be fleeting with the self-appointed elites are determined to strip it from us.

We'll know the extent of this conspiracy, and how determined TPTB (the powers that be) are, if the Pope is in any of the ads, or is in support of this purposeful theft of people's freedoms and finances all over the globe.


AD TRUCE: Typically, the leaders of the world’s six largest advertising companies trade barbs and actively try to win each other’s clients. To say they don’t get along is a bit of an understatement. But as the Cannes Lions advertising festival wraps up, the top ad executives are setting aside their rivalries and coming together to help raise awareness for the United Nations’ ambitious Sustainable Development Goals to improve the planet and people’s lives, CMO Today reports. The advertising initiative, aptly named "Common Ground,” will kick off with WPP, Omnicom, Publicis, Interpublic Group, Dentsu and Havas launching a global ad campaign pro bono to highlight issues like clean water and climate change. In addition, each holding company will take up a specific initiative to promote. The goal is to get major corporations around the world to help support and fund the 17 goals, without which the U.N. says it won’t be able to hit its 2030 target.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:30 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 259 words, total size 2 kb.

<< Page 1 of 617 >>
98kb generated in CPU 0.05, elapsed 0.0418 seconds.
30 queries taking 0.0104 seconds, 190 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.