Right Wing Fighter

AP: US Likely to Hit Obama’s Goal of 10,000 Syrian Refugees this Year

From the “Associated Press“:

After a slow start, it appears increasingly likely that the Obama administration will hit its goal of admitting 10,000 Syrian refugees into the United States before the end of September.

State Department figures show that 2,340 Syrian refugees arrived last month in the United States.

And how is this in any way a good thing?

How is accepting 10,000 people from a backwards country good for the United States?

Outside the obvious problem of Islamic terrorism, what good can these uneducated people do the United States? They likely have only a little bit of education. Can they function in our advanced society? Or are they going to be wards of the government, working low wage jobs and making up the difference with welfare payments? Obviously the latter.

How does this in the least enrich the United States? Do we end up a better country, a stronger and healthier country, when we accept uneducated Muslims? Absolutely not.

Our refugee system needs to be eliminated. There is no reason why the United States should take in a single refugee. They always just end up low wage workers who are supported by the US government. That may make Democrats happy, who get more voters; that may make sappy sentimentalists feel warm and fuzzy, that they are ‘doing something for humanity:’ but it does NOTHING for the people of the United States. They, the ones who have to pay for it; they, the ones who have to live with it; they, the ones who have to face the crime and labor competition from these people: they get NOTHING from this. It is nothing but an assault on their rights as Americans. They are entitled to a government which looks exclusively after THEIR interests in the world. The government hasn’t a right to do anything else.

‘American Pravda’ Working Hard for Clinton

Under the Associated Press’s ‘Top News’ section for politics, they list ten stories. Seven out of ten are either directly attacking Trump, or prominently feature him in a negative light.

Here are two particularly hostile headlines:

MCCAIN STICKS BY TRUMP DESPITE MYRIAD REASONS NOT TO

and

PENCE TRIES TO WIN OVER CONSERVATIVES DESPITE TRUMP GAFFES

 

Meanwhile, none of the ten stories attacks Clinton.

This is why AP is referred to as “American Pravda.” They aren’t just a non-partisan reporting agency like they pretend to be. Instead, they are a completely partisan bunch of Democratic operatives working hard to control the narrative so Democrats can win.

Statesmen are Born, not Made

I got an email from the Heritage Foundation today, asking me to donate.

In part of the email there was this sentence:

Our expert team of researchers and communication specialists are taking a new approach to beating the left by building strong conservative statesmen.

It is impossible to make a statesman.

First, a bit of explanation.

A politician is a man who holds office. He can do it well or poorly. But all the same, he’s a politician. Politician is a job description, not a measure of merit.

Now the word statesman is completely different. It’s a measure of quality, and not merely a job description. He is of course a man who holds office. So he’s a politician too. But the word statesman indicates the quality of work he does in that job.

So, what is a statesman?

A statesman is a man that can see clearly where his nation is at the present. He also sees where it needs to go in order to be healthy and successful. Additionally, he can see the problems of the future, to a fair extent, and makes preparations to deal with them. And finally, he is willing to sacrifice his own advancement in order to solve today’s and tomorrow’s problems.

So a statesman is a man who is:

Clear-sighted about present and future problems;

Prepares himself and his nation to meet them;

Accepts the consequences, good or bad, that come to him personally for doing so.

The arch example of statesmanship comes from Washington.

Having fought the war for our independence for nearly nine years, he looked forward to spending the latter part of his life in retirement. But when he saw that the nation, before the constitution, was coming apart, he began working for a solution. He encouraged the early federalists to work on a new form of government. And he coaxed them along when they began to slide from the path.

When the constitutional convention finally came together, Washington presided over it. This was a risky step, because the idea of national union under one government was unpopular in powerful circles. Especially in Washington’s native Virginia.

Once the constitution was ratified by enough states for it to take effect, Washington, reluctantly, became our first president. He knew that he was spending the final years of his life in a job he didn’t want. But for the nation, he did so.

After four years, he’d had more than enough. He wanted to quit in the worst way. But the French Revolution had erupted in Europe. And its anti-authority message was making waves on our shores. Many were being carried away by the Revolutionaries’ ‘New Religion of Man,’ and were questioning why we even needed a government at all, aside from the most basic local government. In the face of this, Washington took up the mantle once more and ran for president again. He was elected unanimously, and in doing so he knew that the very last few years of his life were being spent.

Washington lived only two and a half years after his presidency ended. During that time, he continued to coordinate with federalist leaders to try to stem the tide of revolution in this country.

To get back to Heritage’s line about making statesmen: it is impossible to do so, because it’s impossible to train someone to be clear-sighted, dedicated to duty, and to love his country. It is possible to strengthen these attributes when they already exist. But they can’t be made. And even so, strengthening only goes so far. In order for a man to be a statesman, he must be born with a high amount of these things in him already. He must come into this world pretty near the level of statesmanship. Training can only add the last 10 or 15 percent needed to make him unshakeable and focused.

I mention this for two reasons: one, because it’s important to know what’s possible when it comes to improving leadership. Two, because I’m tired of people talking about ‘making leaders,’ as if human beings are putty to be molded.

Boy Arrested for Burping in Class

Well,

From ABC13:

A federal appeals court has upheld the petty misdemeanor arrest of an Albuquerque student accused of repeatedly disrupting his middle-school class with loud burps.

[…]

According to the school, the boy was in physical education class when his teacher said he began making other students laugh with fake burps. The teacher sent him to the hallway, where he continued burping and leaning into the entranceway to the classroom so the students could hear.

That’s when Officer Arthur Acosta, assigned to the middle school as its resource officer, was called to the hallway where the boy was seated, according to court documents.

The boy disputed the version of events provided to the officer by his teacher Margaret Mines-Hornbeck before the officer led him away from the classroom, and took him first to the school’s administrative office and then the juvenile detention center.

They arrested this boy?

Didn’t it occur to anyone to have a stern talk with him?

There have always been rule-breakers and disrupters. It’s not like schools aren’t prepared for such cases. So send him to detention! Have the principle give him a firm talking to. But most likely, the principle is a man without any personal gravitas at all. He probably couldn’t talk a bank teller into giving him service. That’s the bizarre thing these days in America: I see people all the time in positions of authority who have no gravitas. They have no personal weight. They seem like feckless actors, all pretending to be doing their jobs. But give them something outside their training, and their mind utterly stops and they reach for a cop to handle the situation.

That’s what’s so aggravatingly pathetic about this case. These people don’t reach beyond the narrowest band of thought. They don’t stop and say to themselves “How can I handle this situation?” They just reach for a cop instead.

 

 

Washington Post or Washington Pravda? WaPo in Full Anti-Trump Mode

I may start calling the Washington Post ‘Washington Pravda’ instead. They are even more biased than the AP, and that’s hard.

Here’s a quote from an article posted this morning:

The bigger problem for Trump is that he still can’t seem to break past his ceiling. Prior to his convention bump, Trump’s peak in the polls was 44 points. Clinton’s low was 43.1. She’d never been lower; he’d never been higher.

They’re trying to massage in two ideas here.

First, that Trump has a ceiling. They did this over and over again during the primary. First his ceiling was 25%. Then 30%. Then 36%. Then 40%. They kept talking about his “ceiling” as if it was carved out of marble.

The whole goal of it was to give a sense of inevitability to him failing. The idea was, that if he has a support ceiling, he wont be able to go the long haul because his competition will solidify and squeeze him out. Obviously that was a lie, as he won the Republican primary with more votes than a Republican has ever gotten in a primary before.

The second idea they want to solidify is this: that Hillary has an inevitable level of support. We’re over three months from the election. Polls at this point mean nothing about the final outcome. And yet, they’re using Clinton’s numbers, which reflect a rather non-bruising primary season, as an indication of her support in the fall. Yes, she had to fight with Sanders. But the fight wasn’t the kind that seriously damages popularity.

Trump’s primary, on the other hand, was a real bare-knuckle brawl. All the “official Republicans” were against him, including National Review and most top columnists. The media attacked him daily. In short, he’s been through the fire and Clinton has been walking on a paved road. When the real fighting starts, Trump is going to start doing a lot of damage to Clinton’s numbers. Additionally, the right-wing media will start supporting him, and this will solidify his support with Republicans and make him look more respectable to independents.

One additional point to remember: most of these polls are from Democrat-loving sources. They’ll tighten up when the election gets close, in order to save their credibility. But for now, they are meant to shape opinion, not reflect it.

Ironic: AP Criticizes Russian State Television for Clinton Coverage

The AP, sometimes known as American Pravda for its statist way of manhandling the truth, had this in part to say in an article from today:

Viewers [of Russian state television] were told that Clinton sees Russia as an enemy and cannot be trusted, while the Democratic Party convention was portrayed as further proof that American democracy is a sham.

In her acceptance speech, Clinton reaffirmed a commitment to NATO, saying she was “proud to stand by our allies in NATO against any threat they face, including from Russia.”

In doing so, she was implicitly rebuking her rival, Republican nominee Donald Trump, who has questioned the need for the Western alliance and suggested that if he is elected president, the United States might not honor its NATO military commitments, in particular regarding former Soviet republics in the Baltics.

It’s rather understandable that the Russians would resent Clinton’s repeated attacks. This is not to say that Russia is governed by good people or that they are beyond criticism. But this habit that Clinton and many politicians have of throwing sand in Russian eyes is idiotic. It seems to be the one country they don’t mind verbally kicking around. It’s clear why Republicans do it: they’re reliving the Cold War. But Democrats are the ones who wanted to lose the Cold War. It’s not immediately apparent why they like to jab at Russia.

As for Trump and NATO: he hasn’t “suggested” that America would dishonor its commitments to NATO. He’s suggested he would renegotiate those commitments. American Pravda is suggesting that Trump would just turn his back on our obligations. That is not true. Trump wants to alter our commitments to reflect America’s interests. That’s a big difference.

And finally, the Russians are correct that the Democratic convention was a proof of the corruption in American politics. Hillary Clinton could well have lost to Bernie Sanders, if it wasn’t for Superdelegates handing her the nomination. Additionally, the moneyed interests who paved the way for Clinton, whilst giving nothing at all to Sanders, were clearly scratching her back so she’d scratch theirs. That is why Trump says that Clinton is bought and paid for: she is.

Now, is American politics completely corrupt? No. But there is still plenty of corruption. It’s always funny when such “news” outlets as American Pravda get in a tizzy over someone accusing American Democracy of having corruption. AP is practically the definition of corruption.

Charles Koch Apparently Won’t be Supporting Trump

From the AP:

Billionaire industrialist and conservative benefactor Charles Koch’s expansive political network will not help Donald Trump win the presidency.

That’s the message from one of the Koch network’s chief lieutenants as hundreds of the nation’s most powerful Republican donors gathered for a weekend retreat on Saturday. With Election Day just three months away, Koch lamented the state of the 2016 contest during a welcome reception inside a luxury hotel at the foot of the Rocky Mountains.

“We don’t really, in some cases, don’t really have good options,” Koch said of the “current political situation.”

Well, that’s a surprise, isn’t it?

The Koch Brothers have never been ‘in it for the country.’ They’ve been in it for their bank accounts. That’s why they’ve also donated to Democrats.

The Koch’s donation network is focused on essentially one thing: the good of business.

The Koch’s like to pass themselves off as libertarians. But that is only meant to give them a veneer of intellectualism. The real reason that they are socially liberal and economically “conservative” is that they don’t want to pick up friction fighting moral fights, and at the same time they want to grease the wheels for money-making. In short, their “political philosophy” is nothing but a cover for whatever increases the bottom line.

Donald Trump, and his workers-first candidacy threatens this. Would it bankrupt them? Absolutely not. But the Koch’s don’t like to take losses ever, even for the good of workers. For this reason, they at the least will not support Trump. I wouldn’t be surprised if they took mild steps to oppose him.

Jonah Goldberg: Democrat Convention was Better than Republican Convention

From the Twitter account of Jonah Goldberg, of National Review “fame”:

And nothing shows “love for America” quite like featuring the anti-police Black Lives Matter bunch, eh?

What about Clinton’s statement that there would be “no wall” built on the border? Isn’t it a little unloving to America for Democrats to not seal off the border, since killers, drug deals, and rapists are coming through? Some love!

I haven’t kept up with Goldberg’s “thinking” at all. But I imagine he’s still driven by his Trump hatred. Of course, Goldberg was never a genius anyway. Perhaps, like Limbaugh, he actually found things to like in the Democratic convention.

With “leaders” like these, who needs an enemy?

Limbaugh: Obama’s Speech at Democratic Convention was ‘Reaganesque’

From the Daily Caller:

On Thursday’s broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show, Limbaugh said, “I was told, that Barack Obama’s speech last night was fabulous. It was just great. It was uplifting. It was positive. It was Reaganesque.”

Later Limbaugh said, “If Obama had been, the last eight years, in word and policy, as he was in that speech last night, we wouldn’t have a prayer. If Obama had been what he was last night for the last eight years, there would be no Republican Party.”

[Link in original]

This may sound a little bizarre, but what Limbaugh is saying is “Mr. President, I would have supported you if you’d let me! I would have been with you if you’d just been like Reagan!”

I listened to Rush regularly for the first half of Obama’s presidency. He could never bring himself to criticize Obama. He always had to find a way to dance around it. He’d say Obama was making America into something “the founders hadn’t intended,” or something similar. But he wouldn’t just come right out and say “Obama’s policies are bad.” He’d always make it vague. He’d always avoid criticizing Obama directly.

Why? I don’t know. Limbaugh always felt he could criticize Bill Clinton. But Obama? He always seemed out of reach to Limbaugh.

In any case, this quote is Limbaugh doing a little conscience clearing. He wants to make it clear that it was nothing personal or racial, but just a matter of policy. Of course, it goes without saying that opposition to Obama was policy based. It was never a matter of racial hatred, as the Democrats like to slanderously say.

Perhaps that little fear of being called a racist was at back of Limbaugh’s mildness when talking about Obama.

Trump Did Not Ask Russia to Meddle in US Politics

The media is running around with a quote from Trump that they are torturing into a call for Russia to meddle in our elections.

From the AP:

“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Trump said. He was referring to emails on Clinton’s private server that she said she deleted – because they were private – before turning other messages over to the State Department.

Trump was not calling for Russia to meddle in our elections.

The media likes to ignore the fact that Trump, unlike every other politician, talks like a normal human being. We all make comments that we wish this or that. We talk off the cuff. Trump does this a lot, and it’s part of his appeal with voters: they enjoy that they’ve got a real human being running for president.

The media is just waterboarding this statement into a confession of guilt. Fortunately, Trump doesn’t back down to media pressure.


 

In other worlds, here’s an interesting quote from the above cited AP article:

Brendan Buck, a spokesman for Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan said bluntly: “Russia is a global menace led by a devious thug. Putin should stay out of this election.”

An entire country is a global menace?

Many Republicans have been paranoid of Russia for years now. Russia is a problem, geo-politically speaking. But so is China, Mexico, and frankly half the world. To call Russia a global menace is hysterical. They aren’t looking at the political situation of today as it is: they’re looking at it as if it’s 1985. Thus anything that strengthens the Soviet UnionRussia, is bad, because it’s still, in their minds, the country it was when they were growing up. It is still the ‘bad guy’ in the global drama of good vs evil that’s playing out in their minds.

If you’ve read any in-depth history of the post-Revolution era in America, you can see something similar. The Founding Fathers almost universally disliked Great Britain. This was understandable. But some of them acted as though we were practically still at war with Britain. To these men, politics was a struggle between us and the perpetual oppressor Britain. Thus, many of them were bound and determined for an alliance with France when, after its revolution, it went to war with Britain. Fortunately for us, these men didn’t succeed in dragging us into a conflict that would have smashed us to pieces.

But there’s a difference between the Revolutionary generation and these particular Republicans: many of the founders had passed their formative years and not a few of their middle-years in an environment of conflict with Britain, either over colonial rights, in outright war, or with the haggling peace-settlement process that followed the war. But these modern Republicans spent only a portion of their formative years in the Cold War. And then, shortly after Reagan, the situation changed completely. The USSR ceased to exist completely. All that was left was the former countries that made it up. This, in contrast to Britain’s continued existence and dominance of world affairs after the Revolution.

Put another way, the Founding generation spent many more years in conflict with a power which continued to exist after our war with them ended. Thus, not only did they have more years to marinate in the emotions of conflict, but their former antagonist remained after the struggle ceased. Britain was still in the forefront of practical political affairs. As such, old memories would have a focus point to rest on.

But not so with these modern Republicans. Ryan, for instance, was only 19 when the Berlin Wall fell. The USSR collapsed three years later, shortly before Ryan’s 22nd birthday. He can hardly be said to have marinated for any time in hatred for the Soviets. Additionally, since the USSR ceased to exist after 1991, Republicans lost their psychological focal point for antipathy. In short, the enemy had departed the scene. So why cling to this saber-rattling?

At bottom, these modern Republicans have very little reason to be hankering for conflict with Russia. The Cold War changed soon enough in their lives that they had ample time to change their thinking, to re-orient their thinking away from U.S. vs U.S.S.R. into something that reflected new conditions.. That they didn’t is entirely their fault.

It may be understandable. It may be predictable, as I pointed out in my post on epochs in history. But it is still a serious fault on their part.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.