OBOR for the Americas

With the 100% probability that OBOR will raise living standards across Eurasia, 10 suggestions:

  1. Build an “OBOR-Americas. Look at OBOR as a model for similar infrastructure from Alaska & Canada to Tierra del Fuego, enriching everyone along the way: road and rail links, seaports. Add airports where it makes sense. Add an electrical grid and Venezuela can start selling their oil again to benefit the region by burning it into electricity, increasing manufactures. Then they’ll all need cars to get to work so will buy gas. Will Venezuela play? They can get on-board or OBOR-A will avoid them. Know the names of towns across the US Great Plains who were bypassed by the railroads in the 19th Century? No one else does, either… Simple, brutal calculation. Which do you think the citizens will choose? If we must spend zillions of fake tax dollars, infrastructure that will be used and will create rising regional living standards is much better than weapons that will do neither – and never will be used to fight wars we actually want to win, anyway.
  2. Focus on the future rather than bandaids on the past. Material progress in the Americas is the best, perhaps only, way to combat both national corruption and the drug trade. It’s nice to pretend corruption must be fixed before a huge infrastructure project can be undertaken, but it’s fantasy to think it’ll go away, and it’s greater fantasy to think that it doesn’t exist in the OBOR environment; if they can deal with it, so can we. As with the poor, corruption will always be with us. Rising living standards will result in more job creation, giving people something to do besides grow, pack & ship cocaine. Build an OBOR-A and the illegals coming here will go build that, instead. Win-win.
  3. Provide an escape route for european factories. If we – governments across the Americas – did an OBOR-A, European factories would have somewhere to go when the only European workers are illiterate muz. This is going to be the case in about 20 years. Make Argentina the new manufacturing location for German cars – there are lots of Germans in Argentina. Then they’ll need decent roads. Give indigenous Europeans somewhere to go when muz occupy them completely. This also will raise education standards across the region.
  4. Create jobs. A huge – very huge – infrastructure project like this will create about a zillion jobs, plus or minus. Americans, North and South, having nothing to do now but sit around will be able to find work. Easily. We can begin closing the welfare spigot and quit printing so much fake money to “pay” for it. As with the Gingrich-Clinton policy of the late 1990s, reducing welfare gets people off their couches and into the workforce. That’s the only thing that’s going to end the intergenerational poverty the Democrats invented with the mis-named “Great Society,” which only created a poverty trap to ensure a permanent underclass voting for ever-bigger government. If American taxpayers must fund a bunch of this to kick it off or gain regional agreement, it’s a better use of our tax dollars than enriching defense stockholders and sending our kids to a depopulating Europe, or to get killed as the “trigger” to counterattack a North Korea that both South Korea and Japan have the financial wherewithal to oppose – but refuse to because we are dumb enough to do it for them.
  5. Quit sticking our nose in other people’s business. The Wilsonian ideal of sticking our nose in everyone’s business not only is not reciprocated in other regions by other regional powers, but created the bloodiest century in history. Let Darwin work – it applies at the nation-state level, too. Bush 41 & 43 just extended Wilsonianism to S Asia. How’s that working out for a billion people in Europe, and billion-plus across the Middle East & S Asia? Just Stop It.
  6. Terminate our participation in NATO. All it does is enrich the Military Industrial Complex with real dollars taken from taxpayers of today and tomorrow while pretending to be able to defend a demi-continent that doesn’t believe in its future enough to populate it; so who cares? Europe is done – their choice – and will be colonized either by islam or Russia. Russia is a better answer, but: Not our business.
  7. Engage, don’t blockade. The Wall fell via engagement with the USSR, not embargo/blockade. We don’t need to see Iran as a potential strategic partner to engage with them. We sure didn’t see the USSR as a partner. As with the USSR, Western engagement is more likely to overturn an un-free totalitarian government than an embargo which just keeps them joined against the “Great Satan” “enemy.” E. Europe: Engagement, Cuba: Embargo; which worked? 80,000,000 customers live in Iran… Why do you think China is building OBOR?
  8. Leave Iran to the region. If Iran is going to go nuclear, that’s a regional issue. Let those within range – Europe, Israel, Saudi Arabia, India – deal with it; we sell them plenty of weapons – we don’t need also to fight their wars. If Iran send an MRBM to Europe, too bad for Europe, but who do you think demanded all talk and no action? If Iran sends one to Israel – Israel will solve the problem. And if a Shia bomb gets close, odds are that a Sunni bomb will oppose it – Pakistan already has them, Saudi paid for them so probably has some, too. Their problem, not ours. India can play, too. Once OBOR is in play, China will have no interest in Iran using nukes, but also won’t have any interest in preventing her having them; it’s a dangerous neighborhood. And China isn’t Wilsonian. (Notice, also, that no one invaded Ukraine until they gave up their nukes; Iran reads the paper.)
  9. Quit blockading Cuba. Doing so is the exact OPPOSITE of what worked to bring down the Wall
  10. Throw islam outta here & breed Democrats out of the country. Two flies are stuck in this ointment, both having the same goal: Overturning the Western capitalism and liberty that have been raising global living standards since the late Middle Ages. These are the totalitarian left/communists inhabiting America as “Democrats,” and islamists. Islamism can be contained by outlawing the practice of islam, closing mosques and throwing out of the country those who complain. No other cohort causes the damage to society that they do – so throw ‘em out. The cost/benefit of their being here is all cost and no benefit. No increasing muslim population has done anything but reduce standards of living, education, literacy, human rights, women’s and children’s rights, personal safety – ever, in any nation. Time to grow up, admit this, and throw them out. Contain them to the geographies they have made crapholes and ignore them. No serious nation would still accept them in their midst. What does China do with radical islamists? Buries them. Democrats are another problem. They already forego breeding, but our K-12 keeps turning out new ones. They won’t be contained or eradicated until we A) enforce our laws, B)  take the “schools of education,” K-12 and the academy from them. Fantasizing that we can raise mature future citizens through an education system populated by communists is just that: fantasy. Raise the admittance bar for teachers so our teachers aren’t the dumbest college cohort (which is why the idiocy of communism appeals to them), pay them on merit – this isn’t a collective (which requires outlawing government-sector unions, which JFK created via EO 10988, so can be overturned by EO, as well) give education back to the cities (no, not even to the States), and let the parents fix it. And don’t let non-parents vote on school issues, bonds, boards, councils…

Not doing an OBOR, not moving money to infrastructure from the obsolescent defense needs of the (over) Cold War will continue to ignore more than a billion people who, if the infrastructure were available, could become productive workers and families.

Unless we are happy with the way things are, it’s time to begin doing things differently. An OBOR for the Americas is a great place to start.


Posted in Foreign Policy and International, Miscellaneous, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Peak Disruption

The post-war Old Order crashes around us. The Information Age reaches the maturation necessary to displace the Industrial Age.

Peak disruption may be at hand in the transition, but peak influence never will arrive. The influence of information will – can – never cease expanding, for such is the nature of information.

The post-post-war order rises. The disruptions accelerate and enlarge as one Age gives way to the next. Fukuyama was wrong.

The media that provided the compass and the landscape for millennia is the troll under the bridge wooing us from reality and telling us of a path to a fantasy prosperity just over the horizon. We look from their horizon and see only moral and intellectual squalor, poverty, the loss of history… and death. The Industrial information behemoth has become the enemy of the progress that has increased prosperity since the first man raised his eyes, looked around himself and noticed a world. And told another of what he saw.

The industrial, post-war dominoes are falling.

Bookstores are replaced by coffee houses in which the passionately illiterate argue with the passionately uneducated over the best way to overthrow a civilization they refuse to understand, a civilization that moved the world from hunter-gatherers to coffee houses.

Sears, the iconic retailer of the Industrial Age is dead.

Amazon, the iconic vendor of the Information Age, extends across the planet, across industries, across homes, its information the horn from which our cornucopia of goods & services tumbles unfettered by the taxes necessary to sweep our streets, provide safety in our lives & sustain our cities.

Britain quits a 70-yr effort of conglomeration with her former enemies and various continental detritus of millennia of tribal wars, withdrawing to her own tribe, the most successful in history. But that tribe is fracturing under an alien invasion unopposed, even encouraged, by the final gasp of an Old Order determined to sustain an Industrial Age that has run its course, regardless of the loss of life and prosperity entailed in propping-up senescence.

The USSR falls, disintermediating the last contiguous empire. The Old Order doesn’t notice, still spending countless trillions of fantasy dollars to defend a depopulating West from a dismembered, depopulating threat.

The Wall falls, uniting a Europe cleaved for nearly a century, only to see the suddenly-free nations and nascent empires fall apart.

Information rises – and the Old way of organizing peoples falls. Yugoslavia. Brexit. Catalonia. It won’t stop.

It shouldn’t. Stasis is not civilization; inertia does not engender freedom.

Disintermediation will not be confined to Europe: Quebec has been itching to leave Canada for decades. California insists on a totalitarianism unsustainable under the Constitution. Kurdistan. Kurd-Shia-Sunni splits in Afghanistan, in what once was Iraq, in Iran. Will Iran’s threatening empire expand to the Mediterranean? Or collapse as the Kurds secede?

The arms merchants of the Old Order will prosper as S Asia devolves, ensuring more loss of life than necessary, and costs no human being can fathom.

My dad remembered horse-drawn fire engines in upstate New York and watched men walk on the moon.

We Boomers were born within the span of the invention of transistor (1947), stored programming languages (1948), the laser that revolutionized communications (1960) the microchip (1958) that put these technologies in our hands, and the technology (ARPANet – 1960s), that birthed the internet connecting them all and putting the world’s information into the hands of the relatively least-educated people in hundreds of generations.

Millennials know little of history and nothing of a world without cell phones and more computing power in their hands than used to put men on the Moon or fight the most destructive wars in history. But they will see more change than we dreamed of.

Whether that change will be good or ill, greater liberty & prosperity, or the fundamental loss of the greatest civilization ever known, is the question they must answer. We are setting the foundations of that answer today. It’s not looking good.

It is the question dividing parents from non-parents, Progs & Conservatism, Inc., from Trumpsters, Leave from Remain, Catalonia from Spain, Red from Blue.

It’s what divides a free future from Leviathan.

The post-war Order is dead. The Industrial Age on which it was built is ending.

How we choose to use the Information Age is up to us; it has brought us not just smart phones, but the NSA. Will we use information  to expand liberty or expand its destruction?

Prosperity & Liberty for future generations are in the hands of those who believe in that future enough to populate it and of Millennials tired of the Old Order and the band-aids it chose rather than cures.

The battle must be joined for the liberty which was our birthright, and should be the birthright of all Americans.

The Doomsday Clock must be repurposed to show time remaining before the choice of action must be made.

It is only a few minutes to midnight.

Posted in Baby Boomers, Domestic, Foreign Policy and International, Politics, The Rest of the World | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

What If America Is Not The Target?

Is North Korea aiming to attack America? Or is this misdirection? Looking at America or American colonies (Guam) as Rocket Man’s target may be entirely wrong.

Putting aside the mistake Japan made at Pearl Harbor – a small attack they thought was the mere shooing-away of an almost militarily insignificant non-combatant trying to interfere in their years-long creation of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere (that resulted in the annihilation of two of their cities, the loss of millions of Japanese lives and the destruction of their country as an effective polity) – centuries have passed since the last attack on the West. Why? Because the West, and, particularly, America, is just too militarily powerful for any enemy to attack with any hope of not being defeated.

The West rose in Classical Greece and Rome. Its warriors and economy conquered S Asia, N Africa, the Middle East, much of Europe, and parts of W Asia. Genghis Khan attacked this nascent West, but his sons were unable to hold it. Atilla came north, but ultimately was defeated.

Islam, the strongest ideologically-driven force in history, conquered the Middle East, North Africa, S. Asia, Persia, much of India, and was moving into Europe when it finally was stopped in the 17th Century by a small portion of Western Christendom at the Gates of Vienna. (Until turned loose again by Jimmy Carter, Islam really hadn’t been heard from since as they allowed themselves to be overtaken by their fundamentalists, devolving into a savage anti-modern barbarism from the advanced artistic and mathematical culture they had been.)

Free of attack from without, for centuries a tribal West fought itself. Because war causes the advancement of technology more quickly than any other endeavor, the West prospered technologically and economically more quickly than any other culture. Northern europeans – the Germans, the descendants of those who overthrew Rome – were the best at making war. The Vikings excelled in combat, but combat is not war and so ultimately were subdued. Napoleon came and went, but the Germans remained. And europe – and the West – remained free of invaders.

German attacks over the years on the French (and everyone else) were attacks within, not on, the West. The Germanic people have a propensity to destroy. They destroyed the Roman Empire, causing the Fall of the West, creating 1,000 years of the Dark Ages, and enabling the rise of Islam in the power vacuum. WW1 was yet another intra-West, German attempt to conquer the West following multiple earlier Franco-Prussian wars. Had America been smart enough to stay out, WW1 likely would have ended with a bit of land traded in a traditional Western conditional surrender based on the stalemate reached by early 1917. Island Britain’s goal always has been to balance those two continental powers to prevent either from continental dominance, i.e. balancing power within the West, causing her entry. WW2 in europe was an extension of WW1 by a megalomaniac with the world’s best military technology, and an easily-led, warlike people, and was the most catastrophic event in human history. American entry into the Long War (WW1-WW2 interrupted to raise more men) may well have initiated the Fall of Western Civilization; as in the 5th Century, it was initiated by the Germanic people. The current German encouragement of Islamic invaders (it cannot be seen logically as anything else) is yet another Germanic attack on Western Civilization, perhaps now a West unwilling and unable to defend itself.

Astronomers speak of the Solar System as being “The Sun, Jupiter and debris.” WW2 correctly can be seen as “Germany, the USSR and debris.” The Western Front – America’s participation – was a distraction, a diversion Stalin had been demanding for years as he lost 20,000,000 Russians to the NAZIs. (America’s total war dead, both Pacific and European theaters, was under 500,000.) Russia is a european country, with a european heritage, european monarchs, european education, culturally an offshoot of Christendom (East Orthodox). The Long War was the West fighting the West; a war within Western Civilization.

The biggest technical advances of WW2 – the jet aircraft, long-range missile and the nuclear bomb – all were inventions by Germans, the latter by Germans in America, driven from Germany by Hitler’s counterproductive elimination of German Jews (something that only can be explained by the German’s historic path of laying waste to all around him).

The atomic bomb was developed by Germans in America, copied from America by our British and French allies, given to the USSR by its American spies, and transferred to a then-ally of the USSR, the PRC (technically, China developed its own with “substantial Soviet assistance”).

The end of the Long War saw a race between the US and USSR for German scientists, and the Space Race was a race between our Germans and their Germans. Even the Cold War was West v West.

The West is so powerful no one outside the West is willing to attack us on the battlefield. Futhering the Solar System analogy, the West now consists of America and debris. As Huntington noted, the West cannot survive without America. South America is economically and scientifically irrelevant. Europe is committing demographic and cultural suicide. Canada is an economic and cultural irrelevancy. A Westernized Japan has given up on sex and so fertility. And no one – ever – has successfully waged war on America.

What has this to do with Korea?

The Korean War was an attack sanctioned by Stalin on a country we foolishly had omitted from a speech on containing communism. Mao wanted the entire Korean peninsula, a logical extension of the PRC. Following the exclusion of Korea from our containment policy, he asked his then-ally Stalin if he’d mind if he went after it. Stalin, curios as to whether America would respond to combat forced upon her with war – or with combat, knowing that America had nukes she could deliver across continents and the USSR did not, really didn’t want to find out which choice America would make by losing a few million Russians. So he let Mao go find out.

As it was not an attack on the West, we did not respond with war; we responded with combat – which is not the same thing at all.

Conventional weapons are weapons of combat: we kill their armed guys and they kill our armed guys. Nuclear weapons are weapons of war: we kill your country regardless of how many armed guys you have. And then the killing stops.

By rejecting a response of war, we ultimately killed 2,000,000 Koreans and 40,000 Americans in combat – for a tie.

Combat is not as effective as war in reaching a goal of defeating adversaries for the simple reason that conventional weapons are not as productive as weapons of war.

It may seem odd to use “productivity” as a measure of war – but what else is there? In war, the country that kills more of the enemy more quickly than their own are killed, wins. As the most destructive and lethal endeavor of mankind, war ought always be – and, until recently always had been – fought with the most productive weapons the adversaries have at their command. Had we detonated a small nuclear warhead on Pyongyang in 1950, we’d not have killed 2,000,000 Koreans or 40,000 Americans. Having just completed the bloodiest war in history, and having used atomic bombs for the first time in history, America did not want to use nuclear bombs again, so we killed more people than needed by rejecting war for combat.

How did the Korean War end? It hasn’t. Combat ended, however, when Ike told Mao that, if Mao didn’t get Pyongyang to the Peace Talks, Ike would use our weapons of war to kill North Korea. Combat ended when the West offered to replace it with war. Both sides knew that the West would win that war decisively. Again – no one wages war on the West.

The Vietnam war began as the locals kicking out the French colonials, a logical outcome of the (historically dumb) decolonization that followed WW2. America foolishly entered based on the nonexistent “Tonkin Gulf Incident.” Again we killed 2,000,000 of our adversaries, and this time 60,000 of our own by conducting combat operations rather than war – in which far fewer would have been killed. And we lost.

Why? Because half our country didn’t want to win. When Nixon came to power in 1969, he wanted to end combat in Vietnam. Attacking the opponent’s capitol – their center of ideology and funding – is the normal way wars are won. Not wanting to go nuclear, Nixon began bombing Hanoi (for the first time with any seriousness, which is ridiculous in and of itself in a then-ten-year war), and mining Haiphong Harbor (precluding the delivery of munitions to the enemy) with conventional weapons.

And American Democrats went nuts. How dare we try to win? We might actually kill people! (Though KIA in American foreign wars through 2012, based on the party of the president engaging American forces, show that 98.53% of American KIA in foreign wars have been in wars started by Democrats, Democrat voters still believe, incorrectly, that it is the GOP that is the “war party”.)

What has this to do with Rocket Man?

North Korea and China both know history; they know no one wages successful war on the West. Kim Jong Un knows that the immediate result of a nuclear attack – waging war – on Guam or Hawaii or Seattle or San Francisco or Los Angeles, will be the annihilation of Pyongyang and his forces along the DMZ. Why would he want that? Why would China want that?

The threat to China is a destroyed DPRK and influx of millions of Norks needing food, housing and jobs. They can’t handle this. They also do not desire an American ally on their border. The threat to DPRK is the same, and they’ve spent their entire GDP for nearly 70 years to prevent it.

How would attacking America help either of them? It wouldn’t.

The question then becomes – if not America, who?

Would an America more deeply riven politically than at any time in the past 150 years, between those who love America and those who hate America and Western Civilization, really nuke another country, killing millions, because Seoul was annihilated? Because a few thousand American troops (that half of America hate anyway) in Korea only to “trigger” our response were wiped-out?

America has rejected war for 70 years, regardless of how many of our own have been killed in combat. Once nukes are in-play, the only serious American responses are war and non-engagement.

An attack on Seoul would not be an attack on America. Would a president be willing to annihilate a few million of a country that had not attacked us … on his own? And become liable for he reconstruction and, perhaps, security of what he’d just destroyed?

Would a Congress that lacks even the maturity to pass domestic legislation agree? Calls for impeachment would be heard before the mushroom cloud over Pyongyang reached full height.

The EU doubtless would threaten us with everything they have – the imprisonment of American citizens for trial at the ICC, tourist embargoes, trade embargoes, etc.

The UN would tell us to “talk,” which is how we got to this mess to begin with, and pass innumerable sanctions against us.

Half of America would blame America for a nuclear attack by North Korea… on America.

A nuclear attack on the Republic of Korea by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, however, would achieve goals held by both DPRK and PRC.

Why talk about the PRC? Who do you think gave Rocket Man the technology? True, we all know what good engineers Asians have proven to be. But…

I worked for years for a DFC-decorated pilot who once flew spooks around Vietnam. Following his participation in Vietnam, and when nuclear countries still were doing nuclear testing, he flew USAF WC-135s (specially-equipped 707s) through the clouds made by nuclear detonations. Sampling these clouds provides data on the type of explosion. France never was able to develop a thermonuclear bomb, an H-bomb. Do you really think the Norks could develop one on their own if an advanced, economically sound, Western nation could not?

Under President Bill Clinton, the PRC stole from Los Alamos national nuclear lab secrets (and here and here) to several US nuclear warheads, including our most advanced nuclear weapon, the W88. The W88 is a unique device with a unique shape, detonation and radiological signature. While knowing whether the recent Nork H-bomb detonation matches this signature would be conclusive, that knowledge (if we have it) would be unlikely to be released by our government for obvious reasons.

The W88 also is miniaturized – small enough to fit ten of them on a single ICBM.

W88 v. DPRK H-bomb

Notice a similarity in warhead shape? Coincidence?

Again, China has no interest, less, even, than their client, in a free, capitalist democracy and American ally on their border, nor any interest in the destruction of DPRK.

A nuclear attack on South Korea can achieve their goal.  An attack on America cannot. And – no one attacks the West…

But there’s more.

Once America does not respond with war (and a response of combat would not be serious and would not change the political equation), China becomes free to become the regional hegemon they desire.

This is exactly the same strategy pursued by Mao in asking Stalin about attacking S Korea: Testing the American response to a Korean attack risking Korean (ie non-Chinese) forces in order to achieve a Chinese goal.

An America unable/unwilling (no difference exists politically) to defend our ally, the Republic of Korea, for the reasons above, would not contest with PRC the occupation of the South China Sea, or the expansion by intimidation of the PRC into contiguous countries. China knows this.

Japan and Taiwan, unable to wage war and lacking the human, military and economic resources to wage combat, would have no ability to remain truly independent of an expanding PRC. China knows this.

A UN voting against the West, and, particularly America, for decades, would not mind this turn of events. Russia – who has shown interest in an expanding China (BRI) but less interest in stopping China by allying with an America attacking Russia for the delusion of functional interference in American elections – likely would concern herself only with future PRC relations. America would become irrelevant in the Western Pacific and South Asia. China knows this.

Back to the question in the title:

Is Kim Jong Un’s target really the West?

Is it really the USA?

What if it’s not?

Posted in Domestic, Foreign Policy and International, Politics, War and Terrorism | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Immigration and the Apportionment Problem

The process of “apportionment” is used to determine House Representation and Electoral College votes by counting identified people within a region in order to form a House District. It is apportionment of House Seats and Electoral College votes that drives the Left on both illegal and muslim immigration. And it is apportionment which must be changed to settle the immigration debates. This will require amending the Constitution, which the GOP finds itself in a better position to do than we have in nearly a century.

Immigrants predominantly come from “big government” countries and so vote the American “big government” party, and for the party of welfare because Congressmen/women of both parties ignore the law to let them come without regard to the prohibition on immigrants being a drain on the public treasury. These immigrants settle in metros, turning suburban, exurban and rural Red seats and votes to metro Blue.

The Evil Party grasps this – the Stupid Party does not.

(If you think the Left imports immigrants (or ‘refugees’) out of empathy, take a look at their ghettos, schools, economies, neighborhoods, un-policed crime, etc. The Left only wants bodies for apportionment – for power. That is all. Democrats feel about immigrants as abolitionist Northerners did about Blacks after the Civil War: They must be un-oppressed, but they must not be allowed near our cities, neighborhoods, schools, restaurants, trains, drinking fountains… )

Because the Constitution leaves “the times, manner and places of elections” to the States in Article 1, and because no federal laws exist regarding apportionment, this is a difficult problem to fix. States are in-charge of elections – and apportionment – and no incentive exists for Blue States to apportion via citizenship; they are, in fact, incented to the opposite.

SCOTUS held in 2016 (Evenwell), that TX could not apportion Seats and Electoral College Votes based on counting only voters, but must do so based on total population – BUT, and this is a big “but” – that was because neither TX State law nor TX Constitution required citizenship for apportionment. The Evenwell decision held that States “may” – not “must” – apportion based on total population,  up to the States: “We hold, based on constitutional history, this Court’s decisions, and longstanding practice, that a State may draw its legislative districts based on total population.” (emphasis mine) In Burns v Richardson (1966; and quoted in Evenwell), SCOTUS held that Hawaii may apportion based on voter population alone.

Theoretically, each State could change apportionment to count only voters. A Blue State would never do this as it would result in the loss of representation in the House, and of Electoral College votes by not counting millions of non-citizens as they are not legal voters (illegals, Permanent Residents, etc.). A Red State never would, as it would turn yet more power over to Blue States not making this change.

With the overturning of States Rights (the foundation of the American government) by Lincoln, the rejection of the 10th Amendment by the Court in many and varied holdings improperly accepted by Governors ever since, with the popularization of the Senate vote after the Progressive 17th Amendment, with SCOTUS holding against VoterID (and governors not rejecting this holding as the Constitutional overreach it was; the 14th Amendment provides the only federal remedy to deal with State elections), it may be time to admit that elections have become in large part national, and amend the Constitution for both VoterID and to count only voters in apportionment. (It also may be a good idea to make citizenship a Constitutional requirement for voting in national elections; it is not now (Article 1), which leads to the nonsensical Motor Voter legislation, and to voting by illegal voters whom Blue States have a distinct disincentive to police.)

Yes, this “removes” some authority from the States. By bending over for SCOTUS for generations, however, this will be a de jure acceptance of de facto reality. It is time to change the “manner” of elections, and to do so on a national basis. It is time for voters – citizens – to demand the Government represent us, not illegal immigrants and other non-citizens.

Or the immigration debates will never cease and the law, no matter what it becomes, will never be enforced.

Posted in Domestic, Politics | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Removing Islam

This is an interesting column on the steps required to stop anti-Western jihad; IMO, however, it has two major failures.

1. Associating the word “religion” with islam is incorrect. “Religion” is a Western word. Western readers/users foundationally – unconsciously – associate with it the idea of separation between church & state. This concept is antithetical to islam, period. Islam
does not in any way, shape or form meet any test of the word “religion.” The association of the two creates a semi- or un-conscious mindset in the reader that is the opposite of islam. Islam is a death-cult based on Stone Age values, period. It is NOT a “religion”. It is not even a theocracy, another Western word – it is a cult. Any other context of viewing or thinking about it is wrong and will result in incorrect actions against it.

2. He doesn’t go far enough. The analogy is that he wants to kill all the leadership of MS13 but leave in-place the thug members and ideology around the country to decide what they want to do about it. We do not need to kill all muslims in the world any more than we needed to kill all Germans and Japanese; he is correct. But we DO need to annihilate their centers of ideology and funding, as above, as we did by bouncing the rubble in Berlin and burning-down Tokyo – as well as, of course, vaporizing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Destroying the Islamic centers of ideology conventionally is a waste of time, lives,
money, and does not make the – required – political statement of rising
mushroom clouds: Stop this or we WILL obliterate your entire world. Using
conventional forces to reduce Saudi Arabia and Iran is a waste of men and
money. He does refer to the idea that they may give up on their then-proven “weak
horse” once defeated, but if that’s the case, if showing islam to be that weak
horse is the path to success, then just nuke riyadh, mecca, medina, qom, quetta,
fordo, which is faster, better, cheaper – by far. (In war there are no “innocent bystanders”. “Innocent bystanders” exist in combat – not in war.) Obliterating the centers of the ideology, just as we did in the WW2 analogy he starts but does not carry to fruition, will cause the ideology itself to wither and die within 1-3 generations. And it is THIS, turning islam into Zoroastrianism, that must be the goal; no one needs islam to rise, Phoenix-like, from the ashes. It needs to be annihilated, vaporized and the ashes scattered to the winds. Forever.

The killing FOR the ideology will not stop until the IDEOLOGY itself, is destroyed. Wars are between ideologies, not nation-states. For the West to survive is must wage total, final and complete war ON the ideology of islam – and annihilate it.

Posted in Foreign Policy and International, War and Terrorism | Tagged , , | 1 Comment