Good for Tulsi Gabbard

I don’t know anything about this congresswoman from Hawaii other than what’s in this NY times article.  Based on what it says, I doubt I would agree with her on very much politically.  And she’s endorsing Bernie Sanders whom I hate.

However, I have to admire this latest stand Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) has taken.  She showed some real devotion to principle when she resigned her post as vice chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee.  The reason she did this was to endorse Bernie Sanders after Killery’s landslide win in South Carolina.  And this is why she says she did it:

“We can elect a president who will lead us into more interventionist wars of regime change, or we can elect a president who will usher in a new era of peace and prosperity.”

I’m not sure I trust the Bern to usher in a new era of peace, much less prosperity. But I can’t help but have a soft spot for a politician who calls out the Clinton War Machine for its many contributions to death and destruction all over the globe, and the trillions of dollars wasted on it.  It takes some guts, particularly for someone with political aspirations in the Democratic party

Good for you Tulsi.

Can the peace candidate win?

I’ve made the case that Trump is staking out the position of peace candidate.  But can that strategy win?  After all, I compared him to Reagan who certainly wasn’t viewed as the peace candidate in 1980 when he won his first term.  I was an enthusiastic supporter of the non-interventionist Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012, and he didn’t stand a chance.

So can Peace win?  I figured why not look over the last few elections to see if being the bigger warmonger was a liability or an asset:

2012: Obama had been quite reckless in foreign affairs during his first term.  He escalated the Afghanistan quagmire and launched a foolish campaign against Libya based on lies. However, he was able to make the case that he ended the Iraq War (despite the fact that it never really ended and he had tried to extend it anyway).  When you factor in that Mitt Romney’s campaign was centered around the preemptive surrender of foreign policy to Benjamin Netanyahu, it’s clear Obama was the relative Peace Candidate. Conclusion: Peace Wins

2008: McCain is the most crazed warmonger to ever win a major party nomination in the postwar era, and that’s really saying something.  Obama managed to win the Democratic nomination by being the one candidate who could actually claim to have been against the Iraq War. Conclusion: Peace Wins

2004: Bush had just launched two expensive wars that showed no signs of ending.  Kerry was an idiot who would’t take a firm position on anything, but he was still the relative Peace Candidate. Conclusion: War Wins

2000: War and Peace weren’t really the defining issues in this campaign, but Bush lied and said he wanted to return to a “humble” foreign policy.  Gore represented a continuation of the Clinton regime that had been in a state of low-level perpetual war for most of the previous eight years.  So even though this was basically a tie, Conclusion: Peace Wins

1996: Americans weren’t focused on foreign policy in 1996.  Clinton was probably still seen as the peace candidate compared to Bob Dole.  Clinton’s interventionism and been under the radar in his first term compared to his second, and Dole was still seen as an old school Cold Warrior.  Hard to say it was the decisive factor, but the perception that Clinton was a 60’s era peacenik didn’t hurt him at all.  Conclusion: Peace Wins

1992: Bush had just wrapped up the Gulf War when the ’92 campaign got underway.  The war was very popular, but Americans were more concerned with NAFTA and other domestic issues.  The ex-hippy, draft dodger Clinton was able to beat the war hero Bush despite the (false) victory against Saddam Hussein.  Conclusion: Peace Wins

You could make the argument that the Bush/Reagan/Nixon victories in 72, 80, 84, 88 were all somewhat anti-peace, but that truly was a different era.  Basically from 1920 until the Cold War ended, the Republicans were seen as “realists” on the international stage while the Democrats were the ones prone to foreign adventurism.  So while McGovern was clearly the peace candidate in 1972, Nixon was reaping the benefit of having ended the Democrats’ unpopular Vietnam War.

As you can see it gets a little murky if you go back into the Cold War era, but Carter was definitely the peace candidate in 1976.  Nixon, believe it or not, was the peace candidate in 1968 after Hubert Humphrey stole the Democrat primary.  Johnson was incorrectly viewed as the peace candidate in 1964.  Kennedy was actually a bit of a warmonger in 1960. Eisenhower was the peace candidate in 1952 and was reelected on that reputation in 1956.

There’s normally a bi-partisan consensus on perpetual war, but if you look at what was the perception in presidential elections since 1952, I would say Peace has the edge.  The warmongers usually only win when foreign policy is relegated to the sidelines in favor of some new welfare entitlement or an economic crisis.  When given a clear choice between war and peace, peace usually wins.

I think  the Donald is onto something.  At least he’s making this election much more interesting than 2012.

Trump is the peace candidate

If you watch the below exchange, you can see that Donald Trump is clearly staking out the the position of peace candidate.

It would seem to be a very shrewd move.  For those old enough to remember (and most Republican voters are plenty old), the Donald built his public persona back in the Go Go 1980’s era of Reaganomics.  Not only did the Supply Siders supply the perfect environment for Trump to increase his fortune, he seems to have learned a thing or two from the Gipper about being a popular politician.

Ronald Reagan was popular primarily for three reasons: 1). The economy stupid. 2). The communists were imploding and many were giving him credit. 3). He “rebuilt” the military, but didn’t get involved in any prolonged no-win wars.

What’s Trump’s appeal?

1. The economy.  Just like Reagan, he wants to lower taxes and regulation, but he’s not an ideologue.  So he’s not proposing any of the usual GOP schemes to “privatize” social security or anything like that.  Like Reagan, he wants to shore it up.

2. ISIS and Islamic terrorism in general.  Reagan set aside all the humanitarian concerns of the Carter administration and focused solely on Communism and winning the Cold War. Hew was more than happy to support right wing dictators as long as they were anti-Soviet.  Similarly, Trump is calling out the liberal interventionists and neocons on their insane strategy to fight ISIS while also fighting their enemies Iran, Assad, and (almost unbelievably) Russia.  ISIS is the one scaring American voters by cutting off people’s heads and blowing up Europeans.  If Russia wants to fight them, then Trump says let the Russians fight them.

At the same time Trump wants stop letting Muslims into the USA until ISIS is brought under control.  This may be blasphemy to Obama’s disciples.  But to most Americans, particularly Republican primary voters, it sounds like common sense.

3. No more foreign quagmires.  Reagan had actually supported the Vietnam War, but he and his handlers were smart enough to learn from their mistakes.  So other than a weekend in the Caribbean, he refrained from sending US soldiers into combat.  He did a lot of bad things, like supporting Bin Laden in Afghanistan, but there were no high-casualty, prolonged land wars on his watch.  Trump is making it clear he has no intention of plunging the Military into any further wars of choice.  The popularity of “peace through strength” seems to have made an impact on him.

Despite Reagan’s many faults, every president since has been light years worse when it comes to intervening overseas with costly military adventures.

Bush I: Panama, Gulf War, Somalia.

Clinton: Escalated Somalia, Balkan “peacekeeping,” Kosovo, Iraq sanctions.

Bush II: Afghanistan, Iraq II.

Obama; Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria.

They’ve also all taken part in expanding NATO and meddling in the affairs of Russia’s neighbors, ruining the peace that was achieved with the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Maybe Trump, who refuses to demonize Putin and is basically the most anti-Neocon candidate in the race, might just represent a return to normalcy on the international stage. I for one, would welcome it.

Trump attacks Bush

Gotta love this.  Not only does he attack Bush Jr. for 9/11, but he makes fun of Jeb’s mommy.  Hey Bushes, you may be able to pack a room full of your paid lackeys to boo Trump on TV, but everybody else hates you.  You are a family full of war criminals and most people finally realize that.

Does Beyonce want to separate blacks from whites?

Apparently Beyonce Knowles now fancies herself some sort of political activist.  Her super bowl halftime performance included giving the Black Panther salute.

Now the Black Panthers were a bunch of whining hypocrites.  Their ten points and what they claimed to believe were a series of contradictions and factual inaccuracies.  For example:

We want freedom. We want power to determine the destiny of our Black Community.

We believe that the federal government is responsible and obligated to give every man employment or a guaranteed income.

So do you want freedom from the US government?  Or do you want the US government to give you money?  Doesn’t seem to me like you can have it both ways.  Then there’s this gem:

The American racist has taken part in the slaughter of over 50,000,000 Black people;

Fifty million?  Really? Less than 350,000 enslaved people were imported into the Thirteen Colonies and the U.S.  There are about 37 million black people in the USA today.  But somehow some American racists slaughtered 50 million black people.  Maybe it’s just me, but that doesn’t seem to add up.  I guess math probably wasn’t Beyonce’s best subject. Probably wasn’t too good at History either.

But Beyonce’s performance for the NFL, which is run by evil white men who exploit the majority black teams by paying them millions of dollars to run and jump and tackle, also included an X formation.  This is a not so subtle endorsement of the late Malcolm X.

Now we’re getting somewhere.  Malcolm X was a well known black separatist.  He advocated blacks eventually returning to Africa and in the meantime, setting up their own country in America.  He called Martin Luther King a “chump” and ridiculed the civil rights movement.  I can respect Malcolm X.  He wasn’t begging the government for money on the one hand and calling it evil on the other.  He just thought it was plain evil and that blacks should completely separate themselves from its jurisdiction.  Right on Brother!  I wish whites would do the same!

The majority of blacks, however, decided it was best to stay under the thumb of the mostly white US government.  In addition many continue to advocate for that same government to redistribute white people’s money to them.  Perhaps Beyonce will move out of Donald Trump’s building and lead her people to Brother Malcolm’s promised land!  A country run by blacks made up solely of other blacks.  No White people or their money allowed! I guess Jay Z can finance it.

Obama preaches to Muslims

Barack Obama took some time out from overseeing his Military Empire that has been bombing and destabilizing Muslims lands to visit a mosque and wage a thinly veiled attack on a certain Republican presidential candidate.  I’ll make just a few comments on Dear Leader’s multicultural propaganda event.  From Brietbart:

“Islam has always been part of America,” he said, detailing the beginnings of the religion among African slaves brought to America.

I suppose this is technically true, but so what?  Most African slaves were Animists prior to their conversion to Christianity on the plantations, so you could just as easily say “Animism has always been part of America.”  The obvious truth is that Muslims made up an insignificant portion of the US population until very recently.  Most Americans in 1776 probably had no idea what Islam was.  Muslims are currently estimated at 1% of the US population and 72% of them are immigrants or the children of immigrants.

He also pointed out that Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Virginia statute for religious freedom that the “Mohammedan” should have his faith protected in the United States.

This is simply false.  Jefferson referenced “the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination” in his autobiography but there’s nothing about Muslims or “Mohammedans” in the statute itself.

“The very word Islam comes from ‘Salam’ – peace,” he said. “The standard greeting is ‘As-Salaam-Alaikum’ – ‘Peace be upon you,’” he explained. “Like so many faiths, Islam is rooted in a commitment to compassion and mercy and justice and charity. “Whoever wants to enter paradise, the prophet Mohammad taught, let him treat people the way he would love to be treated,” he said as the audience applauded.

Isn’t it kind of insulting to practitioners of Islam for an alleged Christian politician to visit their house of worship and lecture them on the meaning of their religion?

This is the biggest public display of support for the Muslim American community – cited by White House aides as a response to the anti-refugee and anti-Muslim rhetoric on the campaign trail from Republicans like Donald Trump.

So there it is.  This is right out of the Democrat playbook.  Turn everyone who isn’t White and Christian against Republicans so they’ll vote Democrat as the only alternative.  That’s all this was ever about.

If Obama cared about Muslims for anything other than being future members of the Democrat party, he wouldn’t be murdering them on a regular basis and driving millions of them out of their ancestral homelands.

Obama pointed out that the founding fathers also supported the religion of Islam.

“Jefferson and John Adams had their own copies of the Koran,” he said. “Benjamin Franklin wrote, that even if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a missionary to preach to us, he would find a pulpit at his service.”

I couldn’t find the actual transcript of his speech (I didn’t look that hard), but the various press accounts all seem to characterize it similar to Breitbart where Obama said the founding fathers supported Islam or welcomed Islam.  But nothing that he referenced really proves that. Jefferson and Adams owned a Koran so they supported Islam?  So if I own a copy of the Communist Manifesto do I therefore support Communism?

As for Benjamin Franklin’s quote, he was describing a non-denominational meeting house built in Philadelphia to accommodate various Christian preachers.  He suggested in jest that the Grand Mufti could take advantage of it if to preach Islam if he so desired, but that hardly equates support for the religion.

He also recalled the history of mosques in America – pointing out that the oldest surviving mosque was in Iowa and that the first American mosque was built in North Dakota.

Funny how “Islam has always been a part of America,” but no one got around to building a mosque here until 1929.

“If we’re serious about freedom of religion – and I’m speaking now to my fellow Christians, who remain the majority in this country – we have to understand, an attack on one faith is an attack on all our faiths,” he said.

I’m not in favor of attacking someone’s faith, but I hate this kind of newspeak.  How is an attack on Islam an attack on Christianity or any other faith?  No one’s ever asked to explain why that’s true.  It’s part of the secular dogma of Leftism like “Diversity is our Strength” that you’re just not allowed to question.

“We have to reject a politics that seeks to manipulate prejudice or bias and targets people because of religion,”

He’s targeting Muslims as potential Democrat voters by making this speech in the first place.

“Let me say it as clearly as I can, as President of the United States, you fit in here. Right here. You’re right where you belong. You’re part of America too,”

Obama was introduced by a young woman named Sabah: “This visit by our president is an affirmation to all Muslims: we are just as American as any other,” she said.

This is more or less true in 21st century America which is why being “American” is increasingly meaningless.  It means we live in a tax jurisdiction known as the United States of America and are forced to obey the laws dictated to us by a small group of elite in Washington D.C.  Sabah is indeed an American yet she has absolutely nothing in common with me other than the ability to speak English and even that is optional in Obama’s domain.  The current residents of this country have no common heritage, religion, race, creed, language, culture or anything else that ties us together as a Nation.

Trump is tapping into this growing balkanization by appealing to the dwindling majority of white Anglos who want the jobs and security their grandfathers had in this country.  The Democrats are trying to hold together the rest of the population in a weak coalition of radically different minorities that compete with each other for the scraps of the ruling elites.

It’s an interesting time for US politics.  I’m not a big Trump supporter, but if we end up with a Rubio, Cruz, or Clinton I’ll be very disappointed.   That automatically equals more of the same.  More debt.  More subsidized mass immigration.  More wars for Israel and Lockheed.  Less freedom.  At least Trump might be an improvement.  America needs a good dose of populism right now.

And don’t get me started on Bernie Sanders.