Why Nationalism Trumps Conservatism

The conservative critique of Donald Trump is that he is not a conservative.  This tautology begs the question of why it is necessary to be a conservative to secure the Republican nomination and the Presidency.  Americans care little for ideology but care a great deal about putting the interests of all Americans first, so conservatism isn't a winning electoral strategy.  The people are looking for a system to ensure that they are provided a level playing field and the opportunity to better their lives.  The unexpected popularity of Trump and Sanders suggests that Americans think that neither conservatism nor liberalism achieves those ends.  In theory, both philosophies claim to do so, but in practice, not so much.  When a nationalist candidate comes along and tells Americans they are getting a raw deal from their government; it resonates, and for the socialist as well.

Both parties talk to a tough line about helping the average American, but the selective application of their principles results in benefits redounding to special interests which destroys trust in the system.  For example, Republicans had the opportunity, with big majorities under George W. Bush and a reasonable excuse, the war on terror, to put an end to illegal immigration.  Illegal immigration puts downward pressure on the salaries of the lower middle class.  Later, when Obama, supposedly the champion of these same folks, made the problem worse; conservatives beat their chests but did nothing practical to stop his extra-legal executive orders.  There could have been hard-nosed negotiations that put money for extending a wall or other effective measures to deter illegal immigration, but the conservative party just resigned itself to defeat.  Meanwhile, abuse of the H1B visa program by employers such as Disney and big tech firms goes uninvestigated.  Employees, that is average Americans, lack the ability to easily move between jobs, which is well documented.  Allowing foreigners to compete for jobs inside this country, either because of illegal immigration or visa abuse is an unfair tilt of power to employers; but the conservative party cares not.

Meanwhile, Republicans seem willing to push for policies that help large corporations and Wall Street while claiming to do so in the name of the free market.  But we end up with a battle to end just one egregious program, the Export-Import Bank, which many Republicans fought with a zeal we wanted applied in opposition to Obama's illegal amnesty programs.  Further, conservatism has resulted in budgets that just continue the status quo, because it suits the big money backers of the GOP just fine.  Name a single program killed by the GOP when they held legislative majority over the last 30 years?  They are happy to talk a good game and collect rents from big business.

On the left, the ACA (Obamacare) was purportedly intended to help the uninsured.  It's only real effect has been to provide a few new customers to insurance companies and the pharmaceutical industries, who effectively wrote much of the legislation.  80% of those who were uninsured prior to the ACA's passage remain uninsured; 20% is usually a failing grade on any scale.  It is so bad, that Bernie Sanders can truthfully run a campaign to end the problem of the uninsured.  A second example: The financial crisis of 2008 swept the Democrats into power in D.C. In response, they passed the Dodd-Frank so called financial reform measure.  Rather than addressing the problems causing the crisis, they essentially promise to bail out big financial institutions by enshrining the "too big to fail" doctrine into law.  The bad lending and the perverse incentives will continue to enrich the banking class, while the liberals claim to be fighting Wall Street for the common man.

But enough of the failures of liberalism as practiced by the modern day Democratic party.  The second reason that nationalism wins is identity.  When I am at work, out shopping or watching a football game; I think of myself as an American, a Christian, and a San Diegan.  (Californian? Not so much anymore.)  My identity as an American is much stronger than my merely political identity as a conservative, and I am a very political person.  For the average voter, the national identity is even more dominant.  Identity trumps ideology, always.  I am an American long before I think about being a conservative or Republican.  Further, nationalism serves as a glue that binds us together across classes.  The overlooked story of the last two decades is the extent to which American elites no longer see themselves as Americans per se, but as part of a global elite.  Zuckerberg of Facebook is seen in Germany undermining nationalism there, by suppressing anti-immigrant sentiment.     The average person sees this and sees a political system where the establishment of both parties is in league with internationalists to the detriment of their own interests.  How else to combat the tilted playing field than to embrace that our identity as Americans and the candidate who most explicitly makes the case to work for our interests, not the interests of the elite and not the interests of the poor and oppressed around the globe.   Conservatism is the answer to a situation of low trust across our society; Nationalism is a glue to engender greater trust.

The other reason for nationalism is that we are again at war with a global ideology.  Communism, fascism and Radical Islamism (by which I mean the current Wahabbist strain of Islam) were and are ideologies intent on remaking the world.  Fascism wasn't defeated by democracy, but by nations acting in their own self-interest; intending to maintain their own identities.  Ditto for communism.  The Soviet Empire crumbled from within because its constituent nations successfully achieved autonomy for their own peoples.  That autonomy didn't usually take the form of democracy, but powerfully destroyed a communist empire nevertheless. Right now, Radical Islamism is attractive because the boundaries of the Middle East have not been drawn to align tribes and peoples into true nations.  Nationalism will be needed to eventually defeat this form of Islam and allow Islam to recede to a  religion and shed its identity as a political movement.  Ultimately, we need nationalism to secure the peace, with each tribe to its own country, secure within its own borders.


P.S. Just after I published this, I saw a link to a John Derbyshire article on the meaning of nationalism that highlights and amplifies some of what I have said; alas more eloquently.

Unlimited Immigration is the Enemy of Freedom and Prosperity

The most recent winner of the Nobel Prize for Economics is Angus Deaton, a British-American Princeton economist known for his focus on data to explain sources of economic growth.  In his book, The Great Escape, he attempts to explain why some nations escaped the grinding poverty that has been the condition of most of mankind since the dawn of history.  In my opinion, part of the trick is asking the question properly, not "Why are so many nations so poor?" but "What sets the rich nations apart that they escaped poverty?"  In The Great Escape he summarizes the answer:

Perhaps the best answer is that poor countries lack the institutions—government capacity, a functioning legal and tax system, security of property rights, and traditions of trust—that are a necessary background for growth to take place.

Ronald Bailey notes in his review that this explanation, while well supported by the facts, doesn't explain why some countries have these institutions; just that they are important.  I believe that the European culture which combined both Greek and Christian tradition provided the societal stability and freedom of inquiry to produce a stable society that valued the innovation adequately to reap its benefits.  Whether or not I am correct, we can still look at the world and see which countries have adopted or are adopting similar cultural values to ours which allowed us to escape poverty.

This matters to the immigration and refugee questions.  As a nation, it is our right to ask for and the duty of our leaders to implement policies that benefit the citizens of our nation.  Unrestricted immigration from countries that don't share our values undermines our prosperity.  When I look at the so-called "Syrian" refugee crisis; I see two key sets of facts.  First, the refugees seem to be neither Syrian nor refugees, in large part.  Second, even when legitimate, they come from a society that doesn't share our values.  Contra Obama, there are no shared universal values.  If there were, there would be democracies all over the Arab world.

With regards to immigration from Latin America; the main sources of migrants continue to be from countries with little respect for the rule of law.  It is not coincidental, that as Mexico has improved its internal governance through reform, the number of migrants from Mexico has declined.  Now, dictatorships trans-shipping people through Mexico are increasingly the problem.

On twitter, someone compared the so-called Syrian refugees to the Jews we admitted during World War II.  For brevity, my response was that the Jews were culturally European and therefor worthy of admission.  In other words, they were ready to support and understand our institutions, security of property rights and "traditions of trust" in ways that Syrians are sadly incapable of.

We should limit immigration based on country of origin in order to not dilute the cultural underpinnings of our society.

Thoughts on Paris - From Someone Who Remembers Pearl Harbor

My Dad was old enough to remember Pearl Harbor and its effect on this nation.  After the Paris atrocities, he said some things that seem like such common sense, but in an age of uncommon stupidity, they need to be said.

From Pops:

My wife had just read The Fall of Japan and we were having a discussion with Dean about our feeling over the dropping of the bomb.  I told him that the number of people killed at Hiroshima meant nothing to us [Americans].  Our only thoughts were a giant sigh of relief and “its over, we won’t be getting any more telegrams.”  Those telegrams always started, “We regret to inform you that your son has been killed ...”  Each telegram sent a shock wave of grief through our community. 

Pearl Harbor was vivid in our memories and I think there was a feeling of “you finally got what you asked for,” though I never heard it expressed exactly that way.  The remembrance of the announcement of Pearl Harbor is still vivid in my mind 76 years later.  On that day, our family was going to a funeral in Fremont and the newsboys on the corners were shouting the news.  As a boy, I didn’t really know what it was all about but there was still a feeling in my mind of “We’ll get you guys for this.” 

Several years ago I heard a commentator pontificating on the use of the atom bomb on the Japanese.  It may have been Mike Wallace.  He said that the number killed at Hiroshima shocked the American consciences and is etched on our psyche to this day.  I could only think, “Fella, you weren’t there for Pearl Harbor or the telegrams.  You never felt the pain.” 

What brings this up now is that the attacks on Paris is their Pearl Harbor.  Their feeling and those of much of the rest of the world must be no different from ours on that Sunday in December.  I don’t think the number of ISIS killed in retaliation will grieve any Frenchman or leave a mark on their psyche.  I was glad to see our president declare war on Japan.  I wonder how long it will be before our media and our leaders realize that we are in a war and it must be treated as such.  Will it take a Paris in America to wake them up?

Thanks To My Nation - From a Veteran

As many of you know, I am a veteran.  The amount of attention given to veterans on this day has grown over the years, to the point that some on the left object to it.  Dean has a great post deconstructing leftist objections to Veteran's Day here; predictably the left's objection include the specter of Racism^TM.

For myself, sometimes the attention is a little embarrassing, because I feel so blessed to have served and benefited from my service.  Today, I say thank you to my country for the opportunity to serve and for the benefits I received.  Here is a short list that pertains to me:

• I received a first rate education in Annapolis and in Monterey.
• I made life-long friendships with some great Americans.
• I was trained to perform challenging and demanding missions on behalf of my nation.
• I received fair compensation and benefits.
• I retired with a good pension and benefits.
• I can point with pride to my service.

These benefits came about because I serve a nation that values the defense our veterans have provided and continue to provide.  I am happy that my country thanks me, but I must thank my country in turn.

God bless the United States of America.

United States Flag design as it existed on November 11, 1918.

Oorah! USMC Birthday

Happy Birthday to the Marine Corps of the United States of America!  The oil painting pictured above is described on Wikipedia as:

New Providence Raid, March 1776 Oil painting on canvas by V. Zveg, 1973, depicting Continental Sailors and Marines landing on New Providence Island, Bahamas, on 3 March 1776. Their initial objective, Fort Montagu, is in the left distance. Close off shore are the small vessels used to transport the landing force to the vicinity of the beach.

This was the first battle in which the Continental Marines, later to become the U.S. Marine Corps, took part and set the precedent for daring amphibious assault that became one of the hallmarks of the Corps.  A good retelling is located on Military History Now.

Paying Tribute to Veterans at Mount Soledad

I spent the morning at Mt. Soledad Veteran's Memorial with men from my church.  If you live in San Diego or ever pass through, you should definitely visit the site; it is one of the gems of the city.

Today, we paid tribute to veterans we knew and talked about their lives and how service to their country was an integral part.  I was struck at how members of the World War 2 generation, were and still are reticent about their war experiences.  Certainly, war is always horrible, regardless of the technology used to fight; but it seems that men are much more willing to discuss what happened today.  I am not passing judgement on this, just an observation.

I was also struck but how unspoken our assumptions about military service are.  There are many motives for signing up, but in our nation, we have traditionally believed that serving in the military served a higher calling; because our nation is, was and always will be a beacon for good.  We exercise our freedom of religion, but collectively believe that our national belief in a good and just God makes us a nation worth defending.

Such concepts are under assault by the left on a daily basis, especially on our campuses.  The ease with which College Insurrection produces clickable headlines for conservatives has to do with the outrageous way that the left behaves on campus.  (Today's headline: University cuts Pledge of Allegiance from Veterans Day Chapel. Short rebuttal: Faith and patriotism have always been linked.)  If those of us who cherish our liberty and the cultural conditions that produced limited, constitutional government continue to lose the culture wars, then military service will be dead.  Freedom for our nation will be dead as well.

The good news is that the left always lies and their dogma makes no sense.  The bad news is that they are influencing the culture successfully.  We are heirs to two millennia of intellectual tradition and greatness.  To lose when holding such a winning hand would be ludicrous; but is possible.

Fences Prove Popular

Who'd a thunk it?  Hungarian President is restoring his party's standing by building fences and closing off Hungary's southern border to so-called refugees. 

With an anti-immigrant campaign and razor-wire border fence Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has reversed a slide in his party's popularity, emerging at home as a winner in the crisis that has divided Europe.

The fence seems to work as well:

I won't support any Republican Presidential candidate that won't build a fence on the southern border.  This is within our ability.

White Working Class Death Rates and The Culture

I already posted about the increase in the death rate among middle-aged white people without college degrees and its tie to immigration.  Heartiste has done a great job in summarizes all of the causes behind the statistic:

Think about the ingredients of a happy life: 

Family — destroyed by welfare, feminism, gogrrl careerism, obesity, and sinking earnings for working class men.
Community — destroyed by population density and Diversity™.
Work — destroyed by open borders, automation, and oligarchic greed.
Faith — destroyed by SCALE-induced materialism and noblesse malice. 

The working poor and less-educated need these four pillars, perhaps more than effete SWPLs do, to feel like their lives have purpose. Instead, malignant elements in our ruling class have done everything in their power to knock those pillars over and smash them to dust.

SWPL = Stuff White People Like, but has become a term of derision for effete college-educated whites who identify as liberal as long as they never have to encounter an actual black man.

The lack of faith, as evidenced by rampant materialism, is driving down birth rates, which in turn become a source of depression.  We see this most rampantly in Germany, which despite being an economic engine of Europe now, won't remain so for long with a fertility rate of 1.4 (well below replacement of 2.1) and a mere 8.2 children born per 1,000 inhabitants over the last five years.  It is not coincidental that Germans are gutting churches to make room for Muslim immigrants.

Illegal Immigration is THE Issue

Why has immigration become THE issue?  I am not certain, but one reason might be that the native born, and especially white people feel under assault.  There is certainly some evidence here:

The U.S. death rate has been falling for decades, but researchers have detected one group in which the rates have been steadily ticking up - middle-aged white people. Suicides and deaths from drug overdose and alcohol abuse are being blamed.

The scientists in the article tried to blame the increase on increased use of painkillers, which even if proved, is more like pointing to a symptom, not the disease.  In my view, the economy has not been getting worse for those people in this group (middle-aged white people without college degrees.)  People under strain have always intuitively turned against more immigration in times of stress.  It makes sense to think that if our economy doesn't have work for the native-born, then how can there be work for new arrivals from other lands.  And basic economics tells us that an increased supply of labor will lead to lower wages.  You can argue whether, in a global economy that increased supply couldn't be tapped anywhere.  But to the person struggling, seeing immigrants, and especially illegal ones, doing below minimum-wage work that benefits business, but not them, it has got to be depressing.

For my part, immigration issue has become a test of whether the nation is willing to preserve the rule of law and the our constitutional heritage.  The failure to deal with the problem is subverting our institutions.  Obama, in typical Caudillo-fashion is looking to bypass the courts and Congress on immigration.

Further, there is good evidence that the intent of the left is to flood our electoral system with immigrants, beyond our ability to assimilate them, who lack our common language and cultural traditions of respect for liberty, freedom and markets to thereby fundamentally transform America.

I am only voting for those who will stand up to this nonsense.  Right now that looks to be Messrs. Trump and Cruz.

Why Islam Offends Us

Over the years, I've learned to trust Mrs. Daddy's instincts. But she has a bad feeling about something, she's usually right.  She was on the military base today, and saw a woman in full Muslim head garb, and asked me "why did that offend me?"

After some thought, it occurred to me that Islam is not merrily a religion, it is a political movement. And, it is a political movement whose tenets are antithetical to American concepts of liberty, democracy and free enterprise.  The history of Islam as a political movement is well documented on the Internet, so I will not repeat it here.  Fundamentally, the key tenet I was why is the subordination of the non-believer to the believers.  In turn, the believers are subject to the absolute rule of the Caliph who receives his authority from God.  At its heart, Islam is essentially monarchist. Didn't we fight a revolution that overthrew a monarchy over 200 years ago? 

Although some adherents of Islam in this country may feel that it is merely a religion, it is not the essence of the worldwide movement.  The reason that misses daddy feels offense is that the appearance of the Muslim women runs counter to our culture of freedom and democracy.  They are seizing up on the benefits of a society that they are religion is actively seeking to undermine.  More specifically, the military base represents over two centuries of defense of freedom against a multitude of freedom-hating ideologies, Islam being merely the latest example.

As the entire world becomes more educated, the desire for freedom arises everywhere except inside Islam.  The inevitable is describe by Mark Steyn:

In India, it's Muslims vs Hindus. In southern Thailand, Muslims vs Buddhists. The world is a messy, violent, complicated place, but as a rule of thumb, as I said all those years ago in America Alone, in most corners of the planet it boils down to: Muslims vs [Your Team Here].
Millions of complacent westerners genuinely regard Islam as merely another exotic patch in the diversity quilt, but I find it hard to believe that the leaders of liberal progressive political parties can be quite that deluded. 

We tolerate personal freedom, but we have the right to take offense at the sight of burqa-clad women in our midst.

Easy Answers to Left Wing Idiocy on Immigration

The Donald has shown that the public is hungry for a candidate who takes their issues seriously and won't bend to pressure from left-wing media like Fox News.  The illegal immigration debate isn't complicated, it is just made so by those who benefit from it whether leftist politicians or business interests that hire the illegals.

I used to have a complicated immigration plan.  Nobody cared.  Here is a simple one that takes me less time to ascertain that no one cares:

1. Build a fence.
2. Deport illegals who break the law.
3. Repeat offenders get hard time.

On to the Q and A.  In order to help Republican candidates avoid looking like these low-T wussies, I am putting together a handy crib sheet.

 Q. Aren't you against illegal immigration just because you're racist? (Takes many variations.)
A. How did YOU get to be so racist? I thought reporters were supposed to check their biases.  Mexicans aren't even a majority of the immigration problem, I have a rule against responding to racist questions.

Q. A fence won't work. A fence will cost $XX billions.
A. You fence your pit bull don't you?  It's cheaper than housing all the illegals and other countries have proven it works.

Q. Won't your stance hurt you with Hispanic voters?
A. I'm leading in the polls with Hispanics.  (Or if you're not Trump.) Hispanics are very happy with my plans, its clear that as I get better known I will be leading in the polls with them.  Hispanics know that illegal immigration hurts their community. Every Hispanic I've talked to, and I've to talked to hundreds, agrees with me on this.

Q. Will you deport native-born children with their parents?
A. How is that a question?  Do you even understand the law?  We deport the illegal immigrants who have violated the law. Period.

Q. Are you going to round up and deport millions of illegals? Won't that be expensive?
A. Compared to what, the cost of housing them and having them serve prison terms at taxpayer expense?  I will get the best deal possible for the American taxpayer.

Submit your questions in the comment section to help out our low-T GOPers.

As a service to the RNC, I am repeating my easy to remember immigration platform:

1. Build a fence.
2. Deport any illegal who commits a crime.
3. Hard time for repeat offenders.

End all this stupid talk about e-verify, which just punishes businesses and have government do its job.

What You Should Be Reading:

• KTCat explains why we have reached #peaksecularism (my term, not his).
• Steve Sailer on the cool high tech fence Saudi Arabia is building (German technology of course) to keep out fellow Arabs.
• How Israel's fences are working.
• Scott Adam's Blog, because he explains Trump's success very well.

This Side of the Rainbow - The Bitter Slipper

Today marks the 76th anniversary of the release of the Wizard of Oz.  Mark Steyn marked the occasion of the 75th anniversary as only he is capable, detailing the genesis of the film's hit number, Somewhere Over the Rainbow, embedded below.  As a kid, I always loved the Wizard Of Oz, and felt, growing up, I did not live in Kansas, or as Steyn put it: . . . in drab, dusty, cheerless, broken-down black-&-white Kansas.  I lived in Oz. The pace of technical innovation in this country was charging ahead starting in the 1960s and Tomorrowland was my favorite themed area of Disneyland.  But lately I have been more pessimistic, thinking that the underlying cultural conditions that allowed such technical progress were being rapidly eroded.  I have started to feel like the dreary Kansas of the movie is taking over America, because everything is politics, and politics is thin gruel for the soul.  And it makes me wonder about Dorothy.  What did she think when she got back to Kansas.

You clicked your heels and said "There's no place like home" three times.  The magic in those ruby slippers sure seemed sweet.  And now you're back in Kansas; but frankly after the technicolor splendor of Oz, Kansas isn't all that. There's chores and the farm and Auntie Em. . . and that's about it. Those ruby slippers seem a little bitter now, and maybe you want to be back in Oz. So this drink's for you Dorothy.

This drink takes off from the Ruby Slipper, linked above and seems a fitting drink for the age.

Bitter Slipper.  Ingredients:

• 3 oz. Crown Royal (or other slightly sweet whiskey such as Bulleit Frontier Whiskey)
• 2 oz. 7-up or lemon-lime soda
• 3/4 oz. of Grenadine
• 3 shakes of Angastoura bitters

Mix over ice in an old-fashioned glass, garnish with maraschino cherries.  Toast Dorothy.

A picture of the actual slippers from the movie.

My Not Very Sober Take on the #GOPDebate

Watched all of the #GOPDebate and drunk tweeted on my @BDaddyLiberator account. I wasn't going to, because, as I told Mrs. Daddy, it's just entertainment.  Her response was that it was the best entertainment we had available last night.  Sadly, she was right.

My take in brief:

1. The Donald followed Steve Sailer's advice and went all in for the white male vote.
2. Rubio impressed, surprisingly.  It is an important point he made that Mexico is not the prime source of illegals.  But he failed to leap to the easy solution, pay Mexico to keep Hondurans, Salvadorans and Nicaraguans out of our country.
3. I disagree with friends about Jeb Bush who thought he looked good; he looks like way too try-hardy, or as @Warden_AoS said, born with a silver stick up his ass. Plus, Bush has Wall Street connections, so eff him.  To be fair so does Billary, but eff them too.
4. Everybody missed a really important point from Christy (whom I loathe) about social security; the promises to seniors have already been broken; its just a matter of when that bill comes due.
5. Walker did himself no favors and he is my favorite, with Perry right behind.
6. No matter how good Fiorina, Carson or Trump look, President of the United States is not an entry level political position.

Finally, does anyone really believe that election of a Republican President will make one iota's difference with respect to our immigration mess?

What You Should Be Reading:

• Mark Steyn, again, because he stipulates that love of country may trump devotion to the GOP.
• Dalrock gives some advice on fighting the abortion argument.
• WC Varones takes on Fiorina's business record at HP.  

San Diego vs. Chargers - All Over But the Divorce Decree

Mayor Faulconer appears to have played a weak hand badly with regards to negotiations with the Chargers, if his goal was to keep the Chargers in San Diego.  Jeffrey Siniard has been covering the situation at www.boltsfromtheblue.com:

Mistakes made by the City of San Diego:
1. Mayor Faulconer and his staff got in over their heads the moment they didn't realize how much pressure the Chargers were under to make a deal, and assumed it was primarily an attempt by the Chargers to manufacture leverage.
2. A better understanding of the situation by Falconer and his staff could have led to an earlier City/County partnership, earlier hiring of negotiating experts, who then could've worked with CSAG to produce a polished offer in shorter time.
3. Instead of ignoring all of the noise coming from the Chargers, the City has instead chosen to respond in kind, which abets the Chargers "We have to Los Angeles" narrative.

But I also agree with Siniard said earlier in the same article, Falulconer's main goal seems to be to avoid blame should the Chargers leave town.  Charger attorney Fabiani's overheated rhetoric serves that end so well, it makes you wonder if it isn't a conspiracy.

In a more recent post Siniard argues that the December election is a sure loser for the City:

- There is no solution the Chargers and/or the NFL will accept in San Diego for 2015. Stop trying to come up with one. Much as people want the Chargers to accept San Diego's idea, they are a private business and are under no obligation to accept it.
- All of the options presented by San Diego for getting around the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) carry a significant degree of risk from a successful lawsuit, or take too long to complete for a vote in 2015.
- Furthermore, no deal in San Diego can beat the deal the Chargers have put together with the Raiders in Carson. Until that option disappears, there's no reason for the Chargers and/or Raiders to negotiate in good faith with their home markets. The Chargers and Raiders are going to see how Los Angeles plays out this year. They'd be stupid to do otherwise.

I have argued that there is no way the Chargers can remain in town, because we will never be able to compete with Los Angeles in terms of what the city gives away to the team.  Siniard take the view that the only way to keep the Chargers here is to apply pressure on the NFL. But he is clear that it only buys some time for an election to be held during "prime time" that would have a chance of passing a plan that would satisfy the Chargers.  Too many ifs, in my opinion; better to just let the team walk rather than divert leadership attention from other pressing problems.

Qualcomm Stadium By Intersofia at en.wikipedia [CC BY-SA 2.0], from Wikimedia Commons

What You Should Be Reading:

• The Voice of San Diego, because even if they are left of center, they break important stories.  It's called journalism and the national press should take notice.  Going after Dumanis in today's edition with more great investigative work. 

Taking Sides in a Religious Civil War

In order to to not offend Muslims, the President has taken pains to try to distance himself from the idea that we are fighting a religious war, so as not to offend Muslim allies.  This is understandable, but shows a lack of understanding of the true nature of the problem.  His administration has taken to saying silly things such as ISIS is not truly Islamic.  This could not be further from the truth, ISIS is nothing if not Islamic.  Their leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, is believed to have a doctorate in Islamic studies and certainly speaks with the rhetorical flourishes characteristic of a learned Muslim scholar.  Graeme Wood's excellent article in the Atlantic says this about ISIS' Islamic pedigree.

The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. Yes, it has attracted psychopaths and adventure seekers, drawn largely from the disaffected populations of the Middle East and Europe. But the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam.
. . .
The Islamic State, also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), follows a distinctive variety of Islam whose beliefs about the path to the Day of Judgment matter to its strategy, and can help the West know its enemy and predict its behavior. Its rise to power is less like the triumph of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (a group whose leaders the Islamic State considers apostates) than like the realization of a dystopian alternate reality in which David Koresh or Jim Jones survived to wield absolute power over not just a few hundred people, but some 8 million.

Essentially, ISIS represents a sect of Islam that is different but related to Salafism, a Sunni sect.  We are witnessing a civil war within Arab Islam that has ethnic and tribal components as well, typical of any civil war.  We are choosing to take sides in this religious civil war, because it is in our national interest to do so. We make no judgment about the theological correctness of any side. We merely seek the defeat of those who have pledged destruction of us and our allies.  In Islamic thought, there is no distinction between the political and the religious, so when we attack ISIS' conception of political rule, we engage in a religious war whether we like it or not.

CDR Salamander's shorter summary, "Often, it isn't what you think about religion that matters, it is what the other guy thinks."

The harder question is what to do about the problem.  By taking sides in the conflict, we risk granting moral authority to ISIS which can correctly claim that America, (the Great Satan or some such term for infidels) is supporting other forms of Islam.  The obvious inference is that the Salafist Saudis or Shiite Iraqis are therefore tainted by our help.  This tends to draw recruits to ISIS sides, because in the 21st Century, people appear to be craving the moral certainty such a brand of religion brings.

Failure to intervene works against our interest as it brings to power a religious and political movement inimical to our goals of stability and peace throughout the world.  From the same Graeme Wood article:

Abu Baraa, who maintains a YouTube channel about Islamic law, says the caliph, Baghdadi, cannot negotiate or recognize borders, and must continually make war, or he will remove himself from Islam.

This is a classic wicked problem, defined as such because any attempt to solve the problem only seems to make the problem worse.  The best option appears to be to provide support to those reliable allies such as the Kurds who won't be tainted by U.S. help.  Putting boots on the ground only as a last resort to prevent catastrophes would also be necessary.  Finally, given the Caliphate's (ISIS' term for itself) need to continually be at war, a slow bleed of its resources and war making capacity is needed.  This would mean bypassing the national Iraqi army, as equipment destined for that sorry group only ends up captured and use by ISIS.  But in the end, we have to acknowledge that this is a religious war with political consequences.  We are taking sides to protect our national interest.  It doesn't mean that we have a theological view, just that we care about our own vision of the world order.

But in the longer term, if Western Culture doesn't provide something to offer beyond nihilism, we will be defeated by the likes of this man. (See this and this.)

The Caliph has studied Islam more than you have.

Battle Hymn of the Republic - Memorial Day

I hope you are enjoying Memorial Day.  Take a moment to read Mark Steyn's short history of the Battle Hymn of The Republic and enjoy this video from Judy Collins.  The Civil War imbued the ideals of America with deeper meaning that Lincoln summed in the Second Inaugural address.  This song is one of the great songs to come out of that conflict.

What You Should Be Reading

• Mark Steyn, of course, because he nails the meaning of America in ways that we native born seem to miss.
• If you are a Christian, Dalrock (this and this), who seems to stand almost alone in fighting the feminist assault on the church.

Insurance Costs, ER Visits Up Under ACA - Uninsured? Not So Much

As I have said before, that the left's "solutions" to problems only creates more problems for government to solve is just icing on the cake for them.  Today's Case: The ironically named Affordable Care Act (ACA) was supposed to reign in medical costs, reduce emergency room use and end the tragedy of lack of coverage in America.  How are we doing?

First, health insurance costs (from the WSJ):

Health Insurers Seek Hefty Rate Boosts
Major insurers in some states are proposing hefty rate boosts for plans sold under the federal health law, setting the stage for an intense debate this summer over the law’s impact.
In New Mexico, market leader Health Care Service Corp. is asking for an average jump of 51.6% in premiums for 2016. The biggest insurer in Tennessee, BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee, has requested an average 36.3% increase. In Maryland, market leader CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield wants to raise rates 30.4% across its products. Moda Health, the largest insurer on the Oregon health exchange, seeks an average boost of around 25%.
All of them cite high medical costs incurred by people newly enrolled under the Affordable Care Act.

Emergency Room Visit Reductions (from USA Today):

Contrary to goals, ER visits rise under ObamacareThree-quarters of emergency physicians say they've seen ER patient visits surge since Obamacare took effect — just the opposite of what many Americans expected would happen.

Ending the tragedy of lack of insurance?  According to the widely quoted Kaiser Family Foundation survey on the uninsured the rate of uninsured will go from 17.87% to 14.22%.  So we wrecked the entire insurance market in America for 3.66% of the population and still left four times that number uninsured?  Another way of saying it is that only about one in five uninsured got covered.  That's disgusting.  The whole bill is disgusting.

What You Should Be Reading:

• CDR Salamander, because he takes on the Diversity Bullies every Thursday.  As he posts in that link, we are having some success.
• The Rational Male, if you have young men you need to mentor about relationships.

Gavin McInnes Nails It

Being interviewed in the Hollywood Reporter, Gavin McInnes nails my political philosophy (and I don't care if you think he's trolling):

"I am a socially liberal libertarian who is not for open borders," he says. "That's my only problem with libertarians. I want almost no laws, I want the smallest government possible. I don't want anyone telling anyone what to do. But I also see the merit in tradition and I think that women and men are different."
When THR pointed out that this sounds more like a socially conservative position, McInnes laughed. "Yeah, I guess so."

For those who misread yesterday's post, this is my philosophy as well.  We should be free to use social pressure to re-institute a conservative social order that will make the country prosper and become far happier.  But unlike, the left I don't care to impose such a social order through the government. Such a culture is robust and successful that it doesn't need government to impose it, unlike leftism.

If you don't think a lack of social cohesion and purpose is a destroyer of culture, I ask you to ponder this piece by Leon Wolf at RedState bookends quoted here:

There’s a very simple reason why extremist Islam – a culture that is unable on its own merits to progress scientifically beyond the beginning of the 18th century or so – is able in the modern world to consistently embarrass countries possessed of vastly superior military might. That reason is this: extremist Islam believes that it has a claim to a superior message for the world. Christendom no longer does.
. . .
There is a reason that every week brings a new story about a kid raised in comfort here in the West running off to join ISIS, to the shocked dismay of his/her parents. ISIS, at least, presents a front that says that the world and life has objective meaning and that they, ISIS, have a claim to that meaning. Here in the West, by way of contrast, we allow our kids to just float adrift on a sea of meaningless moral relativity and nihilism. As C.S. Lewis noted, the human psyche tends toward rejection of a meaningless explanation for existence – and if the West cannot offer such meaning, people will get it somewhere else.

Leftism is doomed, it will eat the societies it conquers.  The real question is whether we Americans can restore the sense of our exceptionalism based on a Christian culture.

What You Should Be Reading

• Heather Gillers (@hgillers on twitter) according to KTCat. Her excellent reporting on Chicago's financial collapse has been ignored by the voters of that fine city.
• Erick Erickson at Redstate.com for inventing the phrase "you will be made to care" to describe the fascist approach to gay rights.
• William Jacobsen at LegalInsurrection for exposing the anti-semitic filth that is the BDS movement.

How Your Support for Gay Marriage is a Threat to Craft Beer

Alternate title:
The Left and Government Sanctioned Destruction of the Culture

The key insight that brings conservatives and libertarians together in an alliance against the left is that liberty in a constitutional republic can only be predicated on a conservative culture. A conservative culture constrains the bounds of behavior so that government can exercise a light touch over a society that will still function properly. This is why the left is seeking to destroy the pillars of conservative culture in America; marriage and family, the Christian church, and the language. This is being accomplished through government aided destruction of those institutions; while simultaneously "solving" the problems so created and simultaneously growing government.  I am not making an accusation of conspiracy; merely stating that there is a shared realization on the part of the leaders of the left, whether intuitive or explicit, that traditional American culture is a bulwark against their desire for a socialist society.  Hence the movements to delegitimize the keepers of this cultural flame.

The Christian religion, and in particular, the Northern European interpretation of it, has led to a culture of individualism. In this interpretation, one's salvation is determined by an individual decision to follow Jesus. This relationship with God, an intensely personal one, without the benefit of an earthly mediator, leads directly to the conclusion that each man and woman is responsible for the ordering of his or her own life within the constraint of belief. This gives the individual the mental freedom to be entrepreneurial which is usually disruptive to the established order.  Further, within this theological understanding, the grace granted by God should lead to good works in this life as evidenced by one's hard work and frugality.  This idea of this Protestant work ethic being related to the rise and success of capitalism is not new, having been proposed by Max Weber in 1905.  There is a natural cultural pairing of Christianity and capitalism, especially in America. The left, which is nothing if not anti-capitalist, naturally views traditional Christian belief as embodied in the conservative church as an enemy.

This Christian culture is not going to survive without actual Christian belief, so the left seeks to attack both Christian belief and institutions at every opportunity.  Gay marriage is only the latest example.  The move to legalize gay marriage was followed without pause by a public campaign of persecution against those who have religious and moral objections to that outcome.  In some cases, the persecution has taken the form of state sanction against bakeries.  The seamless transition to persecution gave the lie to the notion that this was about equal rights. The gay marriage movement was clearly a ploy to delegitimize traditional Christian belief.  In the meantime, there is no parallel movements against Muslim belief, even though Islam is much more harsh in its treatment of gays than Christians. Why? Because the Left sees Muslims as potential allies to attack the traditional Christian culture.

Destroying traditional pillars of culture and morality results in the need for more government control to make up for the lack of self-control in the population. This is a feature, not a bug, of the process of destroying the culture and is embraced by the left. For example, rampant sex between undergraduates on college campuses is the norm today, or so we are led to believe. While perhaps that has always happened to some extent; it was far less in degree and done with far greater discretion in times past.  But since this behavior gives rise to sex under questionable circumstances, we have the California have the California State Legislature considering how to regulate sex on campus. Here is KTCat's take:

Of course, as we all know, freedom isn't free. No, there's a price to be paid for freedom. We must maintain eternal vigilance lest the dark powers of Christian morality and its wretched partner, chivalry, attempt to come back.
Well, vigilance and affirmative consent rules, ruthlessly enforced by the State, that is. After all, we need something to do the job of a national culture based on Judeo-Christian objective morality.

The same groups who demand that government, to include colleges acting in loco parentis, stop prohibiting sex are now those who demand that government become involved in sex at college.  Why the shift?  This has to do primarily with feminism, which seeks the destruction of traditional gender roles in society and is almost always allied with leftism for that reason.  The initial calls to deregulate sex allowed women more sexual freedom.  Coupled with the wide-spread introduction of no-fault divorce, and state support for single mothers; this shifted economic power away from bread-winning males to the state.  (Time precludes a full exposition of this theory, see Dalrock for more detail.) I note that the government has taken to jailing fathers who don't pay child support in fairly large numbers, further shifting power away from men to the government.  This is necessary because it is men who are likely to be the revolutionaries that rise up against state power.  Now, the new change in attitudes with regards to sex on college campuses is to make it easier for women to accuse men of rape and for consequences to be meted out, without the benefit of trial.  Again there is power shifting towards women, who can claim rape without having to go to trial. The shift of power to single women suits the left just fine, because they tend to be reliable supporters of left-wing candidates.  Married women are much more conservative, because the power of government robs their family of provisioning resources, since intact families are much more likely to be paying more in taxes than they receive in benefits from the state.

So how does the left act in power?  They seek to regulate all facets of society to shift ever more power to the government, in the name of protecting the ordinary worker and consumer, often harming those same groups in the process.  It is not a coincidence that the same political groups that set themselves against traditional culture are the ones who also argue for larger government.  I may add examples later, but the fight over uncontrolled illegal immigration has to do with how fast our society can today assimilate immigrants without damaging our current culture.  Those who favor amnesty and open borders that would inevitably bring in more immigrants call their opponents racist; claiming that is the only reason that traditionalists would wish to control immigration. But society can only assimilate immigrates so fast.  So the call for amnesty and open borders is a cal to subvert traditional American culture by overwhelming it with immigrants who have not had the time to assimilate.  For the most part, those supporting amnesty also support increased government spending and regulating, such as the Affordable Care Act. In turn, government spending and regulating is destructive of free markets.  The left consists of an alliance of groups such as union leaders, environmentalists, and feminists seeking to both increase the scope of government and undermine traditional society.  These goals are complimentary not separate.

Which brings me to craft beer.  My observation is that craft beer is largely a pursuit of white males who are just starting to disrupt the current market for beer dominated by large corporations like AB-InBev.  Budweiser's Super Bowl commercial was evidence that the big companies are taking notice.  AB InBev has a large contract with the Teamsters in North America.  If craft beer threatens union jobs, how long before craft brewers come under pressure?  There will be calls to raise wages, to increase regulatory scrutiny and to change alcohol distribution laws to protect the big boys and the union jobs.  (Look at what Walmart endures.)  Further, the whiteness and maleness of the industry will come under attack by the cultural marxists. (Don't believe me, perform a search on "San Diego Craft Brewers Guild" under images and look at the faces in the various pictures.) The guardians of political correctness will seek to make sure that craft beer will be seen as somehow racist or anti-feminist or some other pejorative.  When craft beer is seen as a threat, and that is just starting, then the persecution will begin.

So this is why your support for gay marriage threatens craft beer.  By supporting gay marriage you are joining an alliance that views entrepreneurs, such as craft brewers, as a threat and who wish to destroy the culture that allows free markets to thrive.  You are voting for socialism, whether you like it or not.

Yes, that's a picture of Jesus watching over my craft beer drinking.

Look Who is Opposed to Fracking

So you oppose fracking (hydraulic fracturing) to produce natural gas. Would it surprise you to know that you agree with Vladimir Putin? Just follow the money:

A shadowy Bermudan company that has funneled tens of millions of dollars to anti-fracking environmentalist groups in the United States is run by executives with deep ties to Russian oil interests and offshore money laundering schemes involving members of President Vladimir Putin’s inner circle. . .
. . .
The foundation [funded by the Bermuda company] passed those millions along to some of the nation’s most prominent and politically active environmentalist groups. The Sierra Club, the Natural Resource Defense Council, Food and Water Watch, the League of Conservation Voters, and the Center for American Progress were among the recipients of Sea Change’s $100 million in grants in 2010 and 2011.,
. . .
The Sierra Club, which received nearly $8.5 million from Sea Change in 2010 and 2011, launched its “Beyond Natural Gas” campaign the following year. The effort has become one of the largest and best-funded environmentalist campaigns combating fracking and the extraction of natural gas in general.

Russia's interests are served by higher energy prices worldwide, so opposition to U.S. fracking by them is understandable.  All those years of using the KGB to foment propaganda against the West are still being put to use.

Getting beyond ad-hominem attack, I have always believed that environmentalists reflexive opposition to the new technology is based on a hatred of industrialization not a love for the environment. This is clearly the case with fracking and the increased production of natural gas.  Environmentalists should be ecstatic about the use of natural gas, instead we see the Sierra Club launching a campaign against it.  Last year, greenhouse gas emissions from the United States fell to their lowest levels since 1995.  It is well understood that increased use of natural gas to displace coal, has been a key factor in this reduction.   From the MIT Technology Review:

. . . the trend is largely the result of a rapid drop in coal-fired electricity, and a corresponding rise in electricity generated by cleaner fuels, especially natural gas.

You would think this would be cause for cheer amongst green groups. But then, you have to expect it will actual consistency from the environmentalists.

American Heroes, Engaged in Fracking Operations

Photo: Courtesy of Joshua Doubek