Right Wing Fighter

Month: August, 2016

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:





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


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.