The Conservative Party Principles

The Conservative Party Principles

Sunday, September 23, 2012

Fixing the Economy Is Not Rocket Science

September 23, 2012

A Guest Blog From American Thinker:

By Karin McQuillan

Romney has five basic proposals for fixing the American economy that are sensible, practical, and believable.  Romney's goal of 4% economy growth is possible within four years.  It is not rocket science.

Romney has prioritized five key areas to reverse Democrat policies.  The number-one boost to economic growth is always energy.  Energy runs everything, and the price of energy affects everything.  The Obama administration's overspending by a trillion dollars a year has led to irresponsible printing and borrowing of money -- forty cents on every dollar Obama spends is borrowed.  Printing money raises the price of oil, because we have devalued our dollar, which makes everything manufactured or transported more expensive.  Devaluing the dollar is a hidden tax on families every time they fill up their cars, go to the grocery store, or turn on a light bulb.

But it is worse than that.  Obama, indeed any Democrat, cannot and will not allow America to become energy-wealthy, because Democrats' green voting base fears fossil fuel.  Obama is using the EPA to block fracking, to end the coal industry (which fuels half of our electricity), and to block off-shore drilling.  Romney will allow America to use our wealth of natural resources.  It can be done in the right places, with safe methods and proper regulation, but it must be done if we are to thrive.

We are talking about a lot of wealth.  Thanks to fracking, America could be producing more oil and natural gas energy on a daily basis than current U.S. imports from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Venezuela, Colombia, Algeria, Nigeria, and Russia combined.  The United States' combined recoverable natural gas, oil, and coal endowment is the largest on Earth.

The impact of cheap energy boosts jobs in expanding circles.  Men with high school diplomas pull down $100,000 salaries in the oil and gas fields.  Next circle out: cheap natural gas has revived our steel industry, making American steel production globally competitive again.  Same for plastics and the chemical industry.  Healthy industries mean healthy towns, money for taxes, a sustainable social safety net.  A healthy country.

Excellent working-class jobs, cheap gas, lower consumer prices so the money in your paycheck goes much farther.  Using our energy resources is a huge win for every family and entirely, easily doable.

Energy alone is a reason to vote Republican.  Our economy will not survive if starved of affordable energy.

Romney's second target: start competing with China again in the global marketplace.  Romney hasn't given up on American manufacturing and export capability.  He will fight for us.  When Obama doubled down on government debt to China, he gave the Chinese more power to gut our economy.

Improving our exports is not rocket science.  President George Bush negotiated trade agreements with 16 countries, leading to the creation or support of 18 million jobs, with one third in manufacturing.  That's our unemployment crisis right there.

One of Romney's main stump speech talking points: the EU and China have negotiated 44 bilateral trade deals since Obama was elected.  Obama's new deals on America's behalf?  Zero.  Why?  Because another key Democrat voting bloc, the AFL-CIO, opposes trade agreements.

Romney will pursue trade actively, especially a major initiative, a free-trade zone with Latin America.  This is something the party might like to let Hispanic voters know about.  We can and will compete effectively to export manufactured goods.

Romney promises to reverse our longstanding passivity towards China.  He is breaking with all precedent here, Republican and Democrat.   He has a hard-hitting ad on Obama's loss of half a million jobs to China.  We are losing because we have agreed to compete in a rigged game.  Romney vows that that will stop.  As Romney says, "I don't see how you can have a trade relationship, on an open basis, with another nation if they're stealing a large part of what it is you sell."   Romney vows to fight for our manufacturing sector as no one ever has.

The number-three Romney policy: remove the burden of unnecessary government rules.  The super-explosion of government regulation under Obama is another self-inflicted wound on our economy, which gives jobs to bureaucrats and takes jobs from working class families.  The burden of Obama's regulations are estimated at $2 trillion, more than taxes.  This is money taken from creating new products and new jobs, from growing our economy.  It is also anti-democratic, giving bureaucrats arbitrary powers to write the rules and hand out favors to Obama's bundlers.

Obama sees businessmen as the enemy.  He has no guilt about crushing them with his regulations.  Government workers, who enforce Obama's four thousand new regs, are a key Democrat voting bloc.

The invisible cost of government regulation ($10,000 per employee) is deadly to jobs for ordinary people.  The yearly cost of regulation on a single manufacturing firm is $700,000, enough to stop small businessmen from going near the manufacturing sector.  They don't have the cash flow to pay staff to fill out a million dollars' worth of government forms.

Small and medium businesses grow most of our jobs.  Regulatory compliance sucks up their profit margin, and it sucks out the joy and energy that go into building your business.   When politicians increase rules, there are always special carve-outs for existing large corporations.  Goldman Sachs has 400 lawyers on staff, and a dozen lobbyists to help write the regs and comply with them.  Small business can't play in the billion-dollar lobbying market.

Romney understands this deep in his bones.  He will repeal many of the Obama administrations new regulations on his first day in the Oval Office.

Next, education.  It is not rocket science to know that if we keep doing the same things that fail with more money, it is not going to move us forward.  Education is a Romney priority.

Romney is proud of his record as governor of Massachusetts on education.   By the third year of his term, Massachusetts students ranked first nationally in both reading and math, the first state to reach this goal.  The 85% Democrat legislature tried to block charter schools, and Mitt vetoed the bill.  Black and Hispanic voters should be told about this over and over.

Last point in Romney's five-point plan for the economy is to tackle our debt and deficit.  Democrats demagogue these issues.  They are too cynical and self-interested to take on our bloated government and failing entitlement funding, both very serious problems.  "Taxing the rich their fair share" would pay for a few weeks of their irresponsible spending.

Romney's answer is the Tea Party principle: don't spend money you don't have.  He promises to balance the budget and cap the size of the government at 20% of GDP.

Democrats act like this is promising the moon.  Only for them, because they are blocked by their constituents from doing what is required.  We had one Republican governor after another at the RNC with boasting rights that in a few short years they'd turned billion-dollar deficits and looming bankruptcy into surpluses.  They had all lowered the tax burden on the middle class and were growing private-sector jobs in their states.  They had to challenge the powerful government unions to get it done.  Democrats can't do that.

It's true that the Republican establishment has an abysmal record on fiscal responsibility.  The difference between the two parties is that the Republican Party is at a historic moment of change.  A grassroots reformist movement for fiscal responsibility and limited government, the Tea Party, has influenced the Romney-Ryan ticket, so that it offers hope of a substantial change in the right direction.

Living within our means as a government is entirely possible.  Even fixing Social Security is not that complex.  We have to raise the retirement age a couple of years, and the problem is largely solved.  Romney and Ryan have a lot of good proposals with specifics that flesh out his promises.  This information is easy to find, but the politicized press doesn't want to report anything substantive on Romney.

Romney's case is simple.  With these five priorities, he can enable the American economy to grow by 4% a year again: use our energy wealth, increase trade agreements and take on China, improve education and job training so people can succeed in life, decrease stifling regulations, and balance the budget and reform entitlements. 

No Democrat can improve the economy because their political base demands special carve-outs at the expense of the common good.

Obama can't improve energy because the greens hate fossil fuels.  Obama can't improve trade because the AFL-CIO opposes trade agreements.  Obama can't improve education because the teachers unions fight school choice and accountability.  Obama can't shrink government because government bureaucrats and government unions are his biggest voting bloc.  Obama can't balance the budget and reform entitlements because the Democrat party relies on buying votes with government handouts.  Obama doesn't want to decrease the controlling power of the state, because he wants the government to intrude into every aspect of the economy and our lives.

The Democrats tell us that the problems facing Obama were unsolvable for anyone.  That is not true.  Much of our economic misery is self-imposed by our self-serving and ideological government.  Economic recovery is impossible for any Democrat administration.  Obama has sacrificed the common good to his need for votes from Democrat special interests: greens, labor unions, teachers' unions, government workers, and nanny-state extremists.

Romney can do it, and only Romney can do it.

Things look bleak right now, and too many pundits are telling us that the world has changed.  They tell us to get used to being less prosperous, less powerful, less secure, less influential.  Romney and Ryan inhabit another universe, one filled with common sense and purposeful action.  They have a lot of good, solid ideas on how to turn our economy back to 4% growth.  It is not too hard.  It will not even take that long.  But we have to begin. at September 23, 2012 - 09:02:43 AM CDT

Monday, September 17, 2012

Why Muslims Hate Hate Hate Us (They are Failures, We Are Weak)

A guest Post by: Whiskeysplace

A Conservative Look at Technology, Culture, Business, and How They Intersect.

With much of our embassies in flames (Cairo, Sanaa, Khartoum, Tunis, Benghazi) or threatened (London, Paris, Berlin), Americans are wondering “Why Do Muslims Hate Us?” Or perhaps why they hate hate hate us. Most also wonder what Obama’s plan or response will be (and we already know it: Sharia Surrender). But the real reasons are this: Muslims are failures, and they know it. We are weak, and they know that too. Muslim Failures plus American weakness = Burning Embassies and murdered Ambassadors. It is that simple.

No one has more reason to hate Russia and Putin than Muslims. The Second Chechen War may have led to as many as 40,000 Chechens killed. The now-dead Aslan Mashkodov claimed 200,000 Chechens died in both Chechen Wars. There is an ongoing insurgency still in Chechnya and related Caucuses Mountains Republics. In addition to that, Russia aided Khadaffi, and stood by him as he faced his ouster, to the dismay of the hard-line jihadists and Salafists who fought to get rid of Khadaffi. Not only that, but Russia under Putin has actively aided Bashir Assad, and his despotic regime, responsible for the deaths of thousands of Muslims, as Assad attempts to retain his Alawite (Sunnis do not consider them even Muslim) control as an Iranian Shia client state over Sunni jihadists backed by Turkey and Saudi Arabia and the Gulf.

Not to mention the historic hatred for Russians over the invasion and degradation of Afghanistan, and the support for secular regimes such as Nasser’s, and the Assads, and Khadaffi. If there is any people and regime that should be hated and be the target of constant violence, it should be Russia and Putin.

And yet, after Beslan, it all ceased. Weak, and craven Boris Yeltsin, who spent most of his time getting drunk, intimidated no one. Weeks after the attack, Russian forces struck back at places like Grozny, leveling it. The Chechens and Muslims world-wide took their measure of Putin. And were AFRAID. Their fear was not limitless, however. They knew if they simply refrained from attacking Putin, they would be left alone. If they did not, and attacked them, they knew they would die very unpleasant deaths very soon.

The Chinese, ought to be second in line for Muslim hatred. After all, the Chinese are busy through mass Han Migration, into Uighur territory, erasing the Islamic religion, and Uighur culture, language, and heritage. So much so that riots and street fighting in places like XianXing broke out in 2010. Hui Muslims (ethnic Han Chinese Muslims) also face discrimination, limits on Mosques, general oppression. By all rights Muslims ought to be upset with China. Since Chinese media routinely depicts Hui and Uighur Muslims as barbaric idiots who need the strong hand of the Han to become civilized.

Why then, are not Chinese embassies ablaze with Russian ones?

Because the Chinese are also feared. Any guesses to the Chinese response if Al Qaeda had flown jetliners into Shanghai skyscrapers?

How soon would Kabul and Islamabad been turned into parking lots?

Alright, but what is the source of Muslim rage?

Failure. Failure of Muslims to achieve anything like the power and prosperity of the West. The riches and power of the West rest on its people, not its leaders who are generally asinine. Western peoples have many flaws. “Honey Boo Boo” and “Dancing With the Has Beens'” and “Celebrity Rehab” and singing/talent contest shows are one of them. But unlike most peoples most of the time in history, Western people get up and go to work. Where they use their brains, mostly, in doing basic things like making sure they have enough drilling pipe to drill an oil well, or measuring a window for an opening, or using a computer to diagnose an engine problem in a car.

This is not deep thinking along the lines of Bertrand Russell or Einstein. Not even fairly abstruse work like say, Linus Torvalds or Bill Joy. It is instead a simplistic but effective in mass quantities, thinking in mechanistic terms. Machines and tools behave in predictable ways, based on a Newtonian universe that is regular and predictable. Allah won’t suddenly make your saw restore instead of cut wood. Water does not suddenly flow uphill because a genie did it. You might watch and enjoy Harry Potter movies, but you don’t believe your co-worker put a spell on you.

Other nations and peoples have made the same jump. Japan, South Korea, and much of Coastal China has done so. Belief in magic, capricious gods, and the like has been replaced with a mechanistic belief in the universe operating in predictable and powerful ways. Taken in mass quantities, where nearly everyone operates that way, even for places largely devoid of wealth in the form of natural resources, wealth can quickly accumulate.

Muslims, pretty much all of them, that have any contact with the West (or Asia) understand this. But they cannot make the jump. Because unlike the Japanese, or Chinese, or Koreans, to do so would make them less than what they are. Their entire identity is built on magic, and magical thinking. To give that up would mean they’d stop being Muslim. And yet they WANT WANT WANT the wealth and power of the West. To live with dignity, and not in the dirt. To live long and healthy lives, not poor and powerless ones.

Other peoples have made the jump. And not through democracy and “freedom” either — but by changing how they operate. Meji Restoration Japan, South Korea until recently, and China now, are not exactly bywords of freedom. But again, this means ordinary people must behave as thought the universe is predictable and not ruled by magic and spells. A society’s wealth comes from the bottom up, not the ruler down.

Thus the Muslim rage. Anger that the West is wealthy, and they cannot have that wealth, considering the compromises. Muslims in isolated nations of the Sahel, for example, don’t rage against the West. They’ve barely heard of it. They are too busy lopping off limbs for thievery in Mali to care about what some Egyptian Copt in California put on Youtube. They’ve not even heard of Youtube. They live as most people have lived, in an endless and formless now. But most Muslims are well off enough, compared to history, to know and understand some of the West, having seen it on satellite TV, or living their themselves, in places like London or Paris or Berlin.

This is why, for example, obscure cartoons in an obscure Danish Newspaper generated so much violence. No nation has stayed out of the Middle East more than Denmark. It is tiny, less than six million Danes. They play effectively no part in the world save for exporting butter and beer. Denmark is not exactly friendly to Israel. But it is small, weak, and prone to appeasing Muslims.

Thus, a bunch of Salafists, who see political power through channeling Muslim rage at their inability to get rich, by (stopping being Muslim, essentially), ginned up “days of rage” and violence and killing against … Denmark. This requires three parts, of course.

Danish weakness. Check.

Salafist bloodthirsty ambition. Check.

Muslim rage at wanting what they can’t have (Western prosperity and stability). Check.

You can’t rent a mob if the mob is not disposed to be a mob in the first place. That’s why the Occupy Wall Street rabble is filled with rape, and assaults, and abuse, because the people are a mixture of degenerate trust-funders, permanent hippies, street kids, the homeless, and cheap thugs. All folks for whom violence is fun. The Tea Party, made up of mostly 50 years plus White women with their own small business, were models of propriety and decency, because for them, that’s how they live, and violence and thuggery represent not a good time but existential threats.

If you want to know why the Muslim mob is always a rabble, it is because they are one. They are as addicted to magical thinking, thuggery, and violence as your average Occupy Wall Street loser. And this writ large explains Muslims as a whole.

No, “not all Muslims are like that.” But most are. Those that are not, don’t get into street fights with those who are, either, but silently support them. Effectively, there is no difference between the 80% of Muslim men and women who live in constant rage because they want a middle class lifestyle but are not prepared to give up Allah and Genies to get it, and those 20% who have but remain silent out of fear their friends and relatives will kill them to keep believing in magic.

All of which leads to Obama’s response. Obama has bet it all on two prongs: Drone assassinations kept off the news by a captive, Obama-worshipping media, and hug-a-thug embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Far from the murder of Ambassador Stevens and four others being the “revenge of Khadaffi,” the murder was planned and carried out by the very people Obama helped: the Muslim Brotherhood. Obama reluctantly, but nevertheless visibly, helped remove Khadaffi. While it must be noted, Putin supported Khadaffi. Who did the Muslim Brotherhood attack? The Weak Obama rather than the FEARED Putin.

Then, Obama essentially ordered Mubarak to resign, handing the nation of Egypt to the Muslim Brotherhood. This against the pleadings of both the Saudis and the Israelis, who saw the danger of empowering the Brotherhood.

Obama and his people argued that the Muslim Brotherhood represented most of the people (which was true). And that they would only be responsible if they had power, and that furthermore it was both futile and stupid to keep them out of power, because the ability of dictators to keep and hold power had eroded due to social media and rising commodity prices (no more bribes to keep the populace in check). Too bad they don’t endorse this for the White majority population at home, but nevermind for now.

Die Welt, has said Obama’s Middle East Policy Is In Ruins.

”US President Barack Obama’s Middle East policy is in ruins. Like no president before him, he tried to win over the Arab world. After some initial hesitation, he came out clearly on the side of the democratic revolutions. … In this context, he must accept the fact that he has snubbed old close allies such as Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Egyptian military. And now parts of the freed societies are turning against the country which helped bring them into being. Anti-Americanism in the Arab world has even increased to levels greater than in the Bush era. It’s a bitter outcome for Obama.”

“Obama was naive to believe that one only needed to adopt a new tone and show more respect in order to dispel deep-seated reservations about the free world. In practice, the policies of the Obama administration in the region were not as naive as they may have seemed at times, and the Americans have always been much more involved in the Middle East than the passive Europeans. But Washington has provided the image of a distracted superpower in the process of decline to the societies there. This image of weakness is being exploited by Salafists and al-Qaida, who are active in North Africa from Somalia to Mali.”

“One thing is clear: If jihadists believe they can attack American installations and kill an ambassador on the anniversary of Sept. 11, then America’s deterrent power has declined considerably. For a superpower, it is not enough just to want to be loved. You have to scare the bad guys to keep them in check.”

All of that has failed. Glenn Reynolds notes the coming Sharia (which has in fact already arrived).

When taking office, the President does not swear to create jobs. He does not swear to “grow the economy.” He does not swear to institute “fairness.” The only oath the President takes is this one:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

By sending — literally — brown shirted enforcers to engage in — literally — a midnight knock at the door of a man for the non-crime of embarrassing the President of the United States and his administration, President Obama violated that oath. You can try to pretty this up (It’s just about possible probation violations! Sure.), or make excuses or draw distinctions, but that’s what’s happened. It is a betrayal of his duties as President, and a disgrace.

He won’t resign, of course. First, the President has the appreciation of free speech that one would expect from a Chicago Machine politician, which is to say, none. Second, he’s not getting any pressure. Indeed, the very press that went crazy over Ari Fleischer’s misrepresented remarks seems far less interested in the actions of an administration that I repeat, literally sent brown-shirted enforcers to launch a midnight knock on a filmmaker’s door.

But Obama’s behavior — and that of his enablers in the press — has laid down a marker for those who are paying attention. By these actions he is, I repeat, unfit to hold office. I hope and expect that the voters will agree in November.

Reynolds is likely to be disappointed. Most voters, particularly White women, will be happy to trade freedom and a bit of groveling, for a small respite.

The Cerritos man, an Egyptian Copt with a name I don’t recall and can’t pronounce, has been arrested by LA Sheriffs, ostensibly for “parole violations” but really for the “crime” of blasphemy against Islam. Already, we have Sharia. It is against the law, as it is enforced (though not written, yet) to criticize either Islam or Mohammed.

Obama already has his response. It is surrender. His whole being is tied up in not using the military except in highly limited Special Forces ways, or deniable drone attacks. This is the man who by his own admission, hung out with the radical feminists, the Marxists, the queer theorists, and the radical Muslims.” This is the man who said,

“Of course, not all my conversations in immigrant communities follow this easy pattern. In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific reassurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.” *

*Audacity of Hope, pg 261.

This is not a man who will stand up for freedom. Or the First Amendment. Rather, this is a man aching to institute Sharia. Obama grew up a Muslim, in Indonesia. He hung out with “Muslim Marxist Millionaires” in Steve Sailer’s language, during college at Occidental and Columbia. Even visiting Pakistan in the summer of 1987. Presumably not for the babes, bikinis, and beer.

This is a man who has a Plan B. Sharia. He can by Executive Order simply arrest and imprison the man who made the video, and do the same for any other man or woman who makes other videos, or movies, or books, or drawings, or any other thing, that Muslims anywhere at any time find offensive. Not the least of which is that this meets Obama’s Agenda:

Surrender Abroad. Tyranny at Home.

In order to keep Muslims happy and be consistent with his apology for America and groveling tour of the Muslim world, Obama will be forced to extradite this man. And others, who have posted burning the Koran, or putting bacon on it, and the like, on various social media. Of course it won’t stop there, because Muslims will demand more, and Obama’s whole agenda is based on groveling abroad (coupled with “surgical” drone strikes against AQ leaders that the media never reports). Weakness invites attack (as anyone entering puberty later in Junior High can attest). Strength repels it (as anyone having passed puberty in High School can verify).

And this ties in with Obama’s agenda, which is the agenda broadly of the elite in the West: destruction of the White Middle Class and its replacement by a broadly hereditary pseudo-meritocracy, a reconstruction of aristocracy with princes and kings and the like, all deeply attractive to women in particular, and offensive to most White men. For obvious gender reasons — women do well in aristocracies and men do poorly.

Broadly, the elites seek ever greater tyranny to suppress the White middle and working class, and enact a permanent aristocracy. This demands a police state, one based on constant surveillance, minuscule rules on every aspect of life, and constant humiliation. All of which is attractive to women (and again, repulsive to men) in that men require freedom of action (if nothing else, to compete for women) and women prefer to know in advance who the winning men are and who to avoid as the losers. A technology based, Sharia-enforced, police state is the best of all possible worlds for the elites. Leveraging a billion Muslims abroad and ones at home, to create surrender enforced by the New Vichy State. So says Ace of Spades.

Of course, Obama and his elite pals overestimate his abilities. According to Peter Brimelow at, Romney is getting 53% of the White Vote, based on the Sept. 9 Rasmussen polling. That’s worse than McCain’s 60%, and likely a result of White women still entranced with Obama. He’s Black, for White women that counts a lot. [Noticing things with your own eyes, you see a lot of Black Male/White Female couples, but very few White Male/Black Female couples.] “Once You Vote Black You Never Go Back” is not aimed at White guys, after all. So Obama is probably the favorite to win. Despite a lousy economy. Incomes in free-fall (and sure to get worse after Helicopter Ben Bernanke dumps money causing inflation and eroding savings after a liquidity trap). That is not surprising. The Story of O might have been published decades ago, but it never sat atop the best-seller lists for twenty weeks nor did it sell in supermarkets (I’ve seen it there myself).

After all, White women have their own rage. They were promised sexy men and all they got was a bunch of “White guys” who create wealth and stability. Who wants THAT?

No, “not all White women are like that.” I have not seen breakdowns of Obama’s current support, but CBS News noted in June that:

The president’s support has declined among both non-Hispanic white women and non-Hispanic white men, including college-educated non-Hispanic white Americans of both genders. He enjoys higher support among women from this group, with 41 percent expressing support, than men from this group, 34 percent of whom support him. In 2008, 47 percent of non-Hispanic white women and 41 percent of non-Hispanic white men supported Mr. Obama.

Logically, if Romney is only polling 53% among Whites, it must be because White women have embraced Obama. Maybe magically White guys have embraced him, but its likely that the near-half majority he got with White women slightly improved, versus the 40% or so he got from White men in 2008.

The only kicker might be the personal background of the late Ambassador Stevens. White women don’t care (because, they don’t and never have, ever) about random dead White guys. White women didn’t march and support Reginald Denny. Nor the families of the two dead British Tourists slain in Sarasota by a guy who looked like Obama’s son. Nor the family of Bob and Nancy Straight. Nor the two early teen White boys set on fire by Black boys. Why would they? It is not any more likely than romance/porn novels will feature men who do the cooking (Kitchen Bitch?) or child-care or are “supportive” and egalitarian.

Hillbuzz is reporting that Ambassador Stevens was sodomized, repeatedly, which has been reported by Libyan sources. It might or might not be true. Hillbuzz is also reporting that Ambassador Stevens was openly gay.

And THAT is a game-changer. One very bad for Obama.

White women don’t care (and again, why would they?) about random non-sexy/dominant White guys. About George Clooney, Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad Pitt, yes very much. So too the Royal Princes, particularly the one that acts like an a’hole (women love love love a’holes). This is hard for most White guys to grasp. But there it is. They just don’t. (And again, this applies to most, not all, White women. Effectively there is no political difference).

About gay men, White women care very, very much. Its why gays are all over TV. Women Love Love Love them. Gay men are what every White woman would create out of the non-sexy, non-dominant White guy population. As Victoria Beckham (Posh Spice) said, she dislikes straight men save her husband, father, and brothers. Gay marriage is a winning proposition among the populace poll-wise 52% nationally, because White women love gays. Straight guys are not out there demanding marriage be “gayed up.” Rather White women just love gays, and that shows up in any entertainment aimed at them (such as HGTV, better known as “Home and Gay Television”). “House Hunters” and “House Hunters International” feature gay couples every third episode. Because the female audience (men don’t buy feminine health care products, just watch the ads) loves the gays.

IF Ambassador Stevens was openly gay, and IF he was repeatedly sodomized because of it, watch out. The bottom will fall out of Obama’s support among White women. Then he’ll have to go to Plan C. Alberto Fujimori time. A “Self-Coup.” Perhaps establishing Sharia as an emergency measure on national security grounds, and postponing elections on the same. After all, “he won.” And he can rule by fiat, essentially, with a pro-forma Supreme Court ruling.

That is why it is interesting to watch what is going on with the Libyan situation. To protect Hillary? Nope. Obama would be happy to throw HER under the bus, the State Dept. said it will answer no more questions about the subject. But if again, it is true that Stevens was gay, and was sodomized and killed because of it, White women will dump Obama big time. Its one thing if some anonymous White guy gets it, another if a gay man does.

Even if Obama ekes past the post, with phony votes and the majority again of White women as the “Once You Vote Black, You Never Go Back” candidate, White guys are not going to be happy. Because the dynamic will not end. Muslims will demand ever greater concessions, on more and more issues. Because they’ll still be angry at being failures. And there will still be lean and hungry men among the Salafists. And America will still be weak abroad and tyrannical at home. [The preferred stance of women in the US.]

That leaves most White guys with a raw deal. That they’re supposed to like. They’ll rebel. But internally, in ways not seen. A constant surveillance state can be blocked. Cell phones switched to illegal alien/drug dealer oriented pay as you go phones. Email proxied and encrypted. Or messages hidden. More and more mocking put out, on various media, with more and more reaction by Muslim mobs and Salafist manipulators pouncing on weakness. Then more and more internal rebellion. Infecting even the FBI, and the military, which are made up still mostly of men. If one ICE agent can shoot another over an argument, (this happened here in SoCal a number of months ago), so too can the most beta of males do things en masse illegally. Its happened before, naturally over booze, in Prohibition. Nearly everyone drank, the way nearly everyone lights up now.

Ratchet down the Sharia, and you get more and more rebellion. In Egypt, the Mubarak regime fell because the elderly Generals and Mubarak officials and Colonels had stolen everything there was to be stolen, leaving the Majors, Captains, Lieutenants, and non-commissioned officers let alone the enlisted men with nothing. There was no more cash to spread around, to maintain loyalty. Obama is already reaching that point and we’ve just begun the Sharia descent. Obama and Sharia are raw deals for most White guys, and they know it. He might eke past the post (or not if it turns out the Ambassador was GAY because White women love gays), but faces a constant internal rebellion that won’t end up well for him.

Blog Archive

About Me

My photo

Financial Services Professional specializing in health care risk mitigation and multi-layered retirment income planning.

Blood of Our ForeFathers

Blood of Our ForeFathers