Monday, May 2, 2016

The Abortion Slippery Slope Is Real: Time to Abort Ethicists

Killing one's progeny is now so common that it is just another thread in the social fabric, which is a shroud.

Declaring War on Newborns

The authors point out that each of these conditions​—​the baby is sick or suffering, the baby will be a financial hardship, the baby will be personally troublesome​​—​​is now “largely accepted” as a good reason for a mother to abort her baby before he’s born. So why not after?
Yes. People who are personally troublesome should be aborted... at any age. That is the ethic of the totalitarian elitist, the one who is able to decide life/death for others, all for the common good of, well, that doesn't matter: "Common Good" is enough, and it is non-specific, a benefit to any rhetoric.
“When circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.” (Their italics.) Western societies approve abortion because they have reached a consensus that a fetus is not a person; they should acknowledge that by the same definition a newborn isn’t a person either.
And of course we need to tell everyone exactly how "person" should be defined:
Neither fetus nor baby has developed a sufficient sense of his own life to know what it would be like to be deprived of it. The kid will never know the difference, in other words. A newborn baby is just a fetus who’s hung around a bit too long.
And an ethicist is just an arrogant elitist who has "hung around too long". Not a real person; a parasite. What parasite is defined as a person?
As the authors acknowledge, this makes an “after-birth abortion” a tricky business. You have to get to the infant before he develops “those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.” It’s a race against time.

The article doesn’t go on for more than 1,500 words, but for non-ethicists it has a high surprise-per-word ratio. The information that newborn babies aren’t people is just the beginning. A reader learns that “many non-human animals … are persons” and therefore enjoy a “right to life.” (Such ruminative ruminants, unlike babies, are self-aware enough to know that getting killed will entail a “loss of value.”) The authors don’t tell us which species these “non-human persons” belong to, but it’s safe to say that you don’t want to take a medical ethicist to dinner at Outback.

But what about adoption, you ask. The authors ask that question too, noting that some people​—​you and me, for example​—​might think that adoption could buy enough time for the unwanted newborn to technically become a person and “possibly increase the happiness of the people involved.” But this is not a viable option, if you’ll forgive the expression. A mother who kills her newborn baby, the authors report, is forced to “accept the irreversibility of the loss.” By contrast, a mother who gives her baby up for adoption “might suffer psychological distress.” And for a very simple reason: These mothers “often dream that their child will return to them. This makes it difficult to accept the reality of the loss because they can never be quite sure whether or not it is irreversible.” It’s simpler for all concerned just to make sure the loss can’t be reversed. It’ll spare Mom a lot of heartbreak.

Now, it’s at this point in the Journal of Medical Ethics that many readers will begin to suspect, as I did, that their legs are being not very subtly pulled. The inversion that the argument entails is Swiftian​—​a twenty-first-century Modest Proposal without the cannibalism (for now). Jonathan Swift’s original Modest Proposal called for killing Irish children to prevent them “from being a burden to their parents.” It was death by compassion, the killing of innocents based on a surfeit of fellow-feeling. The authors agree that compassion itself demands the death of newborns. Unlike Swift, though, they aren’t kidding.
Because "progress" requires more change away from norms, it will never stop. Every change, such as abortion, becomes a norm, and therefore in order to have progress the culture must change even further from that norm. Constant change evermore toward the darkness is required in order to pursue progress. And that's why darkness is rationalized as "good", and the darkness is redefined as "light".

Saturday, April 30, 2016

Materialism and Meaning

Philosophical Materialists continue to insist that if something exists, then it is material. This includes all mental activities, concepts, abstractions and their meanings. If something exists, then it has characteristics which describe it physically, including the physical laws which it necessarily obeys. So we would need to know some things about, say, "meaning", if we are to describe its material essence, using the tools of voluntarily materialist empirical science.

I need to know what the physical characteristics of "meaning" consist of, so that I can learn to recognize it when I stub my toe on it, or find a sliver of it jammed into the palm of my hand. Fortunately there are features which physical things have in common. Here are a few features that one would expect to be characteristics of a physical "thing", and must surely apply to "meaning":

Molecular structure: is "meaning" a single molecule, like DNA, or is it a molecular composite, like amino acids? Perhaps it is a less complex structure like hexane or even water? Is "meaning" carbon based, or silicon based, sulfur based, or uranium based?

Does "meaning" occur in a stable state? If it is always a compound, what is the state diagram of compound (melt point, vapor point, plasma characteristics)? Having an accurate state diagram would be necessary to distill the liquid "Truth" from vaporous "meaning", so a eutectic point would be necessary to know.

Is "meaning" a gas at 25 degC, or is it a solid? Does it crystallize? Is it an acid? Or a base? Or a precipitate like a salt?

How is a specific "meaning" filtered from the general substance called "meaning"? Is "meaning" conveyed by shape alone? Or is "meaning" found in the different melt points when "meaning" is compounded with "Truth", "Lies", "confusion", etc.? Or is "meaning" to be found in how many chlorine atoms bind to it, vs. how many oxygen and hydrogen atoms?

Perhaps, since "meaning" is a strictly physical entity, the specific "meaning" is found in the mass of the chunk of "meaning" being observed? So there must be a code for different specific meanings which come in different masses. For example, it might look like this:
Various lumps of morals;
chunks of justice;
puddles of Truth;
pots full of consciousness;
tanks full of intellect;
buckets of conscience.
Perhaps "meaning" is marketable by weight? "Deep meaning" naturally would be too expensive for the common man?

It likely is able to be mined, probably like diamonds? If this is the case, then there would be some nations more wealthy in "meaning" than other nations, and "meaning" would be a valuable national resource. There would be trading for "meaning" on the commodities markets, and possibly black markets would arise for stolen "meaning".

I need the answers to these issues, before I can accept with confidence that the physical existence of "meaning" is an objective fact.

Now it is possible that "meaning" does not even exist at all. That has many ramifications for knowledge and science which I won't go into here. But perhaps "meaning" is purely imaginary? Then all we have to do is to break open the great balls of imagination lying around to look inside for "meaning". It might take special micrography.

Perhaps "meaning" exists only when we manufacture it from its sub-elements and components. Then there must be a material list which exists that references these components and where they are to be obtained and at what price. Every person would have to manufacture his own "meaning", unless he purchases a bag full, or a case-lot of "meaning" from a "meaning" vendor.

And in fact, many Atheists such as Dawkins do make the claim that "meaning" doesn't exist in the universe, so we have to manufacture our own. Yet others such as Sagan claim there is meaning in observing the universe, which apparently does in fact contain "meaning". So maybe "meaning" is just a waveform in a specific field from which "meaning" and "anti-meaning" sometimes pop up, then cancel each other out unless they are on an event horizon, and some "meaning" escapes?

I'm certain that the materialists here can fill in the specific empirical facts regarding the physics of "meaning". I'm anxiously awaiting that. I could use a kilo of "meaning". I'll bury it out back for emergencies such as presidential elections and other Leftist riots.

Thursday, April 28, 2016

Government Funded Abortion

AmeriCorps or AmeriCorpse? Abortion Scandal Stuns Hill

Volunteers or political operatives? That's what most people are asking after an investigation blew the lid off of a shocking new scandal involving the AmeriCorps program. The "public service" arm of the federal government, created by Bill Clinton in 1993, did a tremendous disservice to taxpayers, an inspector general has found, by teaming up with the National Association of Community Health Centers (NACHC) to encourage -- and in some cases facilitate -- abortions. On Capitol Hill, the news of these "abortion doulas" stunned conservative members, who have long seen Community Health Centers as an ethical alternative to funding Planned Parenthood.

Over the past 48 hours, those opinions have radically changed, as congressmen and women demand answers for two years of illegal abortion advocacy. According to the inspector general, the NACHC authorized at least six AmeriCorps volunteers to transport women to abortion centers and offer "emotional support" -- breaking a series of federal laws in the process. As if that weren't outrageous enough, the report also found that senior staffers were covering up several instances of "waste, fraud, and abuse."

This isn't the first time AmeriCorps has been caught offering support to the abortion industry. In 2011, the group's workers were discovered at Planned Parenthood centers, serving out nine-month terms as "volunteers." Elsewhere, the group has been called onto the carpet for "mimicking the work of lobbyists and political organizers for agenda-driven community organizations." That should have led the Republican controlled Congress to zero out their budget, but that was not the case. In fact, in December under the massive omnibus spending bill, Republicans gave AmeriCorps a big bump in funding -- $50.6 million. If the inspector general's findings are confirmed, Congress should take action immediately, especially since more than one federal law "expressly prohibits the use of AmeriCorps resources to 'provid[e] abortion services or referrals for receipt of such services."

Representative Tom Cole (R-Okla.), who controls the purse for Congress's health care spending bills, said he was "outraged" by what he called "the terrible misuse of taxpayer dollars." "Abortion-related procedures should never be funded by taxpayers," he argued. "Given these disturbing developments, I believe this grantee should be immediately terminated from the HealthCorps program." Energy and Commerce Chairs Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Joe Pitts (R-Pa.) were just as incensed over such a brazen act of defiance. "Federal law demands that taxpayer dollars are never to be spent on abortion activities. Not one penny. Period... The law was violated and this shameful failure of trust will not be tolerated."

The betrayal hits particularly close to home for leaders like Rep. Diane Black (R-Tenn.), who have long championed the good word of these local centers and assumed they would be a natural replacement for the funding Cecile Richards's group enjoyed. "I have long highlighted the work of our nation's community health centers as an alternative to the big-abortion business of Planned Parenthood and its related groups," Black said. "NACHC didn't just break the rules, they broke trust with the American people. My constituents expect that federal funding given to our community health centers will be used to protect and enhance people's lives, not to be a willing partner in their destruction... [T]he Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) should reevaluate NACHC's eligibility for HealthCorps grant funding. Our laws protecting the unborn today are tragically minimal, but they must mean something and when they are not followed, consequences must be enforced."

For the more than 9,000 centers around the U.S., the consequences could be dire. In 2014 alone, they were given more than $3.7 billion taxpayer dollars. In an age of unprecedented top-to-bottom lawlessness, it's no wonder that the Obama administration continues to advance its radical abortion agenda on the backs of taxpayers.

The Left's War on Women

How the state of the economy is literally killing people

Economic distress is so widespread that for the first time ever, life expectancy for white women in the United States actually dropped. Despite progress against cancer and heart disease, lives are being cut short by hopelessness.

It’s a national health emergency. Suicide kills more middle-agers than flu, pneumonia and diabetes combined — often after dashed expectations, abandonment by a spouse and loss of self-worth. Then a bullet to the head or a noose (for men), or a deliberate drug overdose (for women) ends the pain.

These tragedies should awaken this nation to the real issue in the coming presidential election. It’s not inequality, despite Bernie Sanders’ rantings. It’s lack of growth and the Democratic Party’s refusal to make growth a priority.

People don’t kill themselves because their neighbor has more money. They take their life when they can see no way to get a job, support their family and regain self-worth.

The Congressional Budget Office predicts that with current policies in effect, growth will lumber along at less than 3 percent — too little to stop the suicides.

Caitlyn Takes His Penis In the Ladies Room

Caitlyn Jenner Uses Ladies' Room at Trump Tower, Tells Cruz "Nobody Got Molested"
Oh that Caitlyn - he's such a jerk.

My Favorite Photo

Taken at the 2015 "People's Climate Rally" in Oakland, CA:


The Left provides ample opportunity to demonstrate the First Principle of Non-contradiction being violated. This photo is a prime example, the Animal Liberation dude with his fully bound-up animal straining at his bindings.

Clinton, Perez, and the Death of The First Amendment

You Need to Know About Tom Perez: Likely Hillary VP Opposes First Amendment
When President Hillary finally coughs up her vagina and is replaced in the presidency by Veep Thomas Perez, the possibility of "hate speech" being deemed prosecutable is likely, starting in the form of prosecuting critics of Islam. After all, the Department of Justice and its Civil Rights section are already exclusively Leftist. When the DOJ persecutes, like the IRS and other bureaus, Congress whines but does nothing including not sequestering funding. The US Constitution no longer has any bearing on how government works.

Read it all, THERE.

Wednesday, April 27, 2016

"We will no longer surrender this country, or its people, to the false song of globalism." Trump's Foreign Policy

Donald J. Trump Foreign Policy Speech

- April 27, 2016 -

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you, and thank you to the Center for the National Interest for honoring me with this invitation.

I would like to talk today about how to develop a new foreign policy direction for our country – one that replaces randomness with purpose, ideology with strategy, and chaos with peace.

It is time to shake the rust off of America’s foreign policy. It's time to invite new voices and new visions into the fold.

The direction I will outline today will also return us to a timeless principle. My foreign policy will always put the interests of the American people, and American security, above all else. That will be the foundation of every decision that I will make.

America First will be the major and overriding theme of my administration.

But to chart our path forward, we must first briefly look back.

We have a lot to be proud of. In the 1940s we saved the world. The Greatest Generation beat back the Nazis and the Japanese Imperialists.

Then we saved the world again, this time from totalitarian Communism. The Cold War lasted for decades, but we won.

Democrats and Republicans working together got Mr. Gorbachev to heed the words of President Reagan when he said: “tear down this wall.”

History will not forget what we did.

Unfortunately, after the Cold War, our foreign policy veered badly off course. We failed to develop a new vision for a new time. In fact, as time went on, our foreign policy began to make less and less sense.

Logic was replaced with foolishness and arrogance, and this led to one foreign policy disaster after another.

We went from mistakes in Iraq to Egypt to Libya, to President Obama’s line in the sand in Syria. Each of these actions have helped to throw the region into chaos, and gave ISIS the space it needs to grow and prosper.

It all began with the dangerous idea that we could make Western democracies out of countries that had no experience or interest in becoming a Western Democracy.

We tore up what institutions they had and then were surprised at what we unleashed. Civil war, religious fanaticism; thousands of American lives, and many trillions of dollars, were lost as a result. The vacuum was created that ISIS would fill. Iran, too, would rush in and fill the void, much to their unjust enrichment.

Our foreign policy is a complete and total disaster.

No vision, no purpose, no direction, no strategy.

Today, I want to identify five main weaknesses in our foreign policy.

First, Our Resources Are Overextended

President Obama has weakened our military by weakening our economy. He’s crippled us with wasteful spending, massive debt, low growth, a huge trade deficit and open borders.

Our manufacturing trade deficit with the world is now approaching $1 trillion a year. We’re rebuilding other countries while weakening our own.

Ending the theft of American jobs will give us the resources we need to rebuild our military and regain our financial independence and strength.

I am the only person running for the Presidency who understands this problem and knows how to fix it.

Secondly, our allies are not paying their fair share.

Our allies must contribute toward the financial, political and human costs of our tremendous security burden. But many of them are simply not doing so. They look at the United States as weak and forgiving and feel no obligation to honor their agreements with us.

In NATO, for instance, only 4 of 28 other member countries, besides America, are spending the minimum required 2% of GDP on defense.

We have spent trillions of dollars over time – on planes, missiles, ships, equipment – building up our military to provide a strong defense for Europe and Asia. The countries we are defending must pay for the cost of this defense – and, if not, the U.S. must be prepared to let these countries defend themselves.

The whole world will be safer if our allies do their part to support our common defense and security.

A Trump Administration will lead a free world that is properly armed and funded.

Thirdly, our friends are beginning to think they can’t depend on us.

We’ve had a president who dislikes our friends and bows to our enemies.

He negotiated a disastrous deal with Iran, and then we watched them ignore its terms, even before the ink was dry.

Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon and, under a Trump Administration, will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.

All of this without even mentioning the humiliation of the United States with Iran’s treatment of our ten captured sailors.

In negotiation, you must be willing to walk. The Iran deal, like so many of our worst agreements, is the result of not being willing to leave the table. When the other side knows you’re not going to walk, it becomes absolutely impossible to win.

At the same time, your friends need to know that you will stick by the agreements that you have with them.

President Obama gutted our missile defense program, then abandoned our missile defense plans with Poland and the Czech Republic.

He supported the ouster of a friendly regime in Egypt that had a longstanding peace treaty with Israel – and then helped bring the Muslim Brotherhood to power in its place.

Israel, our great friend and the one true Democracy in the Middle East, has been snubbed and criticized by an Administration that lacks moral clarity. Just a few days ago, Vice President Biden again criticized Israel – a force for justice and peace – for acting as an impediment to peace in the region.

President Obama has not been a friend to Israel. He has treated Iran with tender love and care and made it a great power in the Middle East – all at the expense of Israel, our other allies in the region and, critically, the United States.

We’ve picked fights with our oldest friends, and now they’re starting to look elsewhere for help.

Fourth, our rivals no longer respect us.

In fact, they are just as confused as our allies, but an even bigger problem is that they don’t take us seriously any more.

When President Obama landed in Cuba on Air Force One, no leader was there to meet or greet him – perhaps an incident without precedent in the long and prestigious history of Air Force One.

Then, amazingly, the same thing happened in Saudi Arabia -- it's called no respect.

Do you remember when the President made a long and expensive trip to Copenhagen, Denmark to get the Olympics for our country, and, after this unprecedented effort, it was announced that the United States came in fourth place?

He should have known the result before making such an embarrassing commitment.

The list of humiliations goes on and on.

President Obama watches helplessly as North Korea increases its aggression and expands even further with its nuclear reach.

Our president has allowed China to continue its economic assault on American jobs and wealth, refusing to enforce trade rules – or apply the leverage on China necessary to rein in North Korea.

He has even allowed China to steal government secrets with cyber attacks and engage in industrial espionage against the United States and its companies.

We’ve let our rivals and challengers think they can get away with anything.

If President Obama’s goal had been to weaken America, he could not have done a better job.

Finally, America no longer has a clear understanding of our foreign policy goals.

Since the end of the Cold War and the break-up of the Soviet Union, we’ve lacked a coherent foreign policy.

One day we’re bombing Libya and getting rid of a dictator to foster democracy for civilians, the next day we are watching the same civilians suffer while that country falls apart.

We're a humanitarian nation. But the legacy of the Obama-Clinton interventions will be weakness, confusion, and disarray.

We have made the Middle East more unstable and chaotic than ever before.

We left Christians subject to intense persecution and even genocide.

Our actions in Iraq, Libya and Syria have helped unleash ISIS.

And we’re in a war against radical Islam, but President Obama won’t even name the enemy!

Hillary Clinton also refuses to say the words “radical Islam,” even as she pushes for a massive increase in refugees.

After Secretary Clinton’s failed intervention in Libya, Islamic terrorists in Benghazi took down our consulate and killed our ambassador and three brave Americans. Then, instead of taking charge that night, Hillary Clinton decided to go home and sleep! Incredible.

Clinton blames it all on a video, an excuse that was a total lie. Our Ambassador was murdered and our Secretary of State misled the nation – and by the way, she was not awake to take that call at 3 o'clock in the morning.

And now ISIS is making millions of dollars a week selling Libyan oil.

This will change when I am president.

To all our friends and allies, I say America is going to be strong again. America is going to be a reliable friend and ally again.

We’re going to finally have a coherent foreign policy based upon American interests, and the shared interests of our allies.

We are getting out of the nation-building business, and instead focusing on creating stability in the world.

Our moments of greatest strength came when politics ended at the water’s edge.

We need a new, rational American foreign policy, informed by the best minds and supported by both parties, as well as by our close allies.

This is how we won the Cold War, and it’s how we will win our new and future struggles.

First, we need a long-term plan to halt the spread and reach of radical Islam.

Containing the spread of radical Islam must be a major foreign policy goal of the United States.

Events may require the use of military force. But it’s also a philosophical struggle, like our long struggle in the Cold War.

In this we’re going to be working very closely with our allies in the Muslim world, all of which are at risk from radical Islamic violence.

We should work together with any nation in the region that is threatened by the rise of radical Islam. But this has to be a two-way street – they must also be good to us and remember us and all we are doing for them.

The struggle against radical Islam also takes place in our homeland. There are scores of recent migrants inside our borders charged with terrorism. For every case known to the public, there are dozens more.

We must stop importing extremism through senseless immigration policies.

A pause for reassessment will help us to prevent the next San Bernardino or worse -- all you have to do is look at the World Trade Center and September 11th.

And then there’s ISIS. I have a simple message for them. Their days are numbered. I won’t tell them where and I won’t tell them how. We must as, a nation, be more unpredictable. But they’re going to be gone. And soon.

Secondly, we have to rebuild our military and our economy.

The Russians and Chinese have rapidly expanded their military capability, but look what’s happened to us!

Our nuclear weapons arsenal – our ultimate deterrent – has been allowed to atrophy and is desperately in need of modernization and renewal.

Our active duty armed forces have shrunk from 2 million in 1991 to about 1.3 million today.

The Navy has shrunk from over 500 ships to 272 ships during that time.

The Air Force is about 1/3 smaller than 1991. Pilots are flying B-52s in combat missions today which are older than most people in this room.

And what are we doing about this? President Obama has proposed a 2017 defense budget that, in real dollars, cuts nearly 25% from what we were spending in 2011.

Our military is depleted, and we’re asking our generals and military leaders to worry about global warming.

We will spend what we need to rebuild our military. It is the cheapest investment we can make. We will develop, build and purchase the best equipment known to mankind. Our military dominance must be unquestioned.

But we will look for savings and spend our money wisely. In this time of mounting debt, not one dollar can be wasted.

We are also going to have to change our trade, immigration and economic policies to make our economy strong again – and to put Americans first again. This will ensure that our own workers, right here in America, get the jobs and higher pay that will grow our tax revenue and increase our economic might as a nation.

We need to think smarter about areas where our technological superiority gives us an edge. This includes 3-D printing, artificial intelligence and cyberwarfare.

A great country also takes care of its warriors. Our commitment to them is absolute. A Trump Administration will give our service men and women the best equipment and support in the world when they serve, and the best care in the world when they return as veterans to civilian life.

Finally, we must develop a foreign policy based on American interests.

Businesses do not succeed when they lose sight of their core interests and neither do countries.

Look at what happened in the 1990s. Our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were attacked and seventeen brave sailors were killed on the USS Cole. And what did we do? It seemed we put more effort into adding China to the World Trade Organization – which has been a disaster for the United States – than into stopping Al Qaeda.

We even had an opportunity to take out Osama Bin Laden, and didn’t do it. And then, we got hit at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the worst attack on our country in its history.

Our foreign policy goals must be based on America’s core national security interests, and the following will be my priorities.

In the Middle East, our goals must be to defeat terrorists and promote regional stability, not radical change. We need to be clear-sighted about the groups that will never be anything other than enemies.

And we must only be generous to those that prove they are our friends.

We desire to live peacefully and in friendship with Russia and China. We have serious differences with these two nations, and must regard them with open eyes. But we are not bound to be adversaries. We should seek common ground based on shared interests. Russia, for instance, has also seen the horror of Islamic terrorism.

I believe an easing of tensions and improved relations with Russia – from a position of strength – is possible. Common sense says this cycle of hostility must end. Some say the Russians won’t be reasonable. I intend to find out. If we can’t make a good deal for America, then we will quickly walk from the table.

Fixing our relations with China is another important step towards a prosperous century. China respects strength, and by letting them take advantage of us economically, we have lost all of their respect. We have a massive trade deficit with China, a deficit we must find a way, quickly, to balance.

A strong and smart America is an America that will find a better friend in China. We can both benefit or we can both go our separate ways.

After I am elected President, I will also call for a summit with our NATO allies, and a separate summit with our Asian allies. In these summits, we will not only discuss a rebalancing of financial commitments, but take a fresh look at how we can adopt new strategies for tackling our common challenges.

For instance, we will discuss how we can upgrade NATO’s outdated mission and structure – grown out of the Cold War – to confront our shared challenges, including migration and Islamic terrorism.

I will not hesitate to deploy military force when there is no alternative. But if America fights, it must fight to win. I will never send our finest into battle unless necessary – and will only do so if we have a plan for victory.

Our goal is peace and prosperity, not war and destruction.

The best way to achieve those goals is through a disciplined, deliberate and consistent foreign policy.

With President Obama and Secretary Clinton we’ve had the exact opposite: a reckless, rudderless and aimless foreign policy – one that has blazed a path of destruction in its wake.

After losing thousands of lives and spending trillions of dollars, we are in far worse shape now in the Middle East than ever before.

I challenge anyone to explain the strategic foreign policy vision of Obama-Clinton – it has been a complete and total disaster.

I will also be prepared to deploy America’s economic resources. Financial leverage and sanctions can be very persuasive – but we need to use them selectively and with determination. Our power will be used if others do not play by the rules.

Our friends and enemies must know that if I draw a line in the sand, I will enforce it.

However, unlike other candidates for the presidency, war and aggression will not be my first instinct. You cannot have a foreign policy without diplomacy. A superpower understands that caution and restraint are signs of strength.

Although not in government service, I was totally against the War in Iraq, saying for many years that it would destabilize the Middle East. Sadly, I was correct, and the biggest beneficiary was Iran, who is systematically taking over Iraq and gaining access to their rich oil reserves – something it has wanted to do for decades. And now, to top it all off, we have ISIS.

My goal is to establish a foreign policy that will endure for several generations.

That is why I will also look for talented experts with new approaches, and practical ideas, rather than surrounding myself with those who have perfect resumes but very little to brag about except responsibility for a long history of failed policies and continued losses at war.

Finally, I will work with our allies to reinvigorate Western values and institutions. Instead of trying to spread “universal values” that not everyone shares, we should understand that strengthening and promoting Western civilization and its accomplishments will do more to inspire positive reforms around the world than military interventions.

These are my goals, as president.

I will seek a foreign policy that all Americans, whatever their party, can support, and which our friends and allies will respect and welcome.

The world must know that we do not go abroad in search of enemies, that we are always happy when old enemies become friends, and when old friends become allies.

To achieve these goals, Americans must have confidence in their country and its leadership again.

Many Americans must wonder why our politicians seem more interested in defending the borders of foreign countries than their own.

Americans must know that we are putting the American people first again. On trade, on immigration, on foreign policy – the jobs, incomes and security of the American worker will always be my first priority.

No country has ever prospered that failed to put its own interests first. Both our friends and enemies put their countries above ours and we, while being fair to them, must do the same.

We will no longer surrender this country, or its people, to the false song of globalism.

The nation-state remains the true foundation for happiness and harmony. I am skeptical of international unions that tie us up and bring America down, and will never enter America into any agreement that reduces our ability to control our own affairs.

NAFTA, as an example, has been a total disaster for the U.S. and has emptied our states of our manufacturing and our jobs. Never again. Only the reverse will happen. We will keep our jobs and bring in new ones. Their will be consequences for companies that leave the U.S. only to exploit it later.

Under a Trump Administration, no American citizen will ever again feel that their needs come second to the citizens of foreign countries.

I will view the world through the clear lens of American interests.

I will be America’s greatest defender and most loyal champion. We will not apologize for becoming successful again, but will instead embrace the unique heritage that makes us who we are.

The world is most peaceful, and most prosperous, when America is strongest.

America will continually play the role of peacemaker.

We will always help to save lives and, indeed, humanity itself. But to play that role, we must make America strong again.

We must make America respected again. And we must make America great again.

If we do that, perhaps this century can be the most peaceful and prosperous the world has ever known. Thank you.

Where There Is No Truth...

...there is no "true" promise; no "true" character; no possible trust; every reason to distrust and reject those for whom lies are as true as anything else.
Obama administration fails to screen Syrian refugees’ social media accounts [Despite Promises To Do So].
Keeping to the narrative is far more important than any commitment to anyone, including your countrymen and their safety. If the narrative demands 10,000, then all tactics to achieve that must be used (Alinsky: the only bad tactic is the one unused). The entire Obama administration is treasonous.
The Obama administration isn’t vetting the social media profiles of all Syrian refugees despite promises made last year after the San Bernardino terrorist attack, which exposed holes in the U.S. immigration screening process.

Concerns over refugee screening spurred Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback, a Republican, on Tuesday to cancel his state’s cooperation with federal authorities trying to resettle Syrians.

It was another blow to the administration’s attempts to reach President Obama’s goal of accepting 10,000 Syrians this fiscal year.

With a little more than five months left in the fiscal year, the government is 8,370 refugees short of its goal. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill say they fear the administration will reduce screening even more to speed up the process. To meet the president’s target, immigration officials would have to approve about 75 applications every workday for the rest of the fiscal year — nearly seven times the average so far.

"What is far more important than the arbitrary number of 10,000 is whether these refugees can be properly screened. If the answer is no, which is obviously the case given testimony by the FBI director and homeland security secretary, then we should not let a single one into the country," said Rep. Vern Buchanan, Florida Republican. (Associated Press)

Mr. Buchanan is sponsoring legislation that would force the Homeland Security Department to review social media accounts of anyone seeking entry to the U.S.

His bill has the backing of Rep. Devin Nunes, California Republican and chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and Rep. Michael T. McCaul, Texas Republican and chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee.

[Emphasis added]

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

Tolerance Of Absolutely Everything, Except Dissent

UnAmerican ESPN


What a joy it must be to be a leftist knucklehead. There's your opinion — and then there's hate. There's free speech for all — except those who disagree with you. There's tolerance for everyone — except the opposition. There's every kind of diversity — except diversity of thought.

It's a terrific system. You never have to prove your point, you only have to bask in the glow of your own unassailable virtue. You never have to explain how it is that, after decades of pure left-wing governance, Detroit is in ruins and Chicago is following after. You never have to try to understand why, after living under your wonderful non-racist left-wing policies, black people are deserting your cities in droves. You never have to confront the fact that after years of Feminism Triumphant, women are killing themselves in record numbers. Every time reality proves you wrong, all you have to do is point your finger at a conservative and make that noise Donald Sutherland makes at the end of Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Then you all congratulate each other on a job well done and go back to laying ruin to the world.

Melissa Click: Never EVER Admit Culpability; Always Be A Victim

Melissa Click, former University of Missouri professor: I was fired because I’m white


Melissa Click, the former University of Missouri assistant professor who was fired after she tried to block a student journalist from covering a campus protest, suggested in a recent interview that her public termination was a matter of “racial politics.”

“This is all about racial politics,” she told The Chronicle of Higher Education in an interview published Sunday. “I’m a white lady. I’m an easy target.”

Ms. Click said Missouri’s Board of Curators fired her to send a message that the university and the state wouldn’t tolerate “black people standing up to white people,” the Chronicle reported. Ms. Click didn’t elaborate on how that would explain the termination of a white woman.

The Chronicle reported that Ms. Click’s “nerves are perpetually on edge” since her firing in February, “when she began moving out of her office in the dark so she wouldn’t run into anyone.”

She was suspended and eventually fired by the university after a now-viral video showed her trying to grab a camera from student Mark Schierbecker and calling for “some muscle” to remove him from an encampment of black student protesters. An assault charge against Ms. Click was dropped when she agreed to perform 20 hours of community service.
So. Whites are the target of institutional racism?? Who knew?

And this observation: Click might be white, cis-gendered female, but she's no lady.

Quote of the Day

"We should insist that if the immigrant who comes here does in good faith become an American and assimilates himself to us he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed or birth-place or origin.

But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American and nothing but an American. If he tries to keep segregated with men of his own origin and separated from the rest of America, then he isn't doing his part as an American.

There can be no divided allegiance here. We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, of American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding-house; and we have room for but one soul [sic] loyalty, and that is loyalty to the American people."

[...]

"Americanism means the virtues of courage, honor, justice, truth, sincerity, and hardihood, the virtues that made America. The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living and the get-rich-quick theory of life."

Theodore Roosevelt

Camille Paglia On Sexual Identity

PAGLIA: Working class culture retains an idea of the masculine. There’s absolutely no doubt about that. But, with that, comes static. So you have to have strong women in order to deal with masculine men.

That is why masculinity is constantly being eroded, diminished, and dissolved on university campuses because it allows women to be weak. If you have weak men, then you can have weak women. That’s what we have. Our university system, anything that is remotely masculine is identified as toxic, as intrinsic to rape culture. A utopian future is imagined where there are no men. We’re all genderless mannequins.

The movie The Time Machine is like one. We’re moving toward that, the Eloi. That’s how I see the upper middle class graduates of the Ivy League. They’re the Eloi.

Monday, April 25, 2016

Muslim Immigrants in Germany: Country Must Assimilate Into Them

Political Correctness makes many bad assumptions. One of the worst has been that all people agree with the politically correct principles and that Muslims, for example, actually want to be German, in the sense of changing into good German beliefs and behaviors. But Islam, when taken as the Prophet directed, is pure mind poison.
VIDEO=> Muslim Migrants in Germany Chant “Adolf Hitler” and Allahu Akbar”

Angela Merkel welcomed one million third world migrants to Germany in 2015.
Germany is expecting another million this year.

Muslims in Germany held a protest recently.

The video was posted on April 9, 2016.

The migrants were chanting “Adolf Hitler” and “Allahu Akbar” as they waved the Palestinian flag.

They ought to make great citizens.