Newt Gingrich, Anti-Patriot, Scam Artist

A true patriot, puts his country's interest before his own. Will subordinate whatever fame, fortune, and applause he will get out of book tours, personal appearances, and fund-raising, in a certain doomed effort, for the good of the country. Newt Gingrich is not that man. Instead, he is a man who is already selling America short, dooming it to destruction to Obama, should he win the nomination. The facts are clear, Newt Gingrich cannot win a general election against Obama. For the good of the country he should withdraw, and endorse Romney. Who is no sure thing, but has the best chance of beating Obama.


Sure, I know the objections to Mitt Romney. He's a Mormon. He's rich. He's handsome. He's distant, and not engaging and dominating on TV. He's a RINO. And all that. Sure, point taken. But the very things that make Mitt Romney unpalatable to much of the South Carolina Evangelicals, and Conservatives, make him the only one running to stand a chance against Obama. Newt Gingrich hands Obama a near 50 state victory. One of so massive proportions that Nancy Pelosi returns as House Majority Leader, and Reid has only 40 at most Republicans to deal with. Perhaps less. Newt is total disaster for America, and hands Obama victory.

Because he's repulsive, in every way, to women. Period.

Rasmussen has Obama and Romney tied at 44% each while Obama leads Newt:

Today’s numbers show Obama and Romney tied at 44% each while the president leads Gingrich 47% to 40%. Romney leads the president by four among unaffiliated voters while Gingrich trails by seven. Romney also does a bit better among Republicans, picking up 79% of the GOP vote while Gingrich attracts 74%. This is consistent with results found throughout the campaign season that Tea Party activists are willing to support whoever wins the nomination while more Establishment oriented Republicans are less likely to make such a commitment.

Santorum, in a poll released today, by Rasmussen, trails Obama by ten points, 48-38.

Let us dispense with magical thinking, what Ann Coulter said was a trade of insults at Obama and the Media for Obama's re-election.

Obama has many strengths. The Media adores him, as Jesus 2.0 literally. So most low information voters, who don't care about politics, and make choices based on the media, which is most White Professional Women, are inclined to Obama anyway. Then again, he's Black. That's a built in advantage for him, again in getting White female votes. That demographic group feels "White male = boring" and fairly icky, while Black is viewed as dynamic, positive, masculine, and good. That is not fair, but that's life.

Obama has $1 billion to run negative ads, and will doubtless raise more through independent PACs run by unions and Hollywood. EVERY celebrity worthy of the name endorses him, and yes that again counts for a lot.

America is not a Center-Right nation. That ceased being true at the end of Reagan's second term. America is a place where Gays serve openly in the military, gay marriage is the law of the land in most places, Whites have no Civil Rights (according to the first Black Attorney General), Black Panthers can run voter intimidation campaigns with impunity, illegal aliens can vote in many places, and get preferential admission and tuition rates, along with college financial aid. That's not a Center-Right nation. That's not a Center nation. That's not even a Left Nation. That's a Hard Left Nation. And that's America. Today's America celebrates non-Whites, views White guys as inherently "racist" (unless they are a dominant, Alpha A-hole hottie) and engages in regular PC jihads.

Newt Gingrich will at best wage a Banzai! Kamikaze attack and go out in a blaze of glory with what is left of the old America. For those wishing to follow the path of Bushido and Yukio Mishima, the gay Japanese Ultra Right Nationalist, well Newt is your guy! Go right ahead, recite a poem to the emperor, tie on that suicide bandanna around your head, and head for the nearest ship screaming "Banzai! Banzai!"

The rest of us have to live here.

Romney's poll numbers are no fluke. Poll after poll after poll shows him being the closest to Obama. Its not a sure thing, not with the media, the innate dislike of White guys and admiration of Black guys by White women professional voters, and the enormous amount of money and (voter fraud) that Obama promises to bring to the table.

No, Newt won't "destroy" Obama in a debate. Yes Newt is a Master Debater. He's also detested by most women. Obama will remind them of this, and Newt can't go after in person that "nice Black President" who will sit there and smile with his poop-eating-grin. Any "debate" will have Anderson Cooper or Juan Williams or Al Sharpton or Jessie Jackson or Al Roker or Brian Williams jumping on any grenade that might threaten Jesus 2.0. This is reality.

In a debate, Newt will look fat and old, because he is fat and old. He will look White, because he is White. He will look ugly, because he is ugly. These things matter. Women voters make their choices on them. It is why JFK beat Nixon, why Scott Brown beat the Kennedy Machine, why Reagan beat Carter. Why Clinton beat Bush. Why Bush beat both robotic Al Gore, and weirdo John Kerry "Reporting for Duty. REEEEEEPORTING for DUUUUUTY!"

He will also look like a guy who being fat, old, ugly, and White, wanted an open marriage and cheated on two wives with mistresses. Yes that matters, if you are a Republican. A Democrat can do that, and get away with it, because the Media covers for them and pushes them as Alpha males. Newt will be portrayed as the ickies of icky beta White males.

No, Obama does not have it all his own way. Mitt Romney's argument is that being rich, he's got a stake in America. He's put his own money on the line, and is betting for America. Not selling it out in any of Obama's shady deals for cronies. Reminding voters he's rich plays to women.

Newsflash. Women LIKE rich guys. A lot. Even better when they are tall, handsome, married to the same woman for years, and are somewhat distant, stand-offish, and remote. That's Chick Crack 101. Straight out of Roissy's pickup advice.

What women do NOT like is "hot" guys who are angry, intense, and come off like this guy:



That's Newt Gingrich. "You Talking to Me?" Recall in the movie, Robert DeNiro did NOT get the girl. She found him repulsive. Don't be Robert DeNiro in Taxi Driver. That's another way of screaming "Banzai!" on a kamikaze attack. No matter how good it feels.

Steve Sailer has pointed out many times, Blacks vote Democratic, year after year, 98%. Latinos around 70%. White men, around 70% for Republicans. No surprise there, the Democrats are the anti-White guy party and Republicans by default, the White guy party. Blue collar White women, the so-called Waitress Moms, vote Republican about 70% of the time. They get little Affirmative Action, the welfare they do get is rubbed in their face by elite Whites and the Blacks/Hispanics they deal with at social services. Meanwhile they face daily harassment from non-Whites, for being White. [Pretty much most of the horrific anti-Black violence, North and South, and anti-Chinese violence in Old California, was motivated on the principle of horror deters attacks on White blue collar women. White upper class women having servants and armed men around them to deter such a thing. In other words, defense of the blue collar, White underclass family. No wonder the violence, in places like Detroit or New York City.]

Who is in play? Why White Professional Women. Who have a foot in either camp, and trade off votes based mostly on personal preferences for the candidates. That is why candidates matter, and party and ideas do not.

All politics is mostly spoils. Who and Whom? As Lenin remarked. Who gets the goodies and who gets the shaft. White Professional women get some stuff, but not a lot. They get some welfare, but that's not enough for long. It won't allow them to live the life they want and need, and mostly live. At best it is short term safety net. Nice but not a sinecure. Most of the goodies in government, the media, non-profits, and the like, including corporate America, get hoovered up by the elites. Next come Blacks and Hispanics. White Professional women are nominally part of the anti-White guy alliance, and they HATE HATE HATE Beta White males with a passion (not the least for insulting them by asking them out). But they are very junior members. Very low on the totem pole. They eat last.

Republicans don't offer much to them. [A strategic mistake, but one dictated by their ad-hoc alliance of mostly anti-Government-Elitism and defacto White Guy party.] There is no compelling reason for say, a woman who works in HR at H-P, or accounting at Apple Computer, or marketing for Nike, to vote Republican. There is no big reason against it, just not for it.

So it comes down to which candidate is the Alpha male. The way it always does. With women. Yes in 1940, before the dawn of TV, a desperate Party picked Churchill. He lost in the first major election after the War was won. Because, news flash, women don't like fat old White guys. When they had their say, they tossed him.

Unmarried women voted Obama over McCain, 70-29. Married women only 50 to 47 percent voted McCain. Yes ... HUNK MATTERS! That is how women vote! Women voted 56% to 43% for Obama in 2008, while Men voted 49 to 48% for Obama. That is the gender gap. If "Marriage is just for White people" then the overwhelming majority of married White women, voted McCain only by 3%!

Rule #1 for Republicans: No old guys, White guys only if Hunk, no weird or conservative women. Women don't like that. Any of it. See Sarah Palin's favorables (women detest her, even among just Republican women).

Newt Gingrich has already has his image cemented in the critical terrain of 2012. He's an icky fat old White guy who cheated on his wives, and then threw them out for younger models. He'd be lucky to carry 30% of the Married Women vote. This is reality.

Mitt Romney is the selfish bastard who fired people, and made lots of money, and is handsome, and somewhat cold. Good God! He's the older, silver fox version of every glittery gay vampire hero, "cold" anti-hero that women love to hate and have lots of icky sex with! He's chick magnet.

Women don't care about political passion. To them that's Travis Bickle territory. One step away from asking "You Talking to Me?" and a pyscho shoot-out. [That Bickle actually was the only one to care about a pre-teen prostitute and do something about it escapes them. Because its never about the action, it is about the being and being seen. A sad but hard truth of human nature regarding how women in aggregate act.]

Yes, for the statistically illiterate, there are women who like Newt. Who are unmarried. Some Black unmarried women doubtless love Newt Gingrich and will vote and campaign for him. So what? Obama will still carry the Black vote at 99% or so, and Black women at 99.999%

Republicans have a choice. Engage in a fruitless, pointless rebellion and pick the guy who sat next to Nancy Pelosi, endorsing global warming. The guy who made millions off Freddie and Fannie. The guy who was so inept that he lost control of his Speakership and got convicted on ethics charges [Those details WILL be released, because that's how Obama operates. Period.] A guy so bad at politics he could not even keep his own Party on his side. A guy arguably worse at being Speaker than ... Nancy Pelosi. Who is as corrupt, but better at keeping her folks in line to protect her. A guy who can't get on the ballot in Virginia. A guy who is detested by most women. A guy who is fat, White, and old, just like McCain. Plus ugly, like McCain. A guy who praises Al Sharpton, and has regular lunches and dinners with media figures. A guy with a wife who needs bribes to stay in the race, with spending $1 million at Tiffany's (his latest mistress/wife). Aguy who threw a temper tantrum because he was left off Air Force One and shut down the government in response. That guy. That's who Republicans want to go down screaming "Banzai! Banzai!" with ... Newt Gingrich.

Obama has a miserable record. Nothing to run on and terribly vulnerable to events, like war with Iran, another jihadi strike, more economic collapse, oil prices spiking, and so on.No good news for him is on the horizon. But he has a way of working, that ought to worry Republicans.

Obama has consistently won by "cheating." By rigging the contest so he faces no opposition, or Alan Keyes.

Newt Gingrich is Alan Keyes. Times ten. He knows in his heart he can't win, just like Paul. He's running to sell books, and bump up his personal appearance fees after an easy Obama victory. He sat on the couch before with Nancy Pelosi. He's doing it again. Alan Keyes. Romney is at least not Alan Keyes.
...Read more

Obama's Military Cuts: Stupid or Hate America?

With Barack Obama, it is always a question of stupidity being the main motivator, or the usual "Hate America" found in liberal, Black, and other circles. The man after all bragged he hung around gays, Muslims, Black radicals, feminists, and others in College. Does that sound like any normal young (straight) man you know? At any rate, Obama has announced cuts of about half a million US Army and Marine troops, ending the ability to fight two wars at once while declaring, "the tide of war is receding."

The phrase "the tide of war is receding" is guaranteed to go down in history as one of the top ten stupidest things ever uttered by a Western leader, along with "Peace in Our Time!" and "We can do business with Mr. Hitler."


Obama surely reads his daily briefings. Outlining the dangers from Iran, Pakistan, North Korea, and China and Russia behind them. Obama is either monumentally stupid, a low-IQ Black man who had "smoke blown up his ass" his entire life for the ability to speak in standard English not Ebonics for extended periods of time by disingenuous White Liberals who hailed him a genius, and as a consequence continues to fail miserably at elemental, gut-level tests of competence Bill Clinton could pass, or he simply hates America as the epitome of "evil White people" so much he wants to punish them and America. Of course, he could be both. In any event, his words "the tide of war is receding" will be flung back in his face time and time again. It is guaranteed. Because having a strong military is like having insurance, it is costly until you need it. And you always need it. Not having it invites disaster. A man who rammed through ObamaCare to cover illegal aliens and others with health insurance ought to know that.

Having the ability to fight two major conventional wars at the same time is critical. It is critical because America's current enemies, Iran, Pakistan, North Korea, China, and Russia are sure to act in a conventional manner to destroy American security objectives dating back to FDR, when America is occupied fully with ONE existing conventional conflict. Which is sure to break out any day now.

Why? Because the international situation is uncertain. And it is uncertain because America is weak, divided, disdains military power, and has been proven without a doubt for the past thirty five years or so to be bullied with little risk. George W. Bush bought America time (though he did not understand what he did, and handled the Iraq War poorly) by making an example of Saddam. To encourage the others. That time is now up.

America faces two fundamental problems. The first is energy scarcity, which can be managed long-term by fracking/drilling in the US and using unconventional techniques, at the expense of Green purity and throwing out green/renewable fantasies of windmills and solar panels powering a modern industrial society. Note: managed. Not solved. Demand for oil and natural gas and coal, too, will keep energy costs high because China, and to a lesser extent India, Brazil, and other developing countries want nice things too, that cost energy: clean water, sewage systems that work, power that goes on and stays on, not just for two intermittent hours a day, hospitals that are clean and sanitary, and a modern industrial base to power all that.

The second problem is related to the first. Food. Zerohedge reports that as Spengler at the Asian Times and PJM has noted, food prices are set to go up indefinitely as arable land declines, petroleum goes up (the two are related, think about it for a minute, no one uses horses to plow fields), and Chinese demand intensifies. Made worse of course by bio-fuel subsidy madness in the US, turning food into fuel.

This is causing a crisis. As Zerohedge points out, in another post, Iran depends on sky-high oil and imports most of its food. Like Tunisia, then Algeria, then Libya, and now Syria, the main cause for discontent is people not being able to eat. As Spengler noted, Chinese peasants will eat before Arabs (and Iranians). Because the Chinese can pay more for food. ZeroHedge notes:

It has been estimated that the Iranian theocracy cannot fund its bloated bureaucracies, military and its welfare state if oil falls below around $40-$45/barrel. Drop oil to $25/barrel and keep it there, and the Iranian regime will implode, along with the Chavez regime in Venezuela.
Saber-rattling actually aids the Iranian regime by artificially injecting a "disruptive war" premium into the price of oil: they can make the same profits from fewer barrels of oil.
The way to put them out of business is drop the price of oil and restrict their sales by whatever means are available. They will be selling fewer barrels and getting less than production costs for those barrels. With no income, the regime will face the wrath of a people who have become dependent on the State for their sustenance and subsidized fuel.

Of course, easier said than done. China has lots of money, needs to keep the power on for its own internal stability, and will reliably prop up the price of oil to keep feeding its people, and paying for their food. Rarely is something simple easily attainable. Like losing weight or playing a musical instrument, it takes work and struggle.

This is precisely WHY the US needs a military that can fight two conventional wars at the same time. Because regimes like Iran and North Korea are hit hard by rising food prices, as well as Pakistan, and want War as a release from forces that threaten to overturn them as in Egypt, and Tunisia, and Libya, and probably Syria. No one wants to end like say, Khadaffi, stabbed in the buttocks with a knife, to death. There for everyone to glory in, on Youtube.

Thus, of course Iran wants War. They crave it, as the only thing that can push oil prices high enough to pay for food, and at the same time allow them unfettered ability to kill all domestic political opponents. It does not matter if they take terrible losses, they've had them before. A swarming attack, against a carrier battle group, preceded by days of false moves and provocations to wear down attention and attentiveness, can easily sink a carrier. Many in Iran think that doing so will cause the US to simply turn tail and run. Under Barack Obama, they may be right.

At the very least, they can smuggle out oil at $200 a barrel, closing the Straight of Hormuz through mobile missile strikes and mines and such, perhaps also launching attacks on Iraq taking out its oil facilities and even the Saudis and Kuwaitis and Omanis. China, and many other countries, would be happy to buy oil at those prices under those circumstances.

Meanwhile, North Korea starves to death, under a new leader even more despised and incapable than the last. One who is young, prone to torturing small animals as a child, and fat and unattractive at twenty eight. Kim Jong Eun has one play, only and that is war. War with South Korea and the US. Not to win, but just not to be overthrown.

Particularly if the US is occupied elsewhere, say the Persian Gulf, and thus all sorts of gains can be seized, even perhaps ALL of South Korea and even Japan. You don't have to be a giant if your enemies are all midgets. Neither country has much of a military, much less military age young men, much less any ability to sustain a long, ugly war. Without the US ready to fight, prospects look a lot better than ending up like Khadaffi. Since Jong Eun is even less loved than the Colonel.

Likely at this point, both Iran and North Korea are playing a game of "after you, Alphonse." Since the second mover has the advantage -- no US forces to confront him.

Obama's cuts to missile defense, his ongoing cuts to nuclear forces, and a reliance on drones (easily hacked, as even Iran was able to do) is a fantasy strategy. Since the US from FDR onward has relied on US Naval and Air dominance in the Persian Gulf to control the world price of oil. To the US liking. And disadvantage in particular of Russia, which has nothing else but oil to offer.

Russia and China are sure to challenge the US dominance, if for no other reason than to order the world to their advantage and the US disadvantage. This is normal politics, Russia can only survive in a world where oil is hideously expensive. China can only survive the onslaught of all those men without any female counterparts because of selective sex abortions, and a slowing economy beset by corruption and cronyism, by dominance of neighbors and ultimately the entire Pacific. Otherwise all those resources (including yes women) don't flow into China to keep the social peace and the folks at the highest levels end up like Khadaffi. No one wants a knife up their ass.

Nor are the Chinese, the Russians, the Iranians, the North Koreans, and the Pakistanis (who are fully nuclear, have a disintegrating populace and state, are beset by Jihadis, and under siege from rising food prices) stupid. They know that a limited, cut to the bone American Military might not even be able to win in one place, and surely will not in two or more. Hence the move to create two or more crisis by pouring fuel on any regional crisis set afire.

In my opinion, at some level Obama understands this and welcomes this. All those decades of "hate America" along with the "hate Whitey" rhetoric of Rev. Wright and Louis Farrakhan (a frequent visitor to the White House according to logs, unsurprising since Obama was a neighbor of Farrakhan's in Chicago) had to take their intellectual toll. At some level, Obama constantly strives to make all those sermons he heard from Wright come true. That is Barack Obama. You don't spend twenty years listening to Rev. Wright (and likely Louis Farrakhan) and not want to make their dreams come true.

Ultimately that is a stupid move, since leaders rarely prosper by punishing their people. Nor is the model of most Muslim tribal nations (raise up a tribe of favored few, like Saddam's Tikritis, and punish the rest) likely to succeed in a nation as big and as powerful (in the sense that ordinary people are not beaten dogs, but individuals jealous of their liberties, mostly) as America. Obama's likely destination is impeachment and conviction, with a long jail time as an object lesson. Being the first President to deliberately lose critical wars in disastrous fashion that degrades life for the average American (oil and food at unaffordable levels for years until drilling and growing are refashioned) pretty much guarantees that. But for years, Obama was never punished politically, socially, or economically for associating with odious figures like Wright and Farrakhan, so it is no surprise that he deliberately wants to harm America.

The alternative of course is not endless Wars for Democracy in Muslim lands. But rather a military able to dominate the Pacific and Persian Gulf at the same time. Withdrawing troops from Europe is a minor savings, but closing bases there leads to a lack of forward positioning in the area and increases US dependence on … Israel. As the only friendly country in the area with ports, airbases, and a population able to support force projection. While Germany, Italy, and England are not close to the Middle East, they are closer than Arkansas or Georgia, and provide "good enough" ability to stage and marshall forces bound for the Middle East. While troops can and should be withdrawn from many areas, the bases should remain.

Drones, easily hacked and dependent on an increasingly vulnerable satellite system (now even Iran has the ability to shoot down satellites, joining Russia, China, North Korea, and Pakistan) are no substitute for US air power with the best air superiority fighter (the F-22, canceled) and the best ground support airplane (the A-10, canceled). Cyberwarfare is no match for US naval forces able to punish enemies and control the seas (including keeping the Straights of Hormuz open for shipping). These all cost, and the costs seem high. Until say, Iran and North Korea and China and Pakistan (and perhaps even Venezuela) all launch attacks hoping to achieve regional dominance cheap and easy at the US's expense.

If you liked your life with gas at $5 a gallon, wait until it reaches $10 per gallon. See how much social peace is bought then. The US too, is not immune from the social changes around the globe of Chinese peasants eating a lot better than they did before.
...Read more

Business Gives Up on Obama

The Orange County Register has an interesting piece about business leaders blasting Obama. Of course. Most Business leaders have given up on Obama. They are poised to discreetly fund a Republican challenger. Oh, not all business people have given up on the Chosen Won. Significant portions of Silicon Valley still love the guy, even if IPOs are close to half a decade away (and thus cash-out points for Venture Capitalists are ever more distant). Hollywood loves Obama too, no one in Hollywood cares if films make money or not, they get paid up front regardless (because they expect cheating on the residual/profit sharing to be so rampant they don't bother or care). But most business leaders have given up on Obama. Because he's made them significantly less wealthy.


Charlie Munger, Warren Buffett's Vice-Chairman, has said that:

"I think I've been in the top 5% of my age cohort all my life in understanding the power of incentives, and all my life I've underestimated it," Warren Buffett's business partner, Charlie Munger, once said. "And never a year passes but I get some surprise that pushes my limit a little farther."

Machiavelli said it more succinctly in the Prince: that a man will sooner forgive the murder of his parents than being made poor. Obama has made the wealthy corporate leaders of America, well most of them, significantly less wealthy. Not poor, but not what they expected.

The first to be affected were property moguls. Guys like Donald Trump. Shopping malls, luxury condos, office towers, were all hit hard by the recession, and Obama piling on investment choking regulations, uncertainties, and costs. Cheap interest costs did not combat people not shopping (and closing of anchor stores like say, Borders) at malls, or not buying luxury condos (at expected prices) or cutbacks in office space. These folks were sunk-cost trapped, they could not just dump and run. So you had considerable push-back from these types, and Trump flirted with running against Obama.

The next to be affected were those CEOs with significant stock in their companies, or compensated with options. Which is most of the big company CEOs. As long as cheap money from "Helicopter Ben" Bernanke and Turbo-Tax Tim Geithner pumped up risky assets like stocks and bonds, all was well. Even if their companies long-term growth prospects in the US were about zero. They didn't care -- they were making money. China was going to grow forever! And reality set in. Even before the stock market turbulence, earnings were sliding, in internal reports these guys were reading, and they knew enough that stock prices would slide too. Making many if not most of their options utterly useless. And reducing their paper wealth in stocks significantly. Often at 30% or more haircuts.

So if you want to know (Brian Calle of the OC Register is correct, this is very unusual) why Steve Wynn of Wynn Resorts, or Bernie Marcus of Home Depot, or Andy Puzder of CKE are blasting Obama, it is because he made them significantly less rich. He lost them money. And they in turn will do their best to fire him.

No, it is not a "done deal." Obama has many cards to play. Republicans could select someone unelectable (Michelle Bachman, who while admirably Tea Party conservative, is hated by most White Professional women who in my view hold the key to victory). Romney could prove weak and McCain like in confronting Obama (a likely bet). Rick Perry could be painted as George Bush Returns. But very likely, Obama will not be raising huge amounts of money from Corporate America. Sure, Hollywood will kick in. So will Silicon Valley. But that's about it.

Meaning, Obama's likely to play big, some Gotterdammerung attempt, to change everything. Failing the usual Chicago method of digging up dirt or phony court challenges, expect lots of riots and race-baiting. It is the Chicago way.
...Read more

Obama Calls Workers Slugs: Is Obama the New Nixon?

Via CBS and Mark Knoller, Obama called Federal Workers "slugs" and lamented he did not have a cool phone.

"I always thought I was gonna have like really cool phones and stuff," he said during a Q&A session with contributors to his re-election campaign.

"We can't get our phones to work." Acting out his exasperation, he said: "Come on, guys. I'm the president of the United States! Where's the fancy buttons and stuff and the big screen comes up? It doesn't happen."

Mr. Obama made the remarks at the 2nd of 3 fund-raisers last night in Chicago. He took questions from contributors after the press pool had left and may not have realized some reporters back at the White House could still hear his comments.

He said the White House is "like 30 years behind" when it comes to technology.

"Our IT purchasing is horrible," said the president referring to Information Technology throughout the government.

"It's true in the Pentagon. It's true in the agencies. It's true in the Department of Homeland Security," Mr. Obama said of outdated equipment.

But he did have some kind words to say about government workers.

"What's striking when you enter into the federal government is how generally smart and dedicated people are." He did opine that some employees "are slugs and not trying to do their job. But that's true of any large institution."

CBS has refused to release the audio tape, which Big Government confirms.

Obama is of course, completely protected by the Media. They might as well be his press secretaries. The coverage would be the same if they were.

But with Drudge linking to a CNBC report predicting $6.50 a gallon gas in the Summer, not even the media can protect Obama from consumer misery. As Ace of Spades noted echoing my own post that College Educated White women are the key to Obama's re-election, even that group of people need to drive. More dollars into the gas tank means less for everything else. So Obama calls workers in the Federal Government slugs.

CBS will not of course be reporting on any of this. But government workers are going to get the news, if anything their conservative friends will send them the Mark Knoller link, and laugh that CBS won't report it on their own newscast. Even government workers need to buy gas. At a certain point, all the air cover the press flies for Obama becomes meaningless.

Just as I predicted, Obama's collapse will be spectacular and ugly. The man has a thin skin, has never faced failure, and has skated on being the "magical Black guy" for so long that he's even more unstable and insecure in his own skin than Richard Nixon. No doubt he's ordered his own group of plumbers to "go after" people. Not realizing that what works for a cheap Chicago Pol is disaster in a President.

People expect results. They expect at a minimum the President to produce an economy that lets them buy stuff. Since the rest of American culture has been eroded into the point of nothingness, and America is basically a place on a map. Without meaningful borders and now trending (because we won't enforce our immigration laws) rapidly non-White majority. Obama cannot even deliver a bit of economic recovery, while insulting people in private and expecting it will stay that way.

Obama really is the New Nixon.




...Read more

Will K-12 H1-Bs Peel Off Obama's Support?

As noted here, Obama still has some core White support: College Educated White women. Who alone benefit from Affirmative Action (non-College White women have the highest disapproval rates for all Whites). And are a good cultural fit for Obama as First Rockstar, the Celebrity to rule Celebrities. But the Center for Immigration Studies has a new report that suggests a wave of H1-B usage is breaking upon Education, particularly K-12, and could spread to other areas. Which might finally put College Educated White women in the same boat as their male counterparts, and non-College Whites of both sexes.


As noted in the report, H1-Bs have been used with great success in the Computer Science area in replacing older, more expensive American workers with visibly cheaper Foreign ones, who are younger besides (lower health care costs, perceived "hipness" etc.) The report for the Center for Immigration Studies notes:

n FY 2010, the Department of Labor certified 6,578 new K-12 jobs to be filled by H-1B workers, about 10 percent of the new certifications within the 65,000 general purpose ceiling; many other H-1B workers were approved for the 20,000 ceiling for those with advanced degrees, and others who came into the system outside of the numerical ceilings (primarily people in higher education.)

The H-1B K-12 educators were thus a small minority within the H-1B program, and a much smaller minority within the universe of kindergarten, elementary, and secondary teachers, but what did the use of this program by some school districts show?

My sense, after pouring over the detailed DoL data on this single year’s worth of K-12 certifications, is that some of the implications of this limited database are troublesome (in two different ways), some are bizarre, and others are puzzling.

[The report author notes that the Dept. of Labor, unlike other Federal Depts, makes their raw data available. The link to the Dept. of Labor data, sadly all in Microsoft Access files is here. For those unable to run MS Access directly, and needing a dump into CSV or directly into MySQL, there are instructions here that have been known to work. From the reports by users at the link it seems the best/safest way is to make a CSV dump of each table, and then import them manually into manually created tables in a new MySQL database. Tedious but effective.]

Among the findings were: the employers using H1-Bs in K-12 were concentrated in Texas (1,426 certifications), California (247), and Louisiana (313), besides Maryland with 632 certifications. Houston and Dallas accounted for most of the Texas certifications. Baltimore most of Maryland. For occupational breakdowns, most of the certifications were for special education teachers (305) , or bilingual teachers (664).

The implication is that K-12 is transitioning to H1-B visa employment. These holders are significantly cheaper, younger, and most of all, compliant. They can't fuss to the Union, because they can be replaced at any time and sent home with near unlimited manpower in other places. So far this usage of H1-B visas in K-12 is limited to the bigger city school systems. But the advantages for hard-pressed school boards (cheap teachers who can be easily replaced without union fuss) is obvious. So long, "nice White lady" from "Teach For America!"

Interestingly enough, bilingual teachers form a large portion of the H1-B visa pool in K-12. Suggesting that school boards (and charter schools) want cheap, compliant non-natives brought over on the H1-B visa rather than native Spanish speakers. This is quite interesting because it kicks a major prop out from under school system support -- local Hispanic patronage. Most Latino majority school districts are not oriented towards teaching students but maximizing job patronage. Since the school is often the city's biggest employer. Even Latinos can get hurt by diversity, a useful point to make. As Machiavelli noted in the Prince, a man will forgive the murder of his parents sooner than being made poor.

H1-B visas mean only one thing for wages: considerably lower ones. Essentially we are seeing teaching being lowered to Third World levels, and probably quite rapidly. Because we have a Third World population, particularly with K-12 students, but demands for a First World education system. Something has to give, and that will be, first, teacher salaries. Those hanging on to their jobs will do so at H1-B visa rates, just like in computer programming and the like.

Also notable is that Charter Schools are the worst offenders in participating in H1-B visa programs, and have the most complaints against them (for teacher abuse, fees, and the like) lodged against them with the Dept. of Labor. Bizarrely, there is a fellow named Fethullah Gülen, a Turkish Islamist of mixed reputation foolishly granted a green card by the US State Dept. after first being denied, who has gamed the US Charter school system.

Essentially what Gülen is doing is gaming the Charter School system. He sets up a Charter School, gets federal money (a lot of it, with very little oversight) and imports lots of teachers, on the H1-B visa program to ostensibly teach Turkish. The demand for which is near zero. It is basically a corrupt scam to create a massive kick-back and patronage system. Once again an ethnic, nepotistic network scams a government system set up for trustworthy Calvinist New Englanders.

There are also massive pay differentials among the H1-B visa holders, in places right next door to each other (New York and New Jersey, Elgin and Chicago IL) amounting to as much as $30,000 or more. Could there be … kickbacks?

Yes Obama's education bubble, with massive amounts of federal stimulus money (now expiring) shoveled into schools, created the same kind of exploitation and crook-dom that the housing bubble, and its no-document loans did. Not surprising.

Essentially, the market as it existed for K-12 teachers, employing "nice White ladies" and men, would not and did not last. We are seeing its dying already. Regardless of "mean Republicans" cutting state budgets, local districts and shady businessmen, running "regular" and charter schools respectively, are sure to pick up on the ability to create cheap and compliant labor forces. Not just for teachers, but every type of administrative function except the top. For the Charter School operators, most being "not-for-profit" (but that's a mere bagatelle) the ability to kick-back a portion of above market salaries that are paid for by federal and state funds must be an overwhelming temptation. Particularly since Education is not built on the assumption that people operating it are mostly crooks. Rather, it is built on the trust that nearly everyone involved sincerely loves teaching, education, and a better future for the students.

People vote their pocketbooks. College Educated White women are overwhelmingly employed in places like K-12 Education, the media, health care, corporate finance, human resources, and the like. Instilling bare, naked fear that they could be replaced by a person younger, more subservient (conservatives cannot stress this enough), and CHEAPER than themselves … and will be, unless a nationalist approach is taken through conservatism, is probably the most productive action conservatives can take against Obama. Obama's great weakness is that his coalition is prone to fighting amongst themselves over the limited spoils. White Women with College Education can be made to fear. Know the fear that their male peers in Engineering, or Finance, or Accounting, have already felt: replacement.

Particularly if "subservience" is stressed, the idea that say, a "fat and brassy" White College Educated woman will be replaced by a "meek and mild" Vietnamese girl at half the cost, and with deference to (beta) White males at the very top, is something that will go over like gangbusters. There's nothing White women hate more than being told they're being replaced by a younger, more subservient (to beta males) model. Since most of the top management at most places resembles a cross between Tim Geithner and Don Knotts, rather than say Charlie Sheen or Russell Brand, this wedge has some power.

Already, nursing save the ER staff is mostly H1-B. You can't visit a hospital room or floor (save perhaps ICU or CCU) and not find mostly or all H1-Bs (now from Vietnam or the Philippines). Trust me on this, I know. The same can be true, for HR people, or media ad buyers, or really almost any office work. While it is true that Mexican-origin illegal aliens from Chiapas or Cuidad Juarez won't be good fits, women and men from India, or the Philippines, or Vietnam certainly will. Many of them already are, in occupations like Radiology, or dental assistance, or even now K-12 education.

Yes, the usage of K-12 H1-Bs is small now. So is the first trickle of water bursting through a fractured dam or dike. Eventually it will be a tidal wave. With nowhere for College Educated White women to go. What will they do? How will they work? How can they support themselves? They can't. They won't. And this is precisely the argument conservatives should make to this target. Obama is bad for their bank account because he'll replace them with H1-B visa holders. Younger and more subservient, and definitely cheaper.



...Read more

Hunger City

In a stunning move indicating total incompetence, the USDA is considering cutting crop reports. The USDA crop reports and forecasts are important, because they reduce volatility in the agricultural commodities markets. Making beef, pork, chicken, corn, wheat, oranges, and everything made with them not subject to huge price fluctuations. This makes food prices stable in the US. Obama has decided this is a bad thing, and wants to re-introduce widespread hunger back to the US. You didn't think the First Black President wasn't going to cost, now did you? Along the lines of "you might want to think about a trade-in" to a citizen complaining about high gas prices, Obama is not even trying to provide any economic buffers or patronage beyond his core group of College Educated White voters. Part of that is incompetence. The other, his corrupt Chicago way, with no pretense at ever giving up office.


Men are what they are, in terms of experience, character, behavior, and more, by their late twenties certainly. Obama is what he is, and he's not going to change. Not going to moderate his behavior, move to the center, or do anything but double down on all the things that have been rewarded in his life: White-baiting, race-card playing, corrupt deal-making, and more.

The WSJ reports:


The U.S. Department of Agriculture may eliminate a range of crop reports watched by farmers, commodity traders and foreign buyers to gauge supplies coming from the world's largest grain producer.

An agency official confirmed the USDA may cut its weekly progress reports that track the development of corn, soybeans and other crops, among other possible cutbacks. Some form of cutbacks is a forgone conclusion, with department officials scheduled to meet Thursday to discuss a list of reductions, said Jacqueline Moore, head of the field crops section for the USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service, in an interview.

Driving the expected cuts in USDA data is a broad push in Congress to reduce government spending. Funding issues already have led the U.S. Census Bureau to announce it will stop publishing closely followed soybean processing data.

Less data from a government source could mean increased volatility in prices and greater power for the large grain companies that have a unique view of supply and demand most farmers, traders and analysts can't replicate. Prices for agricultural commodities have swung wildly in recent years, with corn surging more than a 100% since last summer to set record highs this week.

The crop progress report that is being considered for elimination gives details on planting rates, crop development and harvesting. The USDA also is looking at cutting back on its June crop report, which gives a clearer picture of how many acres farmers planted of various crops. It follows a March report that also gives plantings estimates.
For the June report, the USDA might curtail the amount of surveying it does to reduce costs, Ms. Moore said.

...

Still, Dan Basse, president of advisory firm AgResource Co. in Chicago, said the USDA reports provide vital data for a breadth of market participants. Without such reports, the market would revert "back to the 1970s, when three or four major grain companies had all the information, and the rest of us are on the outside looking in."

Mr. Basse and other analysts are lobbying the USDA not to cut the reports. He said in an interview that the USDA was considering cuts to a variety of other reports as well, including cattle, pigs and nuts.

Angry about high gas prices? The man chauffeured everywhere by the Secret Service says buy a new car. Let them buy Prius! Don't like high food prices? Maybe you're just too fat, a starvation diet would be good for you! No one should be surprised by this.

Obama has no experience with executive patronage. People expect results, out of executives. For coaches, its wins. Even the most respected and long-tenured coach can get canned when he does not produce wins (see Tennessee Titans ex-coach Jeff Fischer, formerly the lengthiest tenured NFL coach active). That requirement to produce results holds for mayors (low crime, good quality of life are musts), governors, and yes, Presidents. The President is expected to win wars as quickly and as decisively as possible, with as little loss of US life as can be managed. The President is expected to keep gas and food prices low, and job creation and wages high. Why? Because these more than any other affect the quality of life for Americans. Loss of a great many young men, even volunteers, leaves an aching void never filled for family and friends. Rising costs of living, and stagnant or worse job creation and wage increases mean regressing into poverty, and real hunger.

Obama does not know many ordinary White people. He is hostile, invariably, towards them, when he gets away from his teleprompter. Think Joe the Plumber, or Cambridge cops, or guys complaining about high gas prices. Obama further, acts like a wealthy Black rapper, ostentatiously displaying wealth, consumption, and glitz. Like Jay-Z touting Courvoisier or J Crew. This display goes over very well among Black audiences, whom Obama has courted his entire political career. It means "I made it, and I am more powerful than average Whites." It certainly is understandable for a group historically denied any real achievement, and before that enslaved. But the attitude of a Black rapper displaying his wealth and power compared to average Whites is not a fit one for a President. Yet Obama does that, constantly. Like let them buy Prius.

His action in cutting USDA crop reports and forecasts is typical pique. Certainly something you'd expect from Maxine Waters. But what works for Maxine Waters, or Jessie Jackson Jr., fails for a President still presiding over a White-majority America. Average White people don't like being both hungry and insulted by a Black Marie Antoinette.

Since when has Obama embraced budget-cutting? Shrinking government (besides Defense?) Cutting government jobs?

This is merely another fit of anger aimed at White voters. His people were warned, amply, and further government efforts to increase transparency are what Obama and his Congressional allies touted in Dodd-Frank regulation of financial companies and transactions. Considerable effort has gone into regulating specifically commodities trades, and contracts. Yet here, Obama and his people propose to make the market more volatile, more opaque, and more expensive to the end consumer who will be voting in 2012.

Already Obama has provided the Republican slogan: "You Might Want To Think About a Trade-in." He does not care.

If Obama can keep the margin to around, say 15% points, then he can cheat his way to victory. This is the guy who got elected first by using lawyers to disqualify his mentor from the ballot. Who used lawyers again to open up Rep. Ryan's divorce records, to reveal he wanted to go to swing clubs with then-wife, actress Jeri Ryan ("Seven of Nine" on Star Trek Voyager). Obama was making corrupt deals with then Gov. Blagoyevich even as he was President-Elect. Obama's house was paid for in a corrupt deal involving a former Saddam Hussein bagman. His political advisers include Rahm Emmanuel (current Mayor of Chicago) and the brother of the previous Mayor. Meanwhile Obama's entire being is wrapped up in being President. He can no more be an average person (his whining to the Press to the contrary) than Jay-Z wants to give up being famous and go work on ranch in Wyoming. Obama lives for giving big speeches with lots of applause and laughter, for celebrities fawning over him, for jetting around in Air Force One and riding in armored limos and Marine One. His wife's entire purpose is to be both the national scold (Chief of the Food Police) and Substitute Oprah. Taking glamor vacations every month on the taxpayer dime.

Obama doesn't plan to even attempt to produce favorable results for the American people. He doesn't know how, is uninterested in learning, and could not anyway learn enough to do anything significant. So he'll be more of what he was before he was President. All Presidents (even or especially Lincoln) are that way. Andrew Jackson was merely more ornery, FDR more social-engineering, grand-alliance building, JFK more skirt chasing (see Clinton, William Jefferson). Carter was more of a Captain Bligh-esque bumbler with respect to people, LBJ more of a wheeler-dealer fixer, Nixon more a paranoid man uncomfortable in his own skin, and Obama is more Louis Farrakhan light. All the corruption and White-baiting, half the calories!

Think of this way. In what looks like a tough election battle, Obama chose to speak in front of Al Sharpton's National Action Network, to kick off his re-election campaign. Rather than say, announcing we are staying in Iraq and will be taking Iraqi oil now as payment for liberating Iraq (he's Obama, the Press will eat it up) to make oil cheap now! Obama has near unlimited range of action, given the press overt worship of him as a god that walks among us. Yet he's chosen Al Sharpton as his re-election opener.

Get ready for Hunger City.
...Read more

Will Obama Destroy Israel?

Longtime Obama advisor and hard-core lefty Samantha Power, who famously called for the Invasion of Israel to destroy the nation and install Hamas, has pushed the "R2P" concept ("Responsibility to Protect") civilian populations. That was the concept she pushed in order to get Obama to order the bombing of Libya (to "protect" the AQ-affiliated rebels against Obama). Her dreams may come true. The Arab League has demanded a no-fly zone over Gaza and Israel. For those not following it, Gazans have launched thousands of rockets at Israel from Gaza, and the Israelis unsurprisingly have responded with air strikes.


By Obama's own logic, the UN, the Arab League, and "R2P," the US "must" destroy Israel's air force to protect Gazans from the consequence of ... rocketing Israel (and launching anti-tank weapons at school buses, something forbidden by the Geneva Accords, and the UN, oh well never mind, they're just "Jews.") Obama probably is salivating at the opportunity to launch a series of air strikes against Israel as of this writing. It fits with his Muslim background, and also his African ethnocentricity. His hatred of White people, and no one is Whiter than Jews. Just ask noted "expert" Louis Farrakhan, a neighbor of Obama's who he calls "Minister Farrakhan" and a frequent guest at the White House.

Would this impact Obama's re-election strategy? Nope. It does not matter. Obama figures he only needs College Educated White women, plus non-Whites. That keeps things close enough so he can fraud the rest. Would that simply sink Obama with every other group of Whites? Sure. White Americans have an affinity for Israel. For the simple reason they see themselves as Jews, and identify with Zionism. After all, America was founded not in "diversity" but by Europeans, who could not stay in their own home countries. As America becomes increasingly non-White, and is destined to become non-White majority fairly rapidly, particularly among the young, support for Zionism only increases because those non-elite Whites identify. With an oppressed White people, battling those intent on exterminating them, and finding security only by strength of arms against a dysfunctional set of enemies who are profoundly non-Western.

A man who tells someone complaining about the high price of gas "You Might Want to Think About a Trade-in" (the new Republican campaign slogan) and "Let them buy Prius!" is not concerned with winning re-election. He figures, its in the bag. And the character of Barack Obama is not someone who will go the Clinton route, speechifying in front of rich audiences. He needs the adulation, the White House, the celebs bowing to him, and most importantly the ability to stick it to Whitey.

Farrakhan's warning to Obama over Libya ("Who the hell do you think you are?") is the only risk Obama is concerned about. He needs about 98% of Blacks to turn out and vote for him, to keep the totals close enough (around 15% points) to have the dead vote, throw out White votes, etc., in the usual Chicago way. Hey it worked for Kennedy, didn't it? That's why the New Black Panthers were set free. Why Eric Holder indignantly told Congress it was "an insult to my people" to assert Whites have civil rights.

Destroying Israel (sure to follow if their air force and tanks are destroyed) would make Obama's Black supporters deliriously happy, probably enough to forget their economic troubles for a moment. Farrakhan could be mollified too, his man Khadaffi is being allowed to stay after he rebuked Obama (note Farrakhan is the ONE PERSON who can criticize Obama without a White House response, or one from famously thin-skinned Obama). A make-up present would be the destruction of Israel.

As a bonus, Obama gets to make the US military, currently admired by the White population, hated by much of it. Nearly all Democrats, would be happy to defend the action. They are the party of Blacks and Hispanics, neither group known for their charity towards Jews (quite the reverse, both hate Jews). Samantha Power's steady advancement in the Democratic Party before Obama, working at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government as a professor, and married to Cass Sunstein, shows there really is no penalty in Democratic wonk-politics for anti-Israeli views wanting the destruction of Israel. Probably most Jews in the US, are so deeply assimilated (and basically debased Calvinists instead of Jews, viewing "Whiteness" as the original racial sin in a parody of Calvinist Christianity) they would not really object to even their cousins in Israel being annihilated. The Jewish population of America voted for Obama, knowing of his background and open hatred of Israel, Muslim heritage, and radical Palestinian pals like Rashid Khalidi, by the proportion of 70% over McCain.

Ironically (and to the chagrin of paleo-conservatives like Pat Buchanon) most White Americans like Israel more than most American Jews, who find Israelis existence an embarrassing relative they wished would go away. From Michael Chabon, to Sarah Silverman, most famous Jews in entertainment would prefer that Israel not exist, no matter how bloody. Because all the fashionable people prefer it, and because of "Original Racial Sin." [US Jews have become so assimilated they've adopted debased New England Puritanism.]

This does not make Israel's destruction on Obama's order a done deal. But Obama is not even trying to get re-elected the old fashioned way. Rather, he's planning openly to cheat. The Media fell all over itself to support his Libyan disaster. Republicans foiled his hopes of painting them as "un-patriotic" by largely staying silent on the folly of the Libyan Time Limited, Scope Limited, Kinetic Military Action. Destroying Israel would be opposed by the Republican Party, because their base likes Israel and Jews (Fox News has many commercials for some charity that touts its aid to elderly Russian Jews). Opposing the destruction of Israel over "R2P" orders from the Arab League and the UN (the same criteria Powers pushed Obama on with respect to Libya) would allow Obama to position Republicans as "unpatriotic."

I don't think anyone understands Obama. He's completely alien to our way of life, thinking, and heritage. He grew up Muslim in Indonesia. He drank deeply of hatred of Whites, America, and Western Civilization. Obama is worshiped openly by the Media as a living God, and worse, believes it. He's basked in adulation for being "brilliant" all his life. He is perfectly capable of ordering a no-fly zone which would result in Israel's destruction, and basking in the glory by the Muslim world and among his core constituents.

It would not surprise me at all to see Obama order a no-fly zone, and destruction of Israel's air and tank forces to "protect" Gaza and make sure Hamas takes over Israel (and massacres every Israeli they can find).
...Read more

Obama Still Holds (Some) White Women

National Journal's Ron Brownstein has a story on a new poll out showing that Obama still has a considerable hold on educated White women. The Pew Poll, surveying 1,500 adults from March 30 to April 3, had Obama losing support among younger White voters. Obama is doing poorly with College educated White men, only 38% of them approved of Obama (down from 42% in 2008). Meanwhile, 56% of College educated White women approved of Obama (as opposed to 52% in 2008), a gender gap of 18%! Obama actually improved among College educated White women, from the 43% who backed Democratic candidates for the House in 2010. [College educated White women, Brownstein reports, provided substantially more support for SENATE races in Colorado, California, and Wisconsin.] Obama still holds some White women. The implications are that he will do everything to hold them.


Among the so-called "Waitress moms," White women without a College education supported Obama by only 34% (down from 41% in 2008). White men without a College education supported Obama by only 35%, down from 39% in 2008. This despite heavy union mobilization. Obama has only 38% approval among White seniors, and 35% from those 50-64 (the most likely voting bloc). Obama is only at 40% among Whites 30-49. Only 41% of Whites under 30 approved of Obama's performance (in 2008 it was 54%).

Obama then, has to either win these groups back (unlikely) or bet it all on educated White women and non-Whites. But the question is, why are White college educated women the only significant White group to not just retain, but slightly increase approval for Obama?

The answer has to do with how educated White women function in America, both economically and culturally.

Economically, educated White women are pressed as much as anyone else with static wages and increasing prices. But they face less wage erosion, being concentrated more in government, education, corporate finance, human resources, advertising, marketing, and the like. These are all areas where H1-B competition, outsourcing, and the like play far more limited roles than in engineering, computer science/programming, and the like. Also, College educated White women are somewhat protected by Affirmative Action. They can always allege discrimination and/or sexual harassment. Therefore when making firing decisions, College educated White women will be kept while College educated White men are fired, to the greatest extent possible. Of course, this protection is limited compared to non-Whites, but College educated White women do enjoy a whole set of advantages that Democrats and Obama are committed to preserving and indeed, expanding.

Obama has increased the size and scope of government, offering many opportunities for College Educated White women to find profitable employment, regulating fast food, Happy Meals, light bulbs, internet content, and the like. Support for him among this group is natural. Increased illegal immigration, is also a plus for College educated White women. Cheaper nannies, housekeepers, and the like are a plus. As is a shift away from "icky" Defense spending (think Michael Douglas in "Falling Down" with the glasses) that favors nerdy engineers, never sexy, to "important" things like saving the Delta Smelt. The National Organization of Women famously got Obama to shift his infrastructure spending away from burly White guys with shovels into social spending on education, welfare, and government, favoring ... College educated White women.


But culturally, College Educated White women are among the most hyper-liberal groups in existence. This is because they function in a fairly closed, feminine-dominated social setting, among elite power centers in DC, New York, and Los Angeles, with a smaller outcropping in satellite cities such as Seattle, Chicago, and the like. This site showing college degrees is illustrative. Women are more concentrated in major metro areas than men. More than men, College educated White women must get social approval, for advancement or even retaining their positions, given the non-performance nature of their jobs. A regulator or position paper writer is judged basically by the strength of their social network, not a direct count of money they brought in (as a salesman might). This makes agreeing with elite opinion the safest and most productive route for career advancement in such professions.

But College educated White women are also in direct competition with College Educated White men, and find few of their competitive peers sexy or attractive. This colors their culture, and thus their political choices. Everything from "the Vampire Diaries" to "Gossip Girl" to "Twilight" to "Sex and the City" screams of competition from seriously unsexy, White men. And the desire to push down these competitors (with no worries, they are not sexy anyway) so that College Educated White women can move up. Women are generally risk averse (there are relatively few female entrepreneurs) and removing the competition is culturally a better fit than taking on a wild risk by growth through any means. Better thus to reduce oil drilling in the Gulf (as Obama has done) while not admitting it directly, and simply improve the lot of College educated White women by firing White male defense workers. Everyone wins!

Delayed marriage, makes this attitude even stronger. A woman married to and depending on a man for significant amounts of family income (to support Junior's piano lessons sure to get him into Harvard for example) will reliably vote her economic interest. Hubby probably is not sexy (and neither is she but female-oriented culture tells her she is) but he assures her kid has a better chance of getting into Harvard. Thus her own reproductive success, long term. Delayed marriage means fewer kids, and more child-less couples. Or even, divorce if the woman simply could not stand the husband's lack of sexiness, before the recession, or if there are no kids. No kids equals no role for a sexless but reliable husband. Re-orienting Western societies to cater to women's demands for sexy men has had serious consequences. Among them, the seemingly innate liberalism of College educated White women.

This cannot be emphasized enough. Non-College educated White women disapprove of Obama relative to their College educated peers, by about 22% points [56% for the College women vs. only 34% for "waitress moms."] College and non-College White women alike crave sexy men. College and non-College White women alike find most of their male contemporaries unsexy. Marriage and divorce rates, and illegitimacy rates, suggest that College educated women live personally more conservative lives (though this may change over time as the current College-attending hookup-culture cohort enters the workforce), with fewer illegitimate children, fewer divorces, and higher rates of marriage, than their non-college educated White female peers. Why then the preference for hyper-liberal Obama? And Dems generally?

Because non-College educated White women cannot afford to play to their desires for sexy men, and find no real competition for jobs among their male peers. Meanwhile, they have groceries to pay. Obama has not made non-College educated White women the object of sustained patronage. They remain on the outside of the government expansion bubble, the stimulus, and so on. These women are not preparing or evaluating lengthy studies of the effects of global warming on the Bay Area salt water pocket mouse. They are hit hard by rising gas, grocery, and electricity prices. They have no payoff for voting Obama, since their peers are not competing with them to fill the same jobs. Rather, the blue collar men inhabit entirely different classes of jobs.

Social welfare would seem to loom large for blue collar, non-College educated White women. But "no Whites need apply" policies that exclude working White women (the vast majority of non-College educated White women) to provide maximum patronage to the Hispanic and Black (and to an extent, Asian) populations works to create no real incentives for this class of women. Generally little aid is provided for them. School lunch programs, for example, benefit illegal aliens who declare no income, but discriminate against White working women with actual, real tax returns.

Let us be clear, the success of Obama and Democrats with White women stems directly from the patronage they offer, in the job sphere, and the social pressures therein to advance. In other words, its all about the money. It usually is.

Obama and his political team likely know quite well they won't be winning back those Whites who have deserted them. White seniors, White men (both College and non-College educated), and non-College educated White women are likely far beyond his grasp. Obama's likely strategy to get re-elected is to keep as much of his coalition of Educated White women, and non-Whites as possible. To do this, he must increase his patronage, considerably, and do it by those who won't be voting for him anyway: White men!

This means cutting Defense spending, to push more social work, make-work government paper pushing and studies, and education. All dominated by the College educated White women bloc. It means more Affirmative Action, and more Big Man posturing. More celebrities, more glamor events, more pushing the Obama's as America's First Rockstar family. To create a social atmosphere where College Educated White women would rather be seen with a Beta Male by their girlfriends than not support Obama. Since support for Obama is tied directly to their prospects. Coupled with of course direct patronage.

This is why Obama spoke at Al Sharpton's National Action Network, and why he rejiggered his stimulus plan to favor College Educated White women. It is why Obama has "hispandered" pushing amnesty and open borders, and more, in front of Latino groups. Obama plans to get close enough, then cheat. It worked for JFK. With Rahm Emmanuel in Chicago, surely a few hundred thousand dead can rise to vote for Obama!

Will this work? Anything is possible. Non-Whites are likely to turn out in the same numbers, and vote for Obama. All he needs is enough Whites to tip the scales to cheat if it is close. The only question is if College Educated White women can be peeled off by direct appeals to their economic interests, i.e. gas prices at the pump every week. They buy gas too. A successful Republican will make the argument that their jobs will be gone, in favor of non-Whites, as the PC/Diversity hierarchy works out in government layoffs, and that the only way to keep their jobs is to vote Republican.

This implies, by the way, that the Paul Ryan/Chris Christie/Paul Walker "shrink government" strategy is a LOSER. A loser because it will simply push College Educated White women (who mostly work in government or know friends who do) to vote for Obama. Rather, the group must be made to fear that Obama will simply result in their being laid off to preserve the jobs of non-Whites (they understand the Diversity hierarchy very well, using it effectively themselves). While a Republican will "save their jobs" by growing the economy by reducing gas prices.

Donald Trump's call to simply take Iraqi oil fields is canny. Most White voters would support it (it could directly lower gas prices) and it could be sold as a government saving job move that Obama could not answer. All those nervous College Educated White women looking at Wisconsin and New Jersey moves could be easily sold on $2 a gallon gas saves their job.







...Read more

Obama's Libyan Disaster

According to his latest speech (stay tuned, he may change his mind), Obama's "Obama Doctrine" consists of: 1. "It's not my fault, the UN and International community ordered me to take action!"; 2. The US has a "Responsibility to Protect" (accepting that noxious doctrine) and MUST be the UN police force, we must do what the UN tells us, either refrain from intervening or intervening, particularly when populations are at risk. 3. See, #2, the US is the world's policemen, guided by the UN. This is disaster of the highest order, done by an Affirmative Action President who doesn't care and is way in over his head. Who is, lazy to boot.


Obama's Doctrine boils down to a re-run of Clinton's air power alone strategy, the usual Democratic tools (Bill Beckel in particular) were spouting off about this. Air power alone is going to "remove" Khadaffi by creating pressure. And when it fails, as it inevitably and rapidly will, well Obama has the important thing covered: he'll blame the US military (tasked with an impossible mission) and the UN, France, and others. The important thing is that Obama escape blame. His own air cover is the media, which is worshiping him as the God that Walks as usual. He expects them to run their own interference on the whole debacle.

The Clinton doctrine (use air power only) which was a variation of the Bush 1 Doctrine (eject Saddam from Kuwait, run a costly and failing 12 year air power alone effort to contain him) was focused on the "coalition." It did not solve the pressing US problem: how to keep the oil from the Middle East flowing at a price we could afford. All the air combat patrols did for 12 years was keep Saddam out of Kuwait. Bill Clinton could afford that, oil was around $17 a barrel in 1995. It is now upwards of $115 (and likely headed higher).

Obama's doctrine will fail, because it does not solve the problem: keep the Libyan (and other ME oil) flowing at a price we can afford. It is as simple as that. [George W. Bush never grasped this either, to be fair.]

Obama and Dems are allergic to taking any significant amount of US casualties, or killing civilians, or doing anything that would upset in significant ways the Arab Street, the Arab League, the UN, and the NYT. That's a recipe for defeat. Better to stay out, and tell the US to adopt a poverty-driven lifestyle at oil at $200 a barrel or more.

Now the US is headed in that direction, but first with a humiliating defeat in Libya. Air power cannot stop Khadaffi and his mercenaries, sitting on at least $135 billion in gold at the Bank of Libya in Tripoli [Bob Beckel is truly an idiot, he thinks freezing Libyan bank accounts "fixed" Khadaffi and means he has no money, as a Dem shill he reflects Obama thinking. They really are that stupid (and didn't read the Financial Times well). Every dictator now knows to have gold on hand, as a ready stash that Western institutions cannot freeze or seize short of boots on the ground, which they won't do.]

Khadaffi will send mortar and small arms teams, likely on foot or in small groups, to assault rebel strongholds. Probably co-ordinating as in Afghanistan to draw out limited US air assets to one place, and over-run another. Once in the rubble, all the air power cannot winkle troops out. Khadaffi only needs to hold what he has, and wage a war of attrition against the rebels. Who lack good order, any training, or any semblance of military knowledge. He has veterans of the Congo War, and elsewhere, with real first-hand experience, against none at all. He can buy arms and men for a decade or more. He will certainly blow up the oil fields he does not control, first chance. And continually destroy them whenever they are fixed (the rebels being unable to protect them and hold their territory, and the West being unwilling to put soldiers on the ground).

Khadaffi will also send Mariel boatlift waves to France and Italy. His way of saying thanks. A Camp of the Saints seems pretty close at hand, and neither nation has the will or the means to keep a million or five million Arab Muslims and Africans out of their country. This is entirely predictable.

There are two explanations for Obama's actions, neither flattering. The first is that Obama knows all this, and hates America so much (filled with White people … just like the mother than abandoned him) that he wants to destroy it as much as possible, figuring his position as President and First Rockstar is unassailable. This certainly fits the part of his doctrine that says that the UN, and international community, must OK US action, not Congress. That the Constitution is irrelevant (Candidate and Senator Obama said explicitly that Bush MUST notify Congress immediately on any military action per the War Powers Act).

The other is that Obama is profoundly stupid, and can't figure out that losing a Libyan War when George W. Bush won the Iraq War, means he loses the Presidency. That Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, and Samantha Power, all ganged up on him, and a weak and uncaring and stupid President simply caved and gave them what they wanted. And has been dragged into a war in Libya with no end in sight, no goals, and no way to achieve victory because he was lazy, weak, and stupid.

My own view is that both explanations fit. Certainly Obama is weak, lazy, uncaring, and uninvolved in anything not related to campaigning, Black people (police acted stupidly, etc.) or corrupt Chicago style bargains (GE's taxes). Obama is not very smart, has outsourced ObamaCare to Nancy Pelosi, various other agendas like Cap and Trade, Amnesty, and so on to Harry Reid, and spent most of his time golfing, on vacation, or hobnobbing with big shots. He spent more time on his NCAA brackets than he did explaining to the American people why we needed to bomb Libya. Much less how that would get victory for the US and the ME oil flowing at a price we can afford.

But Obama also hates the United States. When it cost him considerable flack, he refused to wear a flag pin or stand at attention for the National Anthem. Even Hillary Clinton and Bill Richardson did so, at the same event (memorably caught on film and tape). What would it have cost to put his hand on his heart? Nothing. What would it have cost to fund, fully, missile defense, or the F-22 (costing 135,000 jobs), or a robust navy, when Obama cares nothing for deficits and military spending is a traditional, Chicago-way of building political support and alliances (not to mention employment)? Only reflexive dislike of the US and nearly all White military explain that choice.

Obama's hard-left, far-left, radical past, including Muslim upbringing, radical "hate Whitey" politics and alliances (including Louis Farrakhan and Rev. Wright), his hatred of his abandoning White mother, his idolizing of his anti-White, anti-American abandoning father, his embrace of folks like Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, and reflexive identification with enemies of the US (Iran's regime, Syria, Turkey) all point to at least in part, a large desire for Obama to "teach America a lesson" by inflicting a defeat.

Obama is stupid, arrogant, and racially motivated enough to think he can do just that, and get away with it. Defeat will be the military's fault. Or the UN's. Or the Arab League's. Or France's fault. The media will do its worshipful best, the way his high school teachers, and Occidental professors, and Columbia professors, and Harvard Professors, and various White corporate board members, to give him a pass for failure. Accounting him brilliant because he can string two words together without sounding like Bobby Rush or Jessie Jackson (both of whom need translators for average White Americans to understand).

Will Obama get away with it? Yes and no. Certainly the media will not change in their overt worship of him. But even media hype has its limits and backlash. Most men are thoroughly sick of Justin Bieber. All the hype led "Sucker Punch" to a failed, $19 million weekend opening. When, not if, Obama loses in Libya, with bloody chaos, stalemate, oil fields aflame, massacres galore (on both sides), Islamists and AQ on one side, Khadaffi on the other, and mass refugees turning Europe into a Muslim camp overnight, Obama will get the blame from ordinary Americans.

Now, he's not worried about that. Obama clearly plans to fraud his way to re-election, and then find some reason to rule forever, by decree. Eric Holder's dismissal of the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case, and his indignant reply that it was "an insult to my people" to think Whites had voting rights, was part of that. Obama plans massive, Franken-Gregoire style fraud. Coupled with Black Panther voter intimidation and suppression, violent beating of White voters by various Black Bloc/Anti-Fa thugs, SEIU thuggery, and so on, to keep the election close enough to simply "declare" victory (with the help of media biased exit polls and projections). The jihad against Clarence Thomas is to not accept any decision with him on the Supreme Court, and simply claim victory.

Let us consider Obama. Can anyone believe Obama will be what George W. Bush has become, a private citizen, living outside mostly the limelight? Of course not. Obama is not Obama if he is not President. Even should he win a second term, he cannot give it up. Why would he? Wasn't he sent by Allah to be First Rockstar, the International Playboy? Obama is who he is. A man who needs constant adulation, adoration, cheering crowds, celebrity perks, free goodies, and the power of being President and helicoptering and traveling in Air Force One. Obama is simply unable to be an ordinary person again. To be not President would be unthinkable. He'll never relinquish the office. Not ever.

Obama does not care about his approval ratings, or re-election chances. He has no real concerns about winning a second term because he plans to cheat. And stay and stay and stay. Obama is not like any other President. He's the only Black one (and filled with overt and undeniable hatred of Whites, which most Black people share), and the only one raised a Muslim. Obama neither knows nor cares about American traditions, and values. His own doctrine places the UN and international community not the Congress or even President in charge of the US military.

Obama does not care about Libyan defeat because he has no plans to ever give up the office. I supremely hope I am wrong on this account. Nothing would make me happier than eating my own words.
...Read more

The Failure of American Power

Steve Sailer has written on the 20th anniversary of the Highway of Death, and the awesome power of American air power. Which is undeniably potent. But also an undeniable failure, in achieving American national security goals. Obama's war but not war, against Libya and Khadaffi, and removal but not removal, of Khadaffi from power, is only the latest failure (and possibly the largest one yet) of American power in the Middle East. To put it bluntly, every President from Carter onwards has failed, in different ways, in achieving national security goals in the Middle East. They have failed, because they did not appreciate the need for infantry power, and the limits of American Air power, no matter how magnificent that power might be. It is still, limited. And as such, relying upon it has brought nothing but failure to American goals in the Middle East.


First, what are the American goals in the Middle East? FDR said on Feb 16, 1943, "the defense of Saudi Arabia is vital to the defense of the United States." This doctrine was further articulated in the Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon, and Carter Doctrines. The Carter Doctrine stated explicitly that the US would use military force to defend its interests in the Persian Gulf. Now, what might those interests be? Why, the free flow of oil, at prices the US consumer can afford. That is, really, the only interest the US has in the Gulf, and one that goes all the way back to the middle of WWII.

Reagan, and George Herbert Walker Bush, articulated variations of the Carter Doctrine, as did Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush. But the basic outline of the Carter Doctrine has stayed in place. The US would use military force, to shape the outcome of power struggles in the Persian Gulf, to the US national security advantage. Which boils down to the free flow of oil, at prices that at a minimum do not choke off economic activity in the US.

As long as Americans like eating safe, relatively clean, and affordable food, like affordable cooling and heating for their homes, like homes that are affordable and far from crime and violence of the ghetto and barrio, and incomes befitting First World people not Third World slum dwellers, the need to shape Persian Gulf and Middle East politics and power struggles will remain. Oil, and the free flow of it at affordable prices, remain in the US national security interest. You might argue that absent nuclear terrorism or attacks by foreign countries with nuclear weapons, securing the free flow of oil from the Middle East at reasonable prices is the supreme goal of American foreign policy.

There are those who would argue, and have argued, that the best way to secure America's interests is one long apology, followed by withdrawal from the region. That America has "original sin" and only makes things worse, being mostly White, mostly Christian, and thus generates pure hatred. That withdrawing from the Middle East will bring rainbows, unicorns, and rivers of chocolate. And that if it does not work out, well America doesn't need or deserve cheap energy anyway. God must want us punished for being wicked, or something. It is not a serious argument, but one made anyway. As Machiavelli noted about Savonarola, unarmed prophets preaching a new millennium come always to martyrdom and failure.

America was generally lucky, in the years following 1943 to 1979. America had allies, scared out of their wits by the Soviets and their sponsoring of Arab Nationalism, of a secular character. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Morocco, the Persian Gulf States, the Shah of Iran, and later Sadat's Egypt all looked to the US for support against Soviet subversion. This stable set of affairs (for the Middle East anyway) was blown apart by the Iranian Revolution, and direct confrontation in the Persian Gulf over control of its oil. By the Mullahs of Iran, who sought out actively a confrontation with the United States.

Carter of course failed miserably, not the least of which he was constrained by post-Vietnam desire to avoid casualties at all costs. Which led to a disastrous reliance on air power alone. Operation Eagle Claw was only the first in a set of disasters. Ronald Reagan was chased out of Lebanon by Iran and Hezbollah bombing the US Marine Barracks and US Embassy. An overt act of war that caused the Gipper to retreat, in panic. Desultory attempts to use the USS Iowa to shell Lebanese villages with its 18 inch guns had no real effect. In order to either rescue the hostages, or control valuable real estate in the Eastern Mediterranean, the US needed to commit ground troops and accept some considerable measure of casualties. Air power alone, cannot hold ground. It cannot take cities, rescue hostages, or defeat militias. Only troops on the ground can do these things. And inevitably, doing these things cause large amounts even with Western advantages, of casualties. A price no President save George W. Bush has been willing to pay.

This failure only accelerated in the Gulf War. While Sailer correctly notes how devastating the attack on the Highway of Death was, from Saddam's viewpoint he won the Gulf War. He was still in charge of Iraq. Air power failed to dislodge him from power. So he lost a good part of his army? So what? They were replaceable from his point of view. So his people suffered? So what? They existed merely to serve him, from his point of view. His army could be rebuilt. Sanctions endured and then evaded. And the experience of Iraq, and the thirteen years from the end of the Gulf War to the start of the Persian Gulf War, perfectly illuminates the failure of Air Power alone to achieve US objectives.

The US objective in fighting Saddam in the first place was to secure the free flow of oil from the Persian Gulf, at a reasonable price. The flow of oil at a reasonable price being the key to America's economic security. Kicking Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait did not achieve that objective. Saddam could always come back, and this time drive all the way to Yemen, taking Saudi oil fields. Only constant, grinding, combat air patrols over Iraq, kept Saddam on a leash. Not truce agreements, United Nations resolutions, various informal agreements, all of which Saddam signed and soon reneged upon. Bill Clinton had to launch Operation Desert Fox in December 1998 in response to Iraq failing to comply with various UN disarmament resolutions and Saddam kicking out arms inspectors. Of course, constant combat air patrols and periodic bombing campaigns against Saddam required extensive use of Saudi airbases, itself something sensitive and cited often by Osama bin Laden as "justification" for jihadi attacks against the US and certainly US civilians inside America.

Just as important, however, was the manifest failure of US airpower. Osama and other Jihadis studied the results carefully, and as Lawrence Wright wrote in "The Looming Tower: Al Qaeda and the Road to 9/11," argued persuasively that Saddam, not the US, had won the Gulf War. Won it by surviving, and staying in power. That in the opinion of Osama bin Laden, the US was a paper tiger, with no staying power, that could be safely attacked in any form, provided that the attackers were willing and able to shelter, take some acceptable level of casualties, and then advance to their goal once America tired of the effort.

This argument won the day, particularly after the debacle of Somalia, and the fairly impotent US response. The US did not level Mogadishu (which would have been the response of an Arab leader) nor did it kill masses of Somalis. The deadliness of the US defense (about 3,000 estimated Somalis killed in exchange for the roughly 19 Americans killed) did not register. Clinton's fairly impotent cruise missile response to the 1998 African Embassy bombings, and non-response to the assault on the Cole, only increased the view among jihadis, and Muslims world-wide generally, that the US lacked the will and the ability to impose its will upon the Middle East, and that the US and its interests could be safely attacked provided the attacker was willing to take some casualties like Saddam, and hunker down until the US got tired.

For those wondering why the Taliban ever agreed to Osama's plan to attack the US on 9/11, this is why. More importantly, this perception also colors the Iranian response. Iran did try to blockade the Persian Gulf, with its Navy, and mining efforts. Resulting in Operation Preying Mantis, which showed US air power was decisive in destroying targets at sea and in port. Naval warfare is not the same as guerilla warfare on land. Iran has been careful not to repeat the experience, and has put most of its assets into a nuclear ICBM program and paramilitary operations (principally Hezbollah) which operating on land can employ the Saddam strategy: hunker down, take casualties, outlast the Americans as they get tired.

After 9/11, George W. Bush tried a different strategy. US Air power proved decisive in defeating the Taliban in concert with the Northern Alliance and small groups of US Special Forces. US Air power again proved decisive in allowing US ground forces to dominate and destroy the forces of Saddam Hussein. Pre-War predictons of a "battle of Baghdad" rivaling that of Stalingrad or Berlin proved nonsense. US casualties were very light.

But occupying Iraq to achieve the US national security aims: providing the free flow of oil to the world market at a reasonable price, proved far more difficult. Iraq's broken, and tribal society proved a perfect setting for massive bloodletting. America expected US Air and armored warfare dominance to be matched by infantry dominance, and was angered when it was not, with (light by historical standards but) casualties they found simply too high. Bush never explained in any way the interests of the United States in securing Iraq's oil, and territory (against the Iranians and AQ) to further the free flow of oil on reasonable terms to the world and thus US markets. It was a simple proposition. Blood for oil. The point being that only some limited amount of US bloodshed could secure the oil, without which the US economy would grind to a massive halt, with widespread poverty due to sky-high energy prices. And that the territory of Iraq needed to be secured, lest Iran use it against us to disrupt the flow of oil. Iran having a built-in desire to jack up oil prices sky high. [To pay for their thug-security army.]

Bush never made this simple explanation, was appalled at the suggestion of "blood for oil" (well, of course) and behaved like the mainstream, JFK-style liberal the man was and remains. Bush simply stopped explaining or defending his policies, much less challenging critics on how they would secure the free flow of oil from the Persian Gulf at reasonable prices, to secure the US economy and provide growth.

And as casualties mounted, the Taliban and AQ in Afghanistan learned how to cope with US airpower. Mounting time-limited attacks (often no more than fifteen minutes, timing the distance and availability of US aircraft to provide close air support). Using IEDs as equalizers, and using attrition style ambushes aimed at political defeats at home, not decisive victory against the US. Whose ability on the ground also grew, as US forces became better as well in infantry fighting.

Which leads us to Libya. It is in the interest of the US to secure the oil from Libya, to the global markets, as quickly as possible. Unrest in Nigeria, delays in bringing Iraq's oil to market, and unrest in the Persian Gulf have left markets without much spare capacity. Japan will need diesel generators for years on end, to provide power to a significant portion of its population. Driving up oil usage. Libya provides ten percent of the global market, and its oil unlike the Saudis is relatively free of sulfur and other impurities. Making it easier and cheaper to refine.

It is also in the interest of the United States to demonstrate its power to remove a troublesome leader. This is because the Middle East and Persian Gulf in particular, is unstable, and new leaders can quickly arise who are hostile to the US. It is useful to remind such men that the US has powers if it chooses to use them, that can greatly aid in the removal of such men.

It is further in the interest of the United States that Libya not become an embarkation point for mass migration of North Africans and Africans to Europe, nor a Disneyland resort for Al Qaeda and other jihadis, nor Somalia upon the Mediterranean. These are important, and complementary goals of the US. To achieve one, it is required to achieve them all.

At this point, Air Power alone cannot achieve them. Air Power used against Khadaffi three weeks ago might have defeated him, as his regime was reeling, he had many desertions, and he appeared to be on the outs. Now that he has a mercenary army, quickly assembled, and paid by with gold held personally in the Bank of Libya in Tripoli (Khadaffi was not stupid, and observed the seizure of assets in Switzerland and other countries of such leaders as Pinochet, Charles Taylor, and Kabila). Khadaffi has reportedly, enough gold to pay his army for years.

The rebels are a rabble incapable of military order or much of anything. They are untrained, undisciplined, and refuse to listen to anyone with military experience on the need for good order, conservation of ammunition, hygiene, conservation of water, and so on. Even with US air power, about all that can be accomplished is a de facto partition of Libya, with the oil out of the world market for decades, Libya likely turning into a Disneyland for AQ and other jihadis (in Khadaffi's and the rebel's partitions) and Somalia upon the Med. With a cherry upon top of US defeat, yet again, and visible defeat. To embolden America's enemies in the Gulf, intent on interfering with the free flow of oil at a reasonable price.

To achieve US goals, US military forces on the ground, including considerable amounts of infantry and armor, will be required to drive upon Tripoli, and oust Khadaffi. This means casualties, bloodshed, and US pain. It will require money, and a military occupation of Libya that is costly and painful and divisive.

Can it be done? Certainly? Should it be done? On balance, I would argue yes. Obama's stated reasons for bombing Libya, that the UN "responsibility to protect" civilian populations from massacres by their own leaders, is laughable. The Ivory Coast, Liberia, Sudan, Haiti, Nigeria, Rwanda, and East Timor have all either recently experienced this, are experiencing it now, or will likely experience it again in the future. And no one seriously suggests that the UN can order the US military, which cannot refuse the order, to protect these people. Nor does the UN have any role in ordering the US military, at all, either to permit it to do something, or not, or order it to do something. This madness is Obama's one-world anti-Americanism, reflexively at work.

This madness does not mean that the US has no interests in Libya. Quite the contrary. Nor does it mean that the US should shy away from any and all confrontation. Nor does it mean that the US cannot or should not ever engage in military action in pursuit of its national interests. What it does mean, is that it needs to clearly define, in terms every average citizen can understand, what is the national interest. Not abstruse concepts of "Muslims yearn for freedom" or such liberal garbage (something that George W. Bush had in common with JFK, which is why Liberals loathe Bush so much, he is basically a liberal heresy). But rather, the US depends on cheap global oil, which allows us to keep places like Florida and California clean of oil rigs, and the inevitable oil spills, and still have a good quality of life and an economy that functions and grows.

This means, use of military force, basically combined arms of naval forces, infantry, armor, and air power together, to remove regimes that threaten the free flow of oil, at a reasonable price, when the opportunity for success is at hand, being aware that an occupation will be likely more costly and bloody than the overturning of the regime itself.

This is not the end of the world. This is neither invade the world, invite the world (Sailer's catch phrase for Bush's policy) and does not mean intervention in say, the Ivory Coast to put its cocoa production back into the market. It does not even mean intervention to remove regimes hostile to America's goal of free flow of oil at reasonable prices at every turn. It does mean, however, re-running Iraq at some point. Because the US has no partners to off-load fighting to, on the ground. And therefore must do it, itself. Which means casualties and bloodshed and treasure all spent.

Everything costs. Ike was able to rely on scared, and compliant Arab regimes to do the dirty work of ground fighting and policing, without a global Jihad network. The cost of that was a constant, hair-trigger nuclear standoff between the US and the USSR. Which led Ike to pull the plug on the French-UK-Israeli attempt to overthrow Nasser and retake the Suez canal. The US then relied upon the Saudis, and later Egyptians, in what amounted to a swap for the Shah of Iran, to police much of the Middle East.

The ability of these regimes to police the Middle East for us, is now an open question. They remain precarious and unstable, even those that seemed invincible: Khadaffi, Mubarak, and Ben Ali. Machiavelli, Sun Tzu, Miyamoto Musashi, and Clausewitz all advised against outsourcing military campaigns, or even any part of it, to others. The American people will have to be told, and required to choose, if they want to be poor, and live poorer lives, to avoid entanglement in the Middle East, or if they like living in nice houses, driving nice cars, eating nice and affordable food, buying nice and affordable clothes? If the latter, then the price is periodically, the US using combined arms to achieve a fairly quick victory over unstable regimes, and policing the tribal populace afterwards so that oil interests are not interfered with. Understanding that there is no cheap and easy way to set up an occupation and transition to self-rule, without some considerable level of American casualties.

Or the US could abjure such measures, and live substantially poorer lives, even with drilling in the US, and the inevitable spills and oil pollution of the beaches and oceans, and inland waterways, and destruction of fragile habitat. Even with substantial US oil production at home, there simply is not enough oil to make the global market (oil is traded globally, as the critical resource) affordable. There just isn't enough US oil available at prices that can sustain long term economic growth (oil at roughly $50-$60 a barrel at today's prices).

This is a case that an American President or candidate must make to the American people. That there is no free lunch, that there is not something for nothing, that US prosperity rests on cheap oil which means periodically US military personnel fighting and dying in ugly Middle East lands, to remove threats to the free flow of oil at reasonable prices. Not every threat, at every time, but periodically when the US must intervene to keep oil prices down or remove threats that cannot be put off any longer.

Libya, under these circumstances, meets none of these criteria. Obama is sure to create a total disaster in Libya, an ignoble, and stupid American defeat. Khadaffi remaining (which is victory for him), constant fighting, degeneration into Somalia "plus" and an open invitation for AQ and other jihadis to shelter there, with either Khadaffi or the rebels. Obama is unable and unwilling to lead America to victory, which requires boots on the ground, American forces, and a clear explanation of what victory looks like: the oil flowing, a pro-American regime in power. Instead we are likely to get the worst possible outcomes. Obama is an incompetent Affirmative Action President and his people are even less competent than he is, something shocking.

Very disappointing is Hillary, who had an up close view of Clinton's failure to unseat Saddam or gain permanent compliance with US objectives. Rice and Power acted as one could expect, and Biden was, well, he was Joe Biden. A man long believed to be mentally impaired due to a brain aneurism. If he did not have one, there would not be any functional difference.

The only "good" thing to come of this is the experience in France and Britain, of how unreliable American power has become, how unserious, and how exposed they are to regional threats (principally North Africa imploding and sending masses of refugees onto their shores ala Camp of the Saints). If either government, and people, in either country, has a brain or a clue, they will rapidly ditch austerity budgets, and re-arm like crazy, particularly with naval and air forces, to maintain control of the seas around them. There is no reason Britain and France cannot each have six air craft carriers each, for a total of twelve, plus support ships. Construction of which, on an emergency basis, along with fighter planes, and other ancillary aircraft, could put nearly all their unemployed back to work, immediately, and stimulate Eurozone demand. True Keynesian economics at work. America has shouldered far too much of Europe's defense burden, and the Europeans must come out of their post Suez, "America and the Soviet Nuclear Arsenal make us irrelevant" funk. The Europeans have real enemies, intent on really occupying their lands.

True, they are mostly an illiterate, Muslim rabble from North Africa and Africa, but that does not make them any less dangerous. Far easier to build a whacking great Navy and keep them in North Africa than deal with five, ten, twenty million refugees in a tidal wave on their own shores. America's very rapid (Obama is already looking for the exits) process of leaving France and the UK holding the bag, will prove instructive. America is unwilling to use its power, instead believing in Unicorns and Rainbows.

As Mark Steyn noted:

As he told a gathering of high-rolling Democratic donors in Washington last week: "As time passes, you start taking it for granted that a guy named Barack Hussein Obama is president of the United States. But we should never take it for granted. I hope that all of you still feel that sense of excitement and that sense of possibility."

America bet everything on unicorns and rainbows. On the excitement and sense of possibility that a man named Barack Hussein Obama is President of the United States. That having a Black guy with a Muslim name will magically make the world love us. Obama certainly hasn't forgotten. He believes himself to be Jesus, Moses, Mohammed, and Allah all combined. He really does think he walks on water, with unicorns prancing in the background. That he really is a lightworker. That:

Many spiritually advanced people I know (not coweringly religious, mind you, but deeply spiritual) identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment. These kinds of people actually help us evolve. They are philosophers and peacemakers of a very high order, and they speak not just to reason or emotion, but to the soul.

The unusual thing is, true Lightworkers almost never appear on such a brutal, spiritually demeaning stage as national politics. This is why Obama is so rare. And this why he is so often compared to Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr., to those leaders in our culture whose stirring vibrations still resonate throughout our short history.

Largely, this is the sort of person around Obama. Who believes as they did yesterday, that Obama is the racial redeemer and "New and Improved" Jesus come to save the sinful America and restore the world's place on top of the sinful nature of America. This sort of President, who clearly believes in his own worship and hype, is not able in any way of projecting military power in defense of America's interests. Why would he? All he has to be is Mr. Wonderful himself! Nor are his people capable of finding their behinds in the dark with a flashlight and a map.

The complete disappearance of America up, basically, its own asshole, has serious consequences for Europe, which they are now finding out. It will have serious consequences for America too, as most of America will find out once the worship of the media is no longer able to keep the lights on.

The dialog at the end of "Three Days of the Condor" is instructive. America has been living on luck and seed corn, for decades. The argument between Higgins (Cliff Robertson) and Joe Turner (Robert Redford) turns on invasion plans for the Middle East:

Higgins: It's simple economics. Today it's oil, right? In ten or fifteen years, food. Plutonium. Maybe even sooner. Now, what do you think the people are gonna want us to do then?
Joe Turner: Ask them?
Higgins: Not now - then! Ask 'em when they're running out. Ask 'em when there's no heat in their homes and they're cold. Ask 'em when their engines stop. Ask 'em when people who have never known hunger start going hungry. You wanna know something? They won't want us to ask 'em. They'll just want us to get it for 'em!

Obama, and the media, asserted that Obama being so wonderful, a lightworker, and a man with a Muslim name, and Black to boot, would make every Muslim and Muslim nation love us. So that there would be no fighting, no war, no conflict, no sacrifice needed, no bloody call to duty, to keep the lights on, the power running. To keep people who have never known hunger from being hungry. All of that is about to end, and the total Libyan debacle will be part of that.

Eventually, out of pure necessity, America will adopt some form of the Carter Doctrine backed up by infantry forces. As the limits and failure of air power alone to remove regimes and install friendlier ones comes apart with sky high oil prices. Oil is already over $100 a barrel. It will go far higher. Sadly. This alone should prove the failure of American Air power alone to gain our objectives (look at the prices!) but sadly Americans and American elites will require being hit over the head with reality until they are bloody before reality sinks in.
...Read more