Trump, Syria & Nation Building

When President Donald Trump recently ordered the American military to fire Tomahawk Cruise missiles into the Syrian airbase from where the chemical weapons attack against civilians allegedly took place, this unfortunately was just the latest example of our country acting as the world’s policeman. There are a great many problems inherent with using the U.S. military to keep watch over various foreign nations and acting as a prohibitively expensive babysitting regime.

Chief among them, aside from the exorbitant financial penalties that these egotistical and shortsighted foreign interventions cost the American taxpayer, is that it over exerts the military. Every time that we set up some stupid “no-fly zone” for example, we have to deploy pilots, aircraft, maintenance personnel, and many more service members around the world in order so that they can then fly their F-16 in some stupid circle in the sky. While they are flying stupid circles in the sky, these pilots are far away from their friends and families, and not only that, they are not training like they are supposed to be doing.

That’s right, you cannot train and enforce a “no-fly zone” at the same time. Oh, almost forgot, we are also wearing out some incredibly expensive pieces of equipment while babysitting assholes on the other side of the planet flying in those stupid circles over countries that are of no importance to American interests.

Then the pilots, whom we have just spent millions of taxpayer dollars training, end up quitting the military early as a result of stupid deployments to crappy countries performing retarded babysitting missions. Which means that utterly ridiculous amounts of taxpayer dollars later, spent both on men and equipment, goes down the proverbial drain with absolutely nothing to show for any of it.

Perhaps the most notorious example of getting involved when we had absolutely no reason to do so was what happened in Somalia when President Clinton sent in Task Force Ranger to capture a Somali warlord. (Now, please just step back for a moment and read that last sentence over very, very carefully. Why in the world would our nation send our very best soldiers to some third world hellhole in order to capture some asshole who is not an actual threat to American citizens?) Let’s just say that you know something is a really bad idea when dead Delta Force operators are being dragged through the streets and illiterate religious fanatics are jumping up and down on one of our Black Hawk helicopters.

But even if you read the article that I linked to above regarding the Air Force losing too many pilots, it is clear to me that the imbeciles who run our government will never take a step back and perform a realistic assessment as to the demands that they are placing on our military, the absurd amounts of money that they are wasting, and how our current foreign policy is actually reducing military preparedness in the event of a true national security crisis.

The world that we live in is a really messed up place, and it is neither our fault, nor is it our responsibility to fix any of it. People have been slaughtering each other for thousands of years; and this will never end. This bizarre concept that we should be the world’s policeman needs to be put to rest for good. Unfortunately, there are quite a few well meaning individuals on both sides of the political spectrum that want to involve the U.S. military in situations that quite simply are no concern of ours.

Nation building, even when it is actually possible to achieve, takes decades to accomplish. And that last little useful bit of information is always conveniently missing whenever we talk about crappy countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, or Somalia. It always has been this way, with an absolute minimum amount of time being around 20-25 years of constant involvement and a substantial military presence conducting ceaseless counterinsurgency operations. And that is not even taking into account how countries throughout all of Africa and the Middle East have absolutely horrible cultures that are at least several hundred years behind that of Western countries.



Building the Wall and Mexican Identity Politics

The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Mexico has said that building the wall would be an act of treason for any Mexican company in the United States that attempts to place a bid in order to not only turn a profit, but to continue keeping their workers employed.

As with many such stories, the mainstream news media barely even touched upon this, and they also conveniently overlooked how being a Mexican national, and being of  a Mexican ethnic background are considered to be virtually one and the same by a great many people on both sides of the poorly enforced border. This would by default make a great many Mexicans “brown nationalists” in their views towards not only whether or not helping to build a wall is committing treason against their own people, but also of their overall larger view of themselves as an ethnic group.

Needless to say that if tens of millions of white people in our country had this view, and it was touted by highly influential members of the Christian community who called any white business owners who submitted bids to the government as traitors the msm would have been all over these “community leaders.”

Accept of course that white Christians are never allowed to have “community leaders” even though every other ethnic group is not only allowed to have them, but is often encouraged to have them by the liberal elites who control most of what we are allowed to see and hear.

Economy Secretary Ildefonso Guajardo said that Mexican construction companies will be judged as to whether they are “loyal to the national identity.” (Notice how it doesn’t seem to matter if they are living in America or south of the border. Mexican is Mexican to people like him and millions of others.)

And the msm remains silent as a fly on the wall while these terrible things are being said and done against loyal Americans of Mexican descent who just so happen to place the economic well-being of their own families and their duty as citizens of this great nation above that of playing identity politics.  Many Latinos have already received numerous threatening calls to their businesses in regards to their willingness to help build the wall by those among their own ethnic group who place in group loyalty far above that of loyalty to their new country.

Which is pretty messed up if you stop to think about it. It is such a problem that there are numerous Mexican American workers who have had to turn down work on the border wall–even though they need the money–due to wanting to avoid the very real consequences that can ensue if they should take the job from their own “community.”

Just remember, if someone in your “community” threatens to retaliate against you or your family for the sole crime of getting off your ass and working hard for a living, paying taxes and helping to make this country even better through working on improving the infrastructure, then they are neither your friends nor a real American. The legitimate members of your own “community” would be happy for you and your family and fully support whatever project that you are actively engaged in completing.

But I have this strange feeling that the commentators over at CNN, and the propagandists over at highly esteemed publications such as BuzzFeed and Vox will never say any of these things. Their silence will not only be deafening, but also very revealing as to their true nature.

The Left Has Just Officially Named a Street After a Convicted Terrorist in Chicago

Oscar Lopez Rivera is now going to have a three block stretch of a road named after him in one of our nation’s largest cities, and virtually everyone on the Left side of the political spectrum appears to be silent regarding this latest turn of unfortunate events. Now, I could go on and on about mentioning the patently obvious regarding how all of this is completely and utterly wrong, but I have chosen to go a different route.

I have always seemed to notice how liberals never seem to mention the brave men and women who serve in either law enforcement, or in the military unless they seem to have no other viable option available to them at that particular moment. And then they are often quick to change the nature of the conversation to some other topic of their own choosing which is of a more “sophisticated” nature. No liberal would think of naming a city street, especially in one of our nation’s largest cities like Chicago after a true patriot and American hero such as the likes of Gary Gordon or Randy Shughart, for example; or what about the other two amazing acts of heroism displayed by two other Delta Force operators. Donald Hollenbaugh climbed up on a rooftop in Fallujah and kicked a whole bunch of ass all by himself buying a lot of our guys the time necessary in order to collect the wounded and retreat, while Dan Briggs treated many of the wounded Marines and dragged them to safety over and over again while taking heavy fire from the hundreds of heavily armed jihadists that they were fighting.

And those are just a few examples of guys from Delta Force, one military unit, who would have been a truly appropriate choice to name a street after in one of our nation’s major cities. But those traitors on the Left had to go and name one after a convicted terrorist. Those on the Left then wonder why it is that they have lost the House of Representatives, the Senate and the White House to the Republicans.

News flash assholes: The average American citizen utterly despises those who show disrespect towards our law enforcement officers and military personnel. It’s not exactly a secret, alright… And you should most definitely choose who speaks at your “feminist” marches much more carefully. Rasmea Odeh, also a convicted terrorist, and Donna Hylton (Hylton is such a sweetie, and treats members of our gay community very, very well. She would never squeeze their testicles with a pair of pliers or shove a metal pipe forcibly up their asshole, and then insist to the police afterwards that the victim liked it) aren’t exactly the best people out there that you can find to lead your pathetic little marches which accomplish absolutely nothing for your stupid little ideological worldview. And if you can’t easily find women who do not have a criminal record and are upstanding American citizens to help organize and lead your stupid protests, then you have far greater problems than simply having someone in the White House that you do not happen to like.

The Nasty and Dishonest Practice of Discrediting Political Opponents Instead of Fairly Debating What They Actually Said and Stand For.

All too often I run across either an article, or a news blip on YouTube where some commentator, news anchor, or a guest will actively go out of their way to discredit or publicly shame someone with whom they have an ideological disagreement with. I believe that this is not only a morally wrong thing to do, but it is extremely harmful to the public debate of which is vitally important to the continuation of Western Civilization.

Instead of discussing the facts of the matter at hand, as for just one example how Bill Maher will mention terrible statistics regarding Muslim majority countries on his show and the Left typically responds not by directly acknowledging those facts and then launching a legitimate counterargument, but rather they just attempt to slander him and sling unimaginative insults such as “bigot” towards the comedian as a method of trying to discredit him as an individual. Never once have I heard anyone on the Left attempt to make a genuine rebuttal to anything that either he, Robert Spencer, Sam Harris, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, or numerous other “Islamophobes” have said without involving some sort of a direct personal attack as part of their strategy.

The same goes for political movements as a whole. Those on the Left are quick to point out that not all participants and supporters of the Black Lives Matter movement are involved in riots or openly encourage violence against law enforcement officers. And this is a totally fair thing to point out on their part. The problem, however, is that these very same people like Trevor Noah and all the rest turn right around and launch incredibly broad, sweeping generalizations against conservative movements as a whole. This includes those who visited Trump rallies, the members of the TEA Party, NRA members who collect firearms and enjoy target shooting, etc… They have no self-restraint or sense of personal decency when it comes to going after any of these organizations or the people who actively participate in them.

All organizations, especially those of a political nature, are going to attract more than a few nut jobs and people who are just plain bad news. This applies to all such organizations be they on the Left or the Right. It doesn’t really matter. Whenever you have something such as the marches against immigration in Germany where PEGIDA members got together opposing Merkel’s policies there are no doubt going to be some truly nasty individuals who will be attracted to such activities. Sort of like how flies are attracted to dog crap. The mainstream news media never once treated PEGIDA and the overwhelming majority of the people who attended their events in a fair and honest manner. They never even considered that the protesters could have some perfectly legitimate concerns that they want to be discussed in the public sphere (they even went so far as to say how the crowd was “too white, ” now imagine for just a moment if Fox News said that the BLM protesters were “too black”).

They just went through the crowds and the leadership of that organization, and quickly cherry picked some less than pleasant people with whom they could use to publicly discredit the entire movement with. This is a patently dangerous tactic to be using, and I don’t mean to say that in defense of PEGIDA, or NRA members, etc. Whether or not their precious little feelings are hurt really doesn’t concern me very much. What does concern me, however, is that we will never be able to successfully move forward as a society and effectively deal with the problems that crop up if we are unable to talk about what is going on in an open and intellectually honest manner.

And not constantly demonizing those with whom we have political disagreements with would be a very nice place to start.

If you like this article, then please download a free sample of my novel Five Nights in Harlem which goes directly after Islam, Muhammad, and the liberal news media (and hopefully it will make you laugh more than once or twice in the process).

The Problem of Living In A Bubble

When some people read my novel Five Nights in Harlem they will almost assuredly come out believing that I am some sort of an ideologue. But these people obviously have poor reading comprehension and clearly didn’t get the gist of what I was trying to say. When I mentioned positive things about both Bill Maher and Sean Hannity, how clouded in my thinking by some narrow minded ideological worldview could I possibly be?

The problem with this is that I have indeed met and talked to various people, and remain friends with those who are all over the political spectrum. If one only talks to others who have an almost parallel way of looking at the world around them, and who in turn also hang out with only those who think in highly similar terms, that person will have a great deal more in common with a horse wearing blinders than they would ever like to admit. This is how groupthink comes about.

Conservatives and liberals are constantly criticizing each other for being closed minded and for blatantly ignoring the facts whenever it suits their political agenda. And you want to know something: they’re both right. One of the people that I regularly converse with, mostly via email now, is a hardcore liberal/borderline communist who is rabidly anti-capitalism and thinks that Naomi Klein is one of the greatest intellectuals on the planet. The fact that she has advocated multiple times for state ownership of factories and resources doesn’t seem to phase him the slightest bit. Her never ending moral relativism doesn’t seem to have bothered him either. He views the world in a very simple and binary way, good verses evil, right versus wrong, fair versus unfair, you get the drift.

And some of my other friends who are on the Far Right also see the world in a remarkably similar fashion, just from a polar opposite direction. But my point here is that their thought processes are in fact remarkably similar. They seem almost incapable of seeing shades of grey, or in being able to calmly evaluate the facts of the matter at hand and come to form an opinion in a dispassionate manner. Those on the extremes of either side of the political spectrum are also extremely self-righteous in their viewpoints. It is all about emotion and the strong need for never ending self-validation. And this pathetic, juvenile cycle cannot be interrupted without incurring a significant backlash.

This led to my having a bit of an epiphany several years back where I finally realized that one of the reasons why these sorts of people, and this also applies to religious fanatics, get so upset whenever I would point out logical flaws and factual inaccuracies in their arguments is that they would never take what I said at face value. They took it as a direct threat to their person. As if my forming a counterargument posed some sort of a threat to their very existence. I was in essence invalidating them, their friends, and everything that they stood for, including their sense of a personal identity when debating with them.

This is one of the reasons why when children are growing up it is of such imminent importance to expose them to not just a wide variety of differing worldviews, but to many different life experiences as well. The number of people who grow up to become jihadists who weren’t raised in an overwhelmingly Muslim community, whose parents and close friends weren’t devout followers of the child-raping prophet is incredibly small. Yes, these people do exist, but they represent a statistical anomaly. Just look at how many left to join ISIS who lived in Minnesota, and then compare and contrast that with how many joined the terrorist group who lived in Idaho or Montana #DemographicsMatter.

We have red states and blue states here in this country, and this is not by chance. Furthermore, one can even break down the politics in this country by taking note of just exactly what type of motor vehicles people are purchasing. If they are driving a Ford F-150, it is a safe bet to assume they despise the Sierra Club and probably own at least one firearm. I will just leave it at that one example for now and spare you from having to go through an exhaustive and mind-numbing list which would only further serve to prove my point.

This is one of the reasons why when you are researching something online, or trying to make a decision about anything of even moderate importance, do yourself a favor and keep an open mind. I always try to read different articles by those with varying worldviews in order to better understand not only the facts at hand, but almost as important, how people feel about them and their ongoing rationalizations for doing so. I have read Paul Krugman and Thomas Sowell; and I don’t read Krugman just to look for ammunition in his own work to use against him later on. That is only something that a chump would do, or a pathetic little Internet troll who lives in their parent’s basement. I live in a van down by the river, there is a big difference, alright.






Super Trucks and Energy Dependency

This blog posting is about why I believe that it would be in our nation’s best interest to dramatically increase the fuel efficiency of semi-trucks, and not just for the obvious environmental reasons. Lately, I have been reading the book Sleeping With The Devil by Robert Baer. It is quite obvious by now that a not so small portion of the massive amounts of oil revenue that goes to not only Saudi Arabia, but other oil producing countries as well ends up being diverted towards religious schools, aka madrassas, and towards various Islamic charities—many of which are obvious fronts known not only to our government, but to various independent researchers the world over. Just ask Robert Spencer from Jihad Watch, or anyone who is connected to the Clarion Project. Or ask Robert Baer himself for that matter. Just off the top of their heads these people can name more than one of these “charities.”

There is also a great video where Sam Harris is interviewed by Joe Rogan where Harris delves into just how utterly absurd it is that we are fighting a war on terror, and at the very same time are cozy with the Saudis and keep buying their oil; all the while knowing perfectly well where all of that money is really going to end up at the end of the day.

Now there is a rather easy solution for all of this, and that is to treat our energy independence like we did the space race back in the late fifties and throughout all of the sixties. That is to say it needs to be a cost is no option solution in order to dramatically revolutionize our transportation capabilities in only one to two decades. If the government were to put down one hundred billion towards developing a new generation of super trucks that were highly advanced diesel hybrids which achieved between 15-20 mpg on average in the next 5-8 years, now that would be something truly worthwhile. Right now I believe most semi-trucks average somewhere around 6mpg for a basic reference.

The key is to get the various companies, Volvo, Mercedes, Freightliner, Cummins, etc. to all work together along with other important players such as Tesla and Panasonic in order to jointly develop a brand new powertrain which was scalable. The other important variable is for the government, and the regulators such as the EPA, to work with these companies along with the independent trucking companies in order to make certain that it is a smooth and easy transition when these new trucks are available for purchase.

An example of what I mean is that there should be a program created whereby the government buys back existing semi-trucks currently on the road at a 30% increase over market value. This in turn will make the financial impact of trading in the old trucks for the newer, more expensive super trucks a much smoother proposition, especially for the smaller trucking companies which have very limited resources. They should also change some tax rules, at least for the first decade of the new super trucks release upon the market, whereby the cost of the trucks can be written off by 125% over the actual cost, and without having to lease them. Normally—I am not a tax expert—only leases can be written off by businesses, not car or truck payments. If this were to be changed, and then increased by a significant margin, between the increased trade in value and the massive tax write offs, not to mention vastly improved fuel economy and reduced maintenance costs, I do believe that this would be perfectly doable.

It could be a real win-win proposition all across the board. Lower emissions, higher profits for trucking companies, reduced shipping costs, state-of-the-art safety features which can help reduce the number of accidents, and decreased energy dependency upon various nations who are clearly not our friends. And the icing on the cake: Less money for terrorist assholes to plan and finance their next attack against civilians.

One of the biggest reasons why many conservatives, and business oriented individuals in general are often so incredibly hostile towards any new environmental regulations doesn’t stem from their hating Bambi, or wanting the water in the nearest lake by their home to be contaminated. But rather due to a far simpler reason: the government bureaucrats propose new regulations, and then leave it up to the business owners to somehow meet them within a fairly narrow time frame. The increased costs and complications are purely a problem for the business owner, and I have talked to enough self-employed individuals to know that this isn’t a bunch of b.s. either.

The big mistake that the liberals are constantly making is that they are pitting environmentalists against businessmen and entrepreneurs. This is folly and only serves to work against whatever it is that they are trying to accomplish. One of the people whom I talked to brought up how either they will have to sell one of their existing trucks, a truck that they paid more than $70k for, or they will have to spend a whole bunch of money in making modifications to it in order to be compliant with the new regulations (I actually talk to a wide variety of real people in real life who work in many different industries. You liberal elites would be blown away about just how much you can actually learn by doing this #Pricks.)

And all of this burden is wholly upon the hardworking, self-employed people who help to power our economy and take the personal risks which are required for capitalism to be successful. We should help these people to succeed and make any government mandated changes as easy and beneficial as is possible.

But we’re not doing that…

Nationalism: A Bad Thing?

Whenever the “experts” on various television news programs bring up the topic of nationalism, and how it is becoming increasingly popular throughout the world, they invariably stick to a very narrow script which decries this trend as a terrible, racist, and xenophobic movement. Never once do the “experts” display any intellectual honesty by mentioning how globalism has just as many flaws as it does positive attributes.

The increasing push both in Europe and in America towards open borders and free trade has been done, largely in unison, by elitist politicians and multinational corporations who spend absurd amounts of money on lobbyists in order to further increase the size of their corporate coffers. Never has there been a true public debate where the average Joe or Jane gets to have their say as to whether or not they want all of these immigrants from all around the world entering their country in large numbers, or whether they favor expanded trade with countries such as China where the cost of labor is a pittance in comparison to having something manufactured in the USA, England or Germany.

It is this blatant disregard for the working class on both sides of the Atlantic that has led to such a strong political backlash which has culminated in the election of Donald Trump and Brexit in England. One of the biggest lies which is oft repeated is that we all share the same values and want the same thing. There is only one huge problem with this narrative: it has absolutely no truth in it whatsoever. Plato once wrote, “Any city, however small, is in fact divided into two, one the city of the poor, the other of the rich; these are at war with one another.”

This rings as true today as it did back in his day more than two millennia ago. Except that now we are not dealing with two cities, but rather two entirely different worlds, each with its own agendas and self-interests. Does anyone really think that Tony Blair dramatically increased immigration in England with the intended goal of helping out the white working class, or further reducing crime? Or was there some other plan on his mind when he decided to work against the best interests of the average British citizen…

There are polls which state, in numerous countries such as America, Sweden, England, etc, that the overwhelming majority of the people living there do not want increased immigration. They want reduced immigration, and often dramatically so. Nobody asked for turning their country into a multicultural society. Not in Sweden, or in France, or in England, or in Germany, there was never any open and honest public debate where the people voted in favor of such a referendum in order to dramatically reshape their country in both a demographic and cultural way.

So why do the elites who run our nations blatantly push policies, both foreign and domestic which time and again run contrary to what the public wishes? Then these very same individuals and their parrots in the mainstream news media are surprised, caught completely off guard when a wave of nationalism starts to sweep numerous Western democracies all around the world. They keep stating how if you vote for your own interests, to preserve your own culture, and to keep your jobs from being outsourced, well, you must be either a racist, a bigot, or my favorite of them all, a white nationalist.

Demonizing an entire segment of one’s own society, a very large segment of society for voting their own interests and wanting to preserve their own cultural heritage with the stated goals of wanting their children to not grow up in a world which is dramatically different from the one that they grew up in is neither a racist sentiment, nor should it be casually brushed aside by the powers that be. To do so would be a form of political suicide, as they are slowly starting to understand.

How “sophisticated” of them…