Friday, June 24, 2016

An Open Letter To Hot Air's Allahpundit And All Summer Soldiers

From "The Winter Patriot"

The Summer Soldier And The Sunshine Patriot


During the 1770's, as the American revolution developed, soldiers who joined the Continental Army during the spring or summer but went AWOL in the fall or winter were known as "summer soldiers".

Many of the "summer soldiers" were farmers who would join up with the Army when their crops were planted, fight during the summer, and then go back home in the fall to help with the harvest.

Others would stay with the Army through the harvest, but sneak off in the middle of the night once the weather got cold.

Meanwhile, the people who supported the revolutionaries when the revolution was going well -- but not otherwise -- were called "sunshine patriots".

So in the famous passage from "The Crisis" where Thomas Paine wrote:
The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country
he was talking -- quite literally in the former case -- about the fair-weather friends of the Revolution.

I recently had a Twitter dialogue with Hot Air's noted writer "Allahpundit over what I saw as his continued negativity to Donald Trump well after Trump was the putative nominee.

Allahpundit asked if I "never found any fault with Trump." That is of course not the matter at issue. I find fault with even Sarah Palin (there I've said it) as I side more with Trump's position on the GOP's need to rewrite the abortion plank. I am pro-life but even Palin makes one exception and I, like Trump would allow for two. 

Of course no politician is perfect and there never has been one, Reagan included.

The bottom line, the absolute is, could any Republican of any stripe look at themselves in the mirror on November 9th with anything but shame and self-loathing if they had overtly assisted Hillary Clinton to have been elected as president, especially with a senate majority and supreme court appointments to commence?

I do not use the words "inadvertently" or "through inaction or neglect" because any action against Trump, any inaction or neglect when action and attention was possible, is exactly the same as overt assistance when the stakes are so high, in fact as high as they have ever been for the Republican cause.

Any such neglect or overt attacks on Trump with an eye to "having a real conservative elected in 2020 (not ascribing such thoughts to Allahpundit) is disgustingly self-serving and shortsighted. Further, since most presidents are reelected it is doubtful in the extreme, and the SC appointment/s are irreversible.

Further still, if the perpetrators of such fantasies believe they will have a united party behind their 2020 choice  (presumably Cruz) after sabotaging the 2016 overwhelming choice of the primary voters they are deluded in the extreme.

I understand and appreciate that there are bitter feelings among some of the backers of the losing candidates especially among those who supported Senator Cruz. But continuing on yesterday's battle against the nominee is utterly nugatory and otiose and must, for the sake of America above all, now cease.

 What possible purpose does it serve for Hot Air to continue to run negative articles about Trump, parse every negative poll, especially when as they well know polls at this point are discredited puppets of the media's agenda. 

"I will not now or will never support or vote for Donald Trump."  I still see this touted around conservative blogs and Tweets. In the absolute majority of cases when the day of the election approaches the people who made such emphatic statements will, whether they hold their noses or not, vote for the nominee. 

This has been the case over and over as with the female "PUMA's who, after Hillary lost the nomination swore the would never vote for Obama which they did, and all the anti-Romney's who vowed the day would never dawn then they would vote for him, but vote they did.

Now if Allahpundit and ilk decide in the last week to write "as bad as Trump is Hillary is worse and I will vote for him" that's all well and good. But for people such as they who are in a position now to "bear any burden and fight any foe" and choose not to because of aggrievement they are "Summer soldiers" whose neglect of duty, when so many are fighting for the anti-Hillary cause is, purely and simply the worst form of enabling.

Win or lose in November, I and millions of others will be able to say we fought the good fight to the best of our abilities. For those of talent to neglect this duty, to attack the only weapon against ultra-liberalism available, and by doing so to enable the ascension to office of a corrupt leftist candidate is, frankly, shameful.

There is still time to look forwards, to do the right thing and to keep America safe. I ask those who have the special ability to make a valued, positive commitment to put the past behind them and commence the attack against the real enemy.

MJS










Monday, June 20, 2016

Satire,The Weapon Leftists Use To Beat Conservatives.Time To Fix This


I have linked a few articles below pertaining to satire. There are variations on the theme of course but the main thrust is clear, satire is a potent political weapon.

That the right doesn't recognize this fact and use it against the left is a major, vital failing. The Alinskyite tactic of unrelenting attack on opponents has satire as a key component and conservatives, countering this with facts and reason are utterly failing in their responses.

That the mainstream media, including the late night talk shows and the likes of SNL, Maher etc etc is overwhelmingly in support of the Democratic party is beyond all quibbling but the very recognition of this fact detracts from the sting of their attack, and their arguments, such as they are, can be countered with facts because there is a degree of reality in their premises.

The attacks from such sites as Gawker and Wonkette and the rabid "progressive' blogs are not easily countered because facts don't mean anything to the people who use their platforms to denigrate the left.
The sheer volume of diatribe issuing from these sites gives them a reach far beyond the awareness of them by the wider public as the memes they create seep into the wider discourse as "facts."

The hit job done on Sarah Palin in 2008 and 2012 is a classic example of this meme creation. SNL created this parody of a back country ditz 'who could see Russia from her window' (which of course she did not say. Unsure if she had survived this onslaught and might run in 2012 they created the "Game Change" movie which portrayed her, going one step further, as some sort of pyscho.

Talk show hosts beat on the "Romney is cruel to animals and is an utter snob" meme from the start to the finish. Nowhere to be found was any conservative satire sites that, to quote the Ace of Spades blog's masthead "hoisted the black flag" in return.

The right has the gentle satirist tweeter "Iowahawk" whose acerbic wit is outstanding, but its too clever and sometimes too gnomic to counter the hate and filth and distortion and lies emanating, successfully, from the left.

It has to be admitted that a major part of the success of such sites as Gawker and Jezebel is they provide heaps of sight humor, cartoons, video clips and often their attacks are funny, it's obviously a formula that works.

Where is the "conservative Gawker"? There are a number of new, youth orientated conservatives sites like "The Last Refuge" that do an outstanding job of taking the fight to the enemy but they do it in the classic way and their facts and arguments and passion can be dismissed by the left using their so far invincible weapon of hate satire.

The inimitable Scott Adams of "Dilbert" fame has been running a series of biting satires  

How to Un-Hypnotize a Rabid Anti-Trumper

 but is otherwise occupied and, perhaps, does not see himself as a Republican

The right is not lacking for talent, I would gladly put my hand up to contribute to any satire site that such talented and enthusiastic people could get under way. But, underway it must get, and quickly (and needs to be substantially financed otherwise it will have little effect). There is too much at stake in this election to let the leftists run roughshod over the all to earnest right.

Who will speak in harsh unrelenting satiric tones for conservative Americans and for America?







Patton Oswalt: No 'Bigger Weapon Against Oppressiveness' Than Satire

www.huffingtonpost.com/.../patton-oswalt-charlie-hebdo_n_6438800.ht...


Jan 8, 2015 - Patton Oswalt is one of America's most successful standup comics, and for good reason. The best comedians are ones who can observe ...

Satire as a Weapon - The Stability Institute

stabilityinstitute.com › Security › Radicalization & Recruiting


Jul 13, 2015 - Satire as a Weapon. by Utsav Yadav. Iraq_Oil_Infrastructure_Map_980 A number of entities independently use satire to attempt to undermine ...

Charlie Hebdo: cartoon satire is a more potent weapon than hate | Art ...

www.theguardian.com › Arts › Art & design › Charlie Hebdo attack


Jan 8, 2015 - Jonathan Jones: Humour is an essential force in the defence of free speech, as the murdered cartoonists' final cover on Michel Houellebecq ...

What is the aim of satire? - The Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/.../wp/.../what-is-the-aim-of-satire...


Jan 9, 2015 - Satire is traditionally the weapon of the powerless against the powerful. I only aim at the powerful. When satire is aimed at the powerless, it is ...

ShrinkWrapped: Satire as a Weapon

shrinkwrapped.blogs.com/blog/2010/10/satire-as-a-weapon.html


Oct 16, 2010 - When one's enemies are so filled with self-importance as to be complete without a sense of humor, satire can be an incredibly powerful ...

One weapon against ISIS brutality emerges in Arab world: Satire ...

www.cbsnews.com/.../arab-satire-ratchets-up-against-isis-as-militant-grou...


Sep 1, 2014 - From "Looney Tunes"-style cartoons to even jokes about mass executions, Arab public expresses their dislike for militant extremists with humor.

Satire - weapon of choice in the gun debate - Telegraph

www.telegraph.co.uk › Culture › Film


Nov 5, 2002 - 'Americans have forgotten what satire is," says American satirist Michael Moore. "They're so damn serious, they can't make fun of themselves.

Wednesday, June 15, 2016

When Capitalism Collapses It Will Be Time For Cooperative Syndicalism

Capitalism is the best economic system the world has ever seen. Competitive, moderately regulated free markets have given the world a prosperity beyond imagining even 100 years ago. 

The other systems tried during periods where capitalism had periods of recession or depression, e.g. communism and varying degrees of state controlled socialism in a general free market environment, have led to stultified bureaucracies at best and mass terror at worst.

However, at some point a *major crash will come which will make 1929 look like a picnic. Nobody knows when or how of course, but it might possibly be the massive money printing/debt mountains that is the current economic situation, a collapse in China setting off a world economic cataclysm or something else. But, come it will.

"During the Next Financial Crisis, Entire Countries Will Go Bust" LINK

At that point, given that money printing will have been the cause printing money will no longer be the salvation. War of course has worked in the past but that was before nuclear weapons made mass warfare a lose/lose situation so it would seem that avenue is closed. 

The "Eastasia has always been at war with Eurasia" Big Brother scenario would have worked up to the mass information age but "the proles" are wise to  any  "War is Peace" statism.

The way forwards to a balanced, just, peaceful society based on competitive cooperation would be the only sensible economic and social structure and that structure is syndicalism or the cooperative movement.

Syndicalism (not anarcho-syndicalism which is a recipe for disaster) is, simply put the restructuring of society on a cooperative basis.

It is of course a fantasy to imagine an America where industry is organized on a product basis in the current environment. It is not in peoples nature to move away from the idea of individual ownership to co-operative joint ownership, and rightly so. 

Again, this could only come about following a complete and devastating collapse where even the most individualistic would accept that a new ordering of society is required.

This new structure would envisage, for example all car manufacturing or steel making industries being under one umbrella. 

The entire, say, car industry would be entirely owned by the workers including all levels of management. All profits, and to work that element of capitalism would have to be retained, would be divided up amongst the employees with a dividend to the national government. 

"Government would come from elected representatives from each element of the national economy ensuring that government was connected to the real life of individuals and the real economy.

A strong level of consumer driven demand and competition would also have to be retained to prevent the bottlenecks,"planned demand" corruption and bureaucracy which state controlled economies create.

Workers' councils combine to elect higher bodies for coordinating between one another. This means that the upper councils are not superior to the lower councils, but are instead built from and operated by them. The national council would therefore have delegates from every city in the country. Their nature means that workers' councils do away with traditional centralized governments and instead give power indirectly to the people. This type of democratic order is called council democracy."

A review of syndicalism, in various guises and under extreme considerations in revolutionary Spain is an interesting overview of the concept. What stands out is that even under extreme stress if peoples aspirations for a better life created through their own efforts and in cooperation with others is allowed to be expressed and is nurtured than anything is possible.

"Revolutionary Catalonia"


"Although there were early issues with production in certain instances, however, numerous sources attest that industrial productivity doubled almost everywhere across the country and agricultural yields being "30-50%" larger."

This Spanish example is by no means meant as a template, far from it, but elements of it are most certainly required if and when the modern age with its advanced technological and communication capacity requires a revolution in the human soul which, post a cataclysmic collapse, will usher in a real economic liberalism and an advanced age in human relations.

A broader introduction to Syndicalism/workers control/co-operatives can be found at theses articles: 
"Syndicalism"

Consumers' co-operative



Tuesday, June 14, 2016

If Trump Loses Romney/Ryan/Graham Are Welcome To The "GOP"

If Donald Trump loses in November, and most especially if he loses in part because of the malign influence of the #NeverTrump dead-enders, then the "Grand Old Party" is doomed.

Certainly whatever rotten rump is left would stay around for an election or possibly two in a truncated form, as the finance from the Beltway/country club elite's would be there to prop it up. It would be enabled also by the leftist media which would wish to perpetuate a Republican split to aid the Dem's. 

When the previous conservative splits happened the Federalist and the Whigs managed similar last gasp efforts before expiring as would the GOP rump.

There is, most certainly, no place for myself in such a GOP, and I suspect a massive number of Trump/Palin-ite supporters too. 

I, and I believe many others, would prefer a socially centrist party with a states rights method of implementation, allied to traditional conservative economics and a strong "America first' foreign policy outlook allied to a major commitment to the armed forces.

The nuts and bolts of such an underpinning to a new conservative party would be for the founders, in convention, to develop into a cohesive whole but the elements are clear.

The question arises that if the GOP breaks up would it be into two or three groups initially? 

That the Romney et al group is anathema to the Trump followers is unquestioned and a post Trump defeat would see them as irreconcilable. What happens to the Cruz supporters would be the determinate factor as to how many groups would form.

I, as a centrist conservative, can't see myself joining a party whose social outlook is completely rigid on abortion and Gay relationships. I, like Trump and Palin allow for exceptions in abortion and I have no problem with civil unions. 

Those matters apart I see little difference between the Cruz and Trump supporters. If, in developing a new conservative party the Cruz element could move to a states rights view of these matters then a broad tent, rid of the elitists, is more than possible.

If the Bourbons retain hold of a deeply factionized GOP after November they are welcome to it and I will join the "write in" party. Of course the best thing would be for Trump to not only win in November but win handily and have a Republican congress to support him. 

But if the worst comes to the worst I would believe that the 2020 election will see very different parties competing and and by 2024 a Trump-ite/Palin-ite party would be poised to achieve the presidency.

Friday, June 10, 2016

Who Will Win In November? A Quick And Easy Guide

Update#1 State polls only polls that matter; PPP Virginia Hillary by 3 Obama/Romney 2012 Obama by 4 
Iowa Obama won by 6 Hillary leads by 3
****************************************************************
Trump or Clinton elected as president in November? There's no mystery as to how to work out which will be inaugurated next January. 

Forget the "Will Sanders supporters vote for Trump/stay home/cave in and vote for Hillary" which some "pundits" (what a disgraced, debased, demeaned word since the Trump campaign exposed the entire class as shills, blind fools, shameless partisans) have been touting as the key to either Hillary landslide or a Trump squeaker.

Disregard "Ron Johnson's Libertarian party's time has come and he will take more votes from Trump/Hillary" ditto "Jill Stein's Green Party will take enough votes from Hillary to let Trump win." Ignore "Utah is in play for the Dem's" or its counterpart "Trump will have a massive landslide and win 400 Electoral College votes putting even California in play' and other such fantasies.

Do yourself a favor and don't click on the day to day Trump/Clinton head to head *poll results "Trump up by two, Hillary up by four' as they will bounce around (and are manipulated shockingly) from day to day, week to week. This especially at the early stages of the campaign, with the conventions usually producing temporary "bump's" which send the partisans and pundits (who should, and actually do, know better but, hey, it's a living) into frenzies.

Here's the story. The election will be basically won or lost in three states, Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania-that's all she wrote. Here is Trump's next speaking schedule, and quite rightly too.



Two of the essentials are up straight away with Virginia and New Hampshire being the only two other states outside of the "big three" which might come into consideration.

But, as always for the GOP, Florida is it right from the start. Lose it's 29 electoral college votes and there is no alternative path to victory for Trump. 

So tough is the electoral college path for Trump that Florida is only step 1.To get to the required 270 EC votes the other swing states Ohio has to be won & Pennsylvania, which hasn't gone to a Republican since 1988 is the absolutely crucial key. In my opinion Trump with his "rust belt" appeal is the first GOP presidential candidate since G.H.W. Bush to have a decent shot at it. Here is the map.



It is obvious why Trump is in Virginia and New Hampshire. If he didn't win Pennsylvania then Virginia's 13 votes and New Hampshire's tiny 4 votes would give him exactly 270 but that's a hard row to hoe.

That's the background and since the aforementioned prognostication "tools' are of little realistic use what is the best mechanism available to see, at any point, which candidate is on track to winning in November?

It is the aggregate, or "poll of polls" for the three (or at most the five) states which are the determining ones. Of course, if something dramatic happens during the campaign, an indictment or an attack or some "black swan"event which makes aggregate polls in a substantial number of states not normally associated with either the GOP or Dem's tilt massively  (and permanently) in either direction then of course that would be that. But failing that, then the aggregate guide is the only indicator that matters.

Popular vote does not necessarily indicate a win as happened with Al Gore in 2000 who had over half a million more popular votes than G.W. Bush. Conversely in 2004 Bush had over 3 million more votes than Kerry and only won because he won Ohio by a football stand crowd vote size.

What is the aggregate polling right now in these key states? RealClearPolitics  runs a daily list; 



Perhaps surprisingly what with all the hooplah, the media circus and the bitter primaries just ending, the key states are more or less exactly where they were ** in 2012! This may prove that voting is tribal and near unmovable excepting a major event like the 2008 financial crisis (expert analysis showed that election was in a dead heat right up to the crash.) On the other hand it may be that Trump's "bring back the jobs" appeal to the rust belt states may swing them just enough to bring them into his EC column and the presidency.

Finally, it is important when using the aggregate polls as a guide to check the trends as a pointer to how these key states may look in a week or two. For example the latest Florida poll has Trump up by 1 and Pennsylvania an exact tie-but of course it will take a few more such for Trump to move the aggregate number into his column. North Carolina has one outlier poll which is distorting that state but, over time that will drop out and restore it to a larger Trump lead-that's  how aggregation works!

Are the aggregate polls the infallible guide? Barring a "black swan" event they have proven to be the most reliable way of predicting elections, and it can be fairly said that if that is still the case then everything else is sturm und drang, theater, and pundits earning a crust via sensationalism and gross and or blind partisanship. Make it easy on your nerves and free up your time by simply checking into the RCP page now and then.

*


**






Thursday, June 2, 2016

Jews To The Write Of Me, Jews To The Left Of Me, Stuck In The Middle With (Almost) No Jews



A disclaimer. Firstly this is "in the family"  (last time I look I was still circumcised) so forget the "you're an anti-Semite" rants. Secondly, I have been accused of being many things (including lacking married parents)  and often of being "an elitist narcissist" which I take as somewhat of a compliment (perhaps confirming the taunt) but 'self-hating" clearly not.

I set out what I consider to be the explanation as to why so many journalists are Jewish but also why they run the gamut from liberal to far left "progressive" and beyond (using Dana Milbank as an obvious example)


"Trump Is Dana Milbank's Yiddish Rant "Golem" Target And "Primal Scream" Therapy" LINK


Briefly I set out that a family background with "tales told on Granddad's knee"  of the very real history of persecution "in the old country" colors and cements a leftist state of mind. Damn the Czar for all that mishegash. This not limited to Jews of course, Armenian's have an abiding folk history of their persecution by the Turk's.

The list of Jewish leftist pundit's is seeming endless Milbank, "Stewart" Schoenkopf, Berman, Klein.E, Klein J, Bernstein, Krugman, Scherer, Silver, Goldberg, Levin and on and on the list goes (see at the link). Anyone who says the media is not biased left is blinkered or a blinkered fool.

But is their any hope for balance from any Jewish writers who have gone the Milton Friedman route and escaped off the reservation? Actually Friedman is not the best example of solace and a modicum of balance as he went so far to the other direction in his espousing of an almost anarchistic libertarianism.

So are there Jewish pundits who Trump voters can look to to find support for a populist center-right view (i.e. the majority Republican view in 2016)? Apparently not in any number.

The non-leftist Jewish pundits have gone off in to aping what they see as the Beltway white bread elite and turn their collective noses up at the ordinary flyover country Republican's who, as David Brooks freely admitted, they have no inter-action nor communication with, and who they don't understand.

So we have Brooks, Kristol, Jennifer Rubin, Ben Shapiro, Podhoretz, Krauthammer, Frum and the list goes on and on, (but very briefly in comparison to the lib's list) Trump and/or Palin haters all.

Jews as a group are slowly but surely leaving the captive arms of the Democratic party and hopefully, as memories of oppression fade and, as with all immigrant groups, age and prosperity will move American Jews to the center in political voting and punditry and the baleful influence of the "JournOlist" conspiracy will end.

In the meantime Trump supporters appear have only Michael Savage, Matt Drudge, 

Jackie Mason  (blessings be upon them) and, and here's that narcissism again, myself (and with apologies to any center-right Jew's I have not mentioned) for balance.

Wednesday, June 1, 2016

Two Memes Exploded In One Day. "Georgia In Play for Dem's" "Libertarian's Doom Trump"



The media continue on their path of being 100% wrong about Donald Trump's candidacy. Since his nomination was assured for them to continue on this path shows either utterly recalcitrant pique or slavish bending over for their paymasters.

In either case,shame on them, that is of course unless they are, in their entirety, utterly stupid which is a possibility.

One of the current memes is that Donald trump is so unpopular, so undetectable and so inferior to Hillary as a candidate that what were previously safe red states are now in play for Hillary's "50 state landslide"

One of these states the media pundits gleefully pointed to was Georgia whose "large Black vote,changing demographics as northerners move into the state and Hispanic opposition to Trump makes Georgia a prime target for Hillary."

So today we have a poll from the Democratic association pollster PPP Polling and it shows.....




Trump by 9 points ! In 2012 Romney won Georgia by 7.82 points  
Romney 53.30%Obama  45.48%
"Trump also leads 37/30 with independents, "

In Michigan a state that should be solid for Clinton she leads by only 4 points 43% to 39% in a state that President  Obama won by nearly 10 points over Romney in 2012 Clinton has declined 11 points from Obama's result Trump down 5 from Romney. Her unpopularity clearly exceeds hers.
Obama 54.21%Romney 44.71%
As far as the "Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson will take enough votes from Trump to ensure Clinton wins in the key battleground states meme goes we see another story.

In the head to head Clinton/Trump polls Quinnipiac has Clinton by 4 points 45 to 41. If Gary Johnson (5) is added into the mix along with the Green's Jill Stein (3) it is Clinton 40 Trump 38 
Clinton by 4 points. So of the 8% allocated to Johnson/Stein (whom the anti-Trump media conveniently forget) Clinton loses 5 points and Trump 3.

In Georgia Trump loses 4 and Clinton 2 well within the margin or error but making no difference to the Trump victory. 

NB; PPP Polling can't help themselves. RCP reports their Georgia poll as Trump
49% Clinton 40% Trump + 9 but on PPP home page they report;


Geography
Most Recent PPP Poll
2012 Results
Georgia
Trump +7 (45% Clinton 38%)
Romney +8