None so Blind

As seen in Canada Free Press.

Americans no longer possess the visceral understanding of nuclear warfare possessed by inhabitants of the ‘60’s, ‘70’s and ‘80’s. Gone too are the days of Dr. Benjamin Spock climbing over nuclear facility fences preaching unilateral disarmament. The current generation of Americans, not seeing, not understanding, do not know they risk everything.

The Complicit Press and D.C. politicos share the blame in this. Following Mr. Netanyahu’s speech before Congress, not one commentator addressed in a substantive or meaningful way the implications for the U.S. and the world were Iran to detonate a nuclear device over a major city such as New York, D.C., or Tel Aviv.

Most Americans do possess a vague intuition about the realities of nuclear warfare, but they do not feel the realities.

In contrast, during the 1960s through 1980s, most Americans survived despite the background radiation of almost constant discussion of and controversies about nuclear warfare. Was nuclear war survivable? Could there be a “winner?” Should we disarm unilaterally? How powerful should our weapons be? How many should we have? How many people would be killed? Would MAD, the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction, keep us safe? Would the Soviets develop technology that might prevent us time to react? How dangerous would enduring radioactivity prove to be? And so on.

Everyone lived their lives afflicted with the reliable knowledge that at any time their whole world might end, and with no more than fifteen to thirty minutes’ warning, i.e. the time required for a Soviet-launched missile to reach the United States.

Those of us fifty-five and older have directly experienced innumerable debates on these topics, over years and years. We just haven’t experienced them in a long time. Younger generations haven’t experienced them at all.

In the absence of a legitimate national dialogue about the nuclear threat, our political leaders and their acolytes in the media feel free to speak glibly about Iran’s inevitable construction of nuclear weapons, as if that were the end of the matter, as if inevitability signified acceptability. They trivialize the need to address the true risks of a 40-kiloton nuclear strike (the likely limit of Iranian yield) over Tel Aviv or New York City.

Such a strike would kill 200,000 on the first day and 400,000 in the following days and weeks. If any of our leaders or media pundits gave serious thought to these numbers, or merely a passing thought, the idea of a full-scale invasion of Iran – to prevent such a catastrophe – would no longer seem so outrageous.

Of course, this requires taking the threat posed by Iran seriously. Obama’s indelible narcissism, however, constrains him from acknowledging the threat. Instead, because of collusion between our brain-challenged leaders and the Complicit Press, intentional or no, the Obama regime feels no pushback when it claims partial success in negotiating a ten-year delay in Iran’s ability to create a nuclear weapon. Iran’s leaders’ own words betray any agreed upon delay, however. The nature of Iran’s leaders precludes any lessening of its threat regardless in which ten year period they obtain the bomb.

It is obvious to anyone even marginally conscious that a negotiated delay is no better than no delay at all. Iran must never be permitted to possess a nuclear weapon, with or without delay.

From the moment an Iran with a bomb emerges, 200-400,000 Americans will become reasonably at risk for instantaneous annihilation. Star Wars was never completed. We possess no effective Anti-Missile Defense system (ABM). It should be easy to understand this is a game changer: The U.S. is entirely impotent once Iran pushes the button. The U.S. possesses enviable counterstrike capacity of course. But what good will this do when NYC or D.C. are smoking ruins?

Because of this, because we are not safe, any policy relevant to a nuclear Iran must guarantee Iran can never use a nuclear weapon. It should be obvious negotiations can never provide such a guarantee. Worse, relying upon MAD cannot provide such a guarantee.

The American public has a right to know the particulars of the unprecedented danger we face. And they will only understand the particulars if they are informed of them. The American public should know at minimum:

  1. Without ABM we are sitting ducks.
  2. Without confidence MAD is relevant to Iran we cannot be safe (the Iranians’ devotion to destruction of the West outweighs any fears of destruction by the West).
  3. Conclusion: We can only be safe if we can guarantee Iran is never capable of using a nuclear weapon. This permits few options for our safety. Again, it should be ridiculously obvious negotiation is not an option.

To lend perspective, let’s review what happens, exactly, when an Iranian 40 kiloton nuke detonates above Manhattan. First, a new sun erupts. Within milliseconds a fireball vaporizes everything within a 1,000-yard radius from ground zero. The explosion produces an air blast and lethal radiation that kills everything and levels most buildings within a 1.5-mile radius. A heat radiation blast consumes everything within a 2-mile radius and sparks huge fires over a much larger area. Finally, the delayed effects of radiation from radioactive fallout take many more lives over the following days, weeks and months. All in all, a 40-kiloton blast over Manhattan will kill about 200,000 Democrats.

For perspective, consider the bomb dropped over Hiroshima – a 15 kiloton bomb – about one-third the size of the likely 40 kiloton bomb Iran will use. In 1945, this small 15-kiloton Hiroshima bomb killed 100,000.

Consequently, the earlier fatalities figures are conservative. Using a more liberal estimate, in the event of a 40-kiloton NYC blast, we should reliably lose at least 500,000 Democrats.

If our leaders and media elites continue to fail to illuminate the true nature of the nuclear threat we face, Americans will remain blind to the most realistic means for extinguishing those threats.

We must see if we are to survive.


Unicorns and Rainbows

As seen in Canada Free Press.

We Conservative Republicans have no more time to ‘get it right.’ For too long we’ve been content with the fact our arguments are principled, logical, supported by the evidence and by history. We Conservative Republicans are so right about economic and political matters, yet so wrong in our marketing and sales of Conservative ideas.

So, even though our ideas lead reliably to abundance for all, we are at every turn outmatched by the language skills of the populist pied pipers of the Left.

How can this be?

The Left enjoys the advantage of being able to “say anything,” without regard for evidence or logic. Consequently, they can promise anything, command accolades for their superior “intentions,” demand credulity, and soberly pronounce damnation upon Republicans—in public—for every imaginable sin – including “wanting to pollute the water and kill old people.”

In contrast, Establishment Republicans employ language as memorable as yesterday’s garbage, and as valuable. Conservative Republicans, however, fail at language use also, and on most occasions.

Why? Obvious example: How inspiring is talk about the National Debt? At best it’s boring. At worst it’s offensive: Most citizens have their own debt problems. The constant Conservative drone about the irresponsibility and danger of the Debt, the need for keeping a balanced budget, and the harm we are causing future generations accomplishes one thing: It associates unpleasant personal feelings (shame, dismay, helplessness) with Conservatives. Secondarily, it pairs Republicans with the disdain for a Chicken Little. The Public has heard about the danger of budget deficits and national debt for forty years. The sky has not fallen.

Yet, the sky will fall. Accordingly, we Conservative Republican Chicken Littles need to find a way to articulate this fact, and spur action, without injuring, annoying, or angering the citizenry. Complication: A significant portion of the citizenry rely upon government benefits. Any talk about curing budget deficits or cutting government spending is also a dagger to the heart for these citizens. When we wax on about the Budget, etc., we inspire fear and anxiety.

Let’s agree then to eschew the words Budget, Deficit, and Debt, forevermore. These terms win no hearts or minds. Worse, they alienate, and they hogtie Republicans andConservatives to powerfully negative human emotions.

But what should we do now? Easy answer: We should do what Reagan did. Reagan did not focus his rhetoric upon endless denunciation of the grave problems of the day—unless he could pair them with Liberal Democrat fools. Instead, he focused upon the tremendous outcomes invariably associated with Conservative ideas—instilling feelings of hope and determination. Can it be so hard to understand when trying to sell ice cream it is not helpful to sell the mechanics of ice cream production?

Consider, can there really ever be a downside to flipping the debt case upon the Democrat? There is no downside. On every occasion our leaders could say, “As you know, Brian (oh, I mean Bob, Brian’s gone, sorry), having to pay for the debt causes inflation, which is an assault upon our seniors or anyone on a fixed income. In fact, you might say that any congressperson voting to raise the Debt Ceiling is waging WAR ON OUR SENIORS.”

Focusing upon outcomes we could say, “Well, the national Debt and Budget Deficit are great threats to our nation. That’s why it’s so important to free our markets again, to allow small businesses to thrive without the taxes and regulations killing them now. And, history tells us that every single time we’ve freed our markets and our businesses, every single American has benefited.” (And we can hold our tongue about the fact that trickle-down economics was a cynical lie).

I cringe every time my heroes, Mark, Sean or Rush, decry the Debt and Deficit. Certainly, these topics need decrying. But it is vital we decry them only in circumstances we can pair them with “the real killers,” Democrats and Liberals, or at least fast-forward the monologue to an emphasis on the genuineabundance everyone will inherit with capitalism—and the reduced Deficits and Debt that come with it.

Words matter—those we choose and how we use them. We can no longer settle for Conservative polemics that are merely “right.” Instead, our rhetoric must also sell. And we have all the tools needed to sell it. So let’s get it right this time and MAKE THE SALE.

The Left slaughters us with language. They unpack and repack words and phrases ten times before we’ve even gotten out of bed in the morning. They take this issue seriously. So should we.

So, no more with the “Debt bankrupting our grandchildren.”

Instead, we need to market our true outcomes: Unicorns and Rainbows for Everyone.

Declare we Care: Deconstructing the Left’s Fundamental Attraction

As seen in Canada Free Press.

We Conservatives fail to capture the hearts and minds of too many voters because we do not declare ourselves to becaring. And why shouldn’t we declare we care? We are caring. And, we are Conservatives because we are caring.

We have no time to spare. We must succeed in attracting the hearts and minds of all Americans who agree with our message but remain unresponsive to our marketing. We now face an electorate bolstered by 3.5 million new Democrat voters—newly legalized residents – each possessing a valid driver’s license and Social Security number.

“Caring” sells. Conservatives can declare they are caring—and prove it. Our most cherished principles – inalienable rights, Constitutionalism, belief in a Creator, reason, historical perspective, make it clear we Conservatives are committed to helping our fellow man and helping society, above all else. Yet, we do not declare ourselves to be caring.

And Conservatives possess something far more valuable than merely rights to a declaration of caring. Unlike the Liberal, the Conservative can prove he or she is caring. It is especially easy to do: The Conservative works for the implementation of ideas and solutions tested and winnowed over the last 5,000 years. The Conservative’s ideas are based in logic and evidence, and they are proven to work whenever they are tried. And the Conservative’s ideas, akin to Adam Smith’sInvisible Hand, help more people, more of the time, and more than anything else—ever.

How sad it is we Conservatives do not present our intentions at the very outset: “We truly care, deeply care, about ‘the least of these,’ about every single person in our society, about how to benefit every single person in our society.”

In failing to declare ourselves caring we cede to the Liberal a profound rhetorical advantage. The Liberal does not hesitate to declare himself caring, to proclaim each of his ‘solutions’ to be founded upon caring, and to accept no blame when his ‘solutions’ cause profound misery—because he is nonetheless caring and well-intentioned.

Again and again the Left presumes upon caring, drawing sustenance from the desire of almost everyone to “be a good person,” to help one’s fellow man. This presumption of “caring” is the Fundamental Attraction of Liberalism. Because of this the average person is understandably drawn to Liberalism—and why shouldn’t they be? Liberalism flies the only banner declaring it is caring, declaring its good intentions. On this battlefield we conservatives are misled by the presumption our fellows should be drawn to our banner because we are right. Unfortunately, in a flawed universe, words speak louder than actions. Being “right” can be threatening. Being “caring” is universally appealing.

So why not declare ourselves and our philosophy to befounded upon caring?

Is doing so unseemly? Pandering? Immodest?

Who cares? It is true—our philosophy is based upon our fundamental care for our fellow man.

For some reason, however, we Conservatives never attack with our caring. We attack with words, arguments, reason. None of these can be articulated within a five second sound bite. None can be deployed effectively within the constraints of a “discussion” on This Week, or Meet the Press. And, even when we are fortunate enough to inhabit a forum in which we can discredit whatever Liberal tripe has been disgorged, time almost never permits us to establish the crucial linkage to our fundamental principles.

Declaring we are caring promises to break through these limitations, to defeat the sound bite. Declaring we are caring directly and indirectly rebuts the presumption we do not. It seizes for us the higher ground and slaps Liberal theology in the face. And it is true.

Declaring we are caring is far more likely to win the hearts of our fellows than proving we are right. And, in winning their hearts, our explanations will eventually win their minds.

All we need do is declare we care.

And we will win.


The Obamavirus

As seen in Canada Free Press.

After six years of Obama’s rule the sickness caused by his Obamavirus is so widespread it may soon destroy our nation.

Prior to now it has only been possible to observe the Obamavirus phenomenon and document its ravaging of our rights, our Constitution and our lives. No further observation is necessary. We understand the Obamavirus well enough.

We already know the Obamavirus is the most deadly strain of the family of Liberal Viruses. It is based in the genetics of anti-Americanism, anti-“Colonialism,” Statism, Communism, Racialism, Socialism, Fascism, Maoism, Stalinism, Leninism, and Alinsky-ism.

We know the Obamavirus is currently in its exponential growth phase. The six years’ damage it has already wrought is insignificant compared to what will come.

Because of all we already know, we must understand we need now focus ourselves solely upon developing effective means to fight, then defeat, the Obamavirus.

What we need are more ideas for solutions, not more observations or descriptions.

Consider the average news/commentary article found in the top Conservative websites. Many/most focus upon reporting, issue identification, interpretation, or satire – but not solutions. This is unfortunate because the authors of these articles likely possess many wonderful ideas for solutions – though they seldom risk sharing them in print.

The Obamavirus demands we no longer hesitate to risk appearing foolish. In fact, we must try to look foolish. We must throw upon the wall anything we can think of – anything – to see “whether it will stick.”

This is the process – brainstorming – well accepted as a requisite for creativity and innovation. And we need as much creativity and innovation as we can find. All standard measures have failed or have become infected themselves: Congress, the Courts, the Republican Establishment, Education, the Media, Entertainment, and even many otherwise conservative Fox programs and commentators. The Obamavirus is so deadly, however, we cannot risk attacking it with standard measures any further.

Something far more powerful and all-encompassing is required: The development of novel antiviral drugs, ‘speaking truth to power,’ or a lower bar for replacing ridiculously incompetent and treasonous House and Senate leaders.

Most Conservatives have pondered the Obamavirus for six years or more yet none has articulated an idea sufficient for our salvation. Or…such ideas have been expressed but remain suffocated by the failed orthodoxy of many of our leaders and their media organs.

We can no longer permit ourselves to require permission for the transmission of every silvery flopping idea we can net from the Conservative thought stream. We need to persuade as many ideas to the surface as possible, and capture every one.

For now, we can be certain of only one aspect of an effective anti-Obamavirus program: It will look nothing at all like anything we’re doing now.




“Vote Early and Often” – Chicago’s First Mayor Daley

As seen in Canada Free Press.

Last Friday, at 3:06 PM, the Washington Post published an article destined to signify the watershed moment in the unending war over voter identification.

The article, written by Jesse Richman and David Earnest, two Associate Professors at Old Dominion University, provides compelling evidence supporting the necessity of voter identification and more than this – supporting the necessity of verification of citizenship prior to granting voter registration.

Richman and Earnest give us numbers, finally. No more can ideology-prone judges declare voter identification laws invalid based upon lack of evidence of voter fraud – always a suspect demand in any case. Instead, Richman and Earnest provide scientifically sound numbers demonstrating the longstanding practice of non-citizen registration (14% of all non-citizens), non-citizen voting (6.2% of all non-citizens in 2008), and non-citizen preference for Democrat candidates (non-citizens vote for Democrats 80% of the time). Richman and Earnest go further: They provide evidence, including two case studies (Minnesota – Franken, and North Carolina – Obama) demonstrating non-citizen voting to be particularly consequential, easily pivotal in those two cases, and likely the deciding factor in many close races (Democrat v. Republican) – for years.

What happens now? If Republican Conservatives are paying attention, they will yell out the names Richman and Earnest in response to any further challenges to voter I.D. requirements. They will use the incendiary data these scientists provide, and render into ash any further pseudo-populist demagoguery from the Left on this topic. Never more shall the Attorney General be permitted to utter race-baiting denunciations such as “Jim Crow,” “poll tax,” “literacy tests,” or “voter discrimination.” (He and his ilk will likely persist in their race-baiting, but on the topic of voter I.D. laws, they can forevermore be shouted down (politely) by exuberant chanting of “Richman and Earnest!”).

Certainly, once the Left realizes its huge-gaping-hole-of-a-mistake in releasing the Richman and Earnest data, it will likely also realize this material is the equivalent of a Super Ebola virus prone to destroy the very soul of the Democrat enterprise. Bereft the illegitimate votes of non-citizens, Democrats will face the prospect of needing to win elections fairly.

It is likely the Left will realize its profound loss in the not-too-distant future, perhaps as early as election day. It is best if Conservative Republicans are prepared. Attacks upon Richman and Earnest will explode, attacks upon their motives, their credibility, their methods, their data, their university, their relationships, their everything. Their colleagues, those in their own institution and those nationwide, will be solicited for critique and condemnation. The liberal talk shows, i.e. most talk shows, will sustain the momentum long after formal “news” outlets turn to other stories. Richman and Earnest will become more reviled than President Bush.

Republicans, Conservatives, must bind plate and mail early, arm themselves with deliberate and accurate rhetoric, must understand they fight not only for the implementation of voter I.D. laws but for the continued existence of America – the America intended by its Founders, the America its rightful citizens, immigrant and non-immigrant, pledge their allegiance to. Republicans, Conservatives, must understand this new fight will likely be our last.  As Lincoln observed in 1858, drawing from Christ’s teachings, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” Lincoln also added, “It will become all one thing or all the other.” If we do not fight we will not win. If we do not win, our House will become all one thing, a Democrat thing, and we will lose our freedom.

If non-citizens are permitted to continue voting, deciding close elections, the legitimate United States will be exterminated. Demagogues know this. Democrats know this. We Conservatives have suspected this. So, when 14% of the ten million newly legitimized illegal aliens become registered voters (fraudulently), and in the absence of voter I.D. requirements, the U.S. voting franchise will fall in upon itself. One-Party rule will result – even though the majority of citizenvoters will not have intended this result for themselves or their posterity.  And it will be too late.

In an age where both self-interested Democrats and deluded Republican dunderheads seek blanket Amnesty for illegal aliens, and the consequently expanded corruption of the voting franchise, Conservative Republicans have no choice. There is no room for half-measures or dissembling. Benjamin Franklin’s sentiment during the Revolution holds true today. We must “either fight or die.” Now.


Capitalism Cataclysm

As seen in Canada Free Press.

“Capitalism” is the cataclysmically inappropriate word we use to describe the most successful economic system in the history of the world.

We must cease its use at once and forevermore. “Capitalism,” the word, maligns capitalism, the economic system. We must understand and accept this. No longer can we conservatives, we capitalists, remain purists about this term. The Left has won, and handily. They have contorted the word capitalisminto a grotesque mockery of its true nature. Worse, having sullied the term, they have also sullied the concept.

If the economic system of capitalism were termed something different than capitalism, millions of conservatives would be spared the necessity of incessantly arguing, “No, that’s not what capitalism means at all. Capitalism is about freedom, creation, prosperity. No, it’s not about selfishness, mean-spiritedness, or base motives. No, the profit motive is not about everyone only caring about themselves. No, no, no, no, no!”

The putrefaction of capitalism, the word, prevents understanding and acceptance, excitement and enthusiasm, about capitalism the economic system. How else might one account for the fact that despite capitalism’s unrivaled success in every case and in every age it remains so universally unloved?

Capitalism the system is far too precious to be maligned or misunderstood any longer.

Capitalism is dead.

Freedom Economics

If we fail to replace capitalism with a term more descriptive ofreal capitalism, or at least a term the low-information citizen might become fond of, we risk losing far more than an inimitable economic system. We risk calamity on a much larger scale. Failing to convincingly replace capitalism with a better term, we risk losing freedom. In fact, the true nature of capitalism, the economic system, is freedom. Any other economic system devolves to slavery.

One might argue since the term capitalism is often used interchangeably with “free enterprise” and “free markets,” these latter constructions might suffice when the termcapitalism is terminated. Unfortunately, the Left has already corrupted these descriptors as well, though admittedly not yet so thoroughly as capitalism. These terms, “free enterprise” and “free markets,” are instinctively alienating to the government-schooled citizenry, evoking thoughts of Wall Street tycoons, corporations, and Country Club Republicans, just as with capitalism.

We must acknowledge these terms, “free enterprise” and “free markets,” are beyond redemption, just as is capitalism. And, we must admit any term we might choose that contains a root or key word relevant to business or economy is just as lost to us as is capitalism.

We need something else some term proclaiming capitalism’s true nature, and possessing an intrinsic universal appeal, something inextricably linked with foundational positive associations.

There is such a term: Freedom Economics.

Freedom Economics, the term, is a parallelism invoking the storied “Keynesian Economics” construction rather than the harsh and alien terms ending with “ism.” In this alone it is preferable to capitalism.

The “Economics” portion of “Freedom Economics” also hints nicely at a scholarly affiliation.

The “Freedom” portion encompasses all similar terms, such as Liberty or Rights, and strikes the ear more fetchingly than “free,” given the latter’s connotation of cheapness. This contrasts with the “free” of “free markets” or “free economy,” which suggests something other than the “free” of “freedom.” The term “free economy,” in any case, has never taken root in the American mind. It sounds sterile the term “free” appearing to modify “economy” – and in this having nothing to do with “freedom” at all.

Asserting Freedom Economics as the more accurate term for capitalism, the system, is neither crafty nor presumptuous. Freedom cannot exist in the absence of capitalism and capitalism cannot exist in the absence of freedom. Capitalism is merely Freedom by a different name. Freedom Economicscaptures both concepts.

Use of the Freedom Economics term permits an even more delicious excursion. Its mere articulation virtually shouts the allegation all other economic systems are not free and do notboast a foundation in freedom without requiring the awkward fuss and bother and effusion of words otherwise required to explain capitalism has mostly nothing to do with capital at all.

Freedom Economics offers even greater reward. It contrasts wonderfully with its converse parallelism: Government Economics. In this it creates a tidy category into which we can compact all of the silly and malicious economic systems in the world that are truly, merely, one thing: Government Economics. The lofty Keynesian Economics Theory requires a ridiculous amount of Government intervention. Why then should it not be called “Government Economics” as well? The same is true for Socialism and Communism and every other ism.

This dualism between the terms and concepts of “Freedom Economics” vs. “Government Economics” – is perhaps the aspect which best recommends use of the Freedom Economics term. The dualism provides formidable rhetorical advantage, contrasting Freedom Economics vs. Government Economics as the equivalent of Good vs. Bad.

With one blow we can call capitalism what, in the end, it really is, Freedom Economics, while deliciously declaiming everything else to be Government Economics, and by implication, not free.No longer will the most successful and loving economic system in the world for everyone in society – be chained to a name the Left has contaminated so successfully for so many years. Who can argue against Freedom?Let’s dispose of the term capitalism—and for all time—at least in public. Instead, let us forevermore call capitalism by its true name: Freedom Economics.And then, let us smash down the arrogant citadels of sophistry of the Left, and engage in the hand-to-hand rhetorical combat we now cannot fail to win.


The Four Horsemen—Part II


As seen in Canada Free Press.

Part I of “The Four Horseman,” described the growing power of Obama’s plans for the “fundamental transformation” (destruction) of our nation, and the “Four Horsemen” he employs to affect that transformation: Death, War, Conquest, and Famine. We examined in detail Obama’s Magnum Opus, Obamacare, its intended destruction of our healthcare system and the consequent enslavement of the population to the whims and caprice of the Administrative State, and, more alarming than this, Obamacare’s comprehensive obliteration of most freedoms Americans still take for granted.

Now we examine the remaining three elements of Obama’s intended “transformation” of America: War, Conquest, and Famine. We explore Obama’s substantial success to date in marshaling these forces to his ends, and possible means for preventing the final manifestation of Obama’s Apocalyptic vision for our nation.


America’s chief security problem is its lack of security – an intentional circumstance the product of the failed ideology and consuming narcissism of our President.

Unprepared for the Conflagration: 

We are not prepared. Most of us know this – we can feel it. The Red Horse and its soulless rider are nearly triumphant. The world is more dangerous than ever before. Nukes are within a year of terrorist possession. China’s economy just surpassed ours and China is militarizing rapidly. It is retrenching into fascist oligarchy – and thus more dangerous. China still claims ownership of Taiwan, and sees there is little the U.S. could or would do to protect the tiny island. Putin is, well, Putin, invading neighboring countries with disdain and modernizing his nuclear arsenal as well. Iran is, well, Iran – the country betrayed by and lost by Jimmy Carter. Iran will soon have nukes. All of the houses ‘cleared’ by our brave young men and women in Fallujah and every other Iraqi hellhole are again filled with the same types of barbarous Islamists who shot our young men dead in the first place. ISIS waxes. South America is losing freedoms country by country. We are alienating and betraying our allies as fast as we can. War, or, rather conflagration, awaits us impatiently.

Despite these challenges, Obama is relentless in deconstructing our military, slashing large numbers of surface ships, fighters, bombers, tanks, scrapping our nuclear arsenals, drawing down personnel, closing the factories capable of specialized production, canceling production lines – each requiring years to “boot up.” Aircraft carriers are not built overnight.

Our Fundamental Demand:

What can we do, we citizens? We must insist our Congresspersons strengthen Defense, at once, and hugely. At minimum, since our present is more dangerous than our Cold War past, we should return to the %age of GDP military spending levels similar to those of Reagan’s in 1988 – just prior to the fall of the USSR. Will this explode the deficit? Certainly. Will not the first nuclear strike upon a major U.S. city (courtesy of a terrorist or country) explode it even more? Certainly. What are we waiting for?

Soon, we will not have a choice. We will exist only so far as our enemies wish us to.


There is no excess in declaring we are increasingly trampled by the purposeful predations of Conquest on a White Horse.

Proclamations of Conquest Intentions

In fact, those inside and outside our country intending it be conquered proclaim their intent with the word itself. Groups such as La Raza and other Latino activist organizations, openly call for re-conquest of the Southwestern United States (termed ‘Reconquista’).

We must reverse the mortal dangers posed by insane immigration policy – and now. We have been stymied in this by a lunacy exhibited by our Republican Leadership which defies comprehension; it is almost Dadaistic.

Destruction of the Voting Franchise

Three days ago, Obama announced his intent to give “temporary legal status” to 11 (eleven!) million illegal aliens, by the end of December, i.e. otherwise known as the “11 Million New Democrat Voter” Executive Order. Likely, many millions more will cross the border based upon the promise of further Amnesty and chain migration will complete the process. This will almost entirely destroy the voting franchise in America.

Last Friday the Washington Post released the report of two distinguished professors who described a rigorous study of voting patterns indicating 14% of non-citizens were actually registered to vote and 6.2% of non-citizens actually voted in the 2008 elections. In particular, they found non-citizens voted for Democrats 80% of the time. They concluded non-citizen voting has for years likely played a pivotal role in tipping close elections to Democrats. Can the implications of Executive Order Amnesty be painted more starkly than this?

Destruction of Financial Viability

Aside from the danger of One-Party Rule by Democrats forevermore, insane Immigration Policy poses other clearly seen dangers to America. Given many/most arriving illegal aliens are illiterate in their own language, know no English, and possess no skills or education, they offer little to the economy other than cheap labor at the lettuce farm. Worse, by any calculation, these millions here and millions coming will further burden the welfare, healthcare, educational and law enforcement systems at local/state/federal levels – in a country already burdened by 18 trillion dollars in debt. Worse, illegal immigration insanity sucks from the economy monies desperately required for resuscitation of Defense.

Salad Bowl

Perhaps most concerning is a corrupt immigration system’s encouragement of a Balkanized society, a melting pot become a salad bowl. This threatens to rend asunder America’s Unity, a Unity for which hundreds of thousands of men and women sacrificed their lives in the Revolution and the Civil War – and hundreds of thousands more since, for the promise of a United States. Inexplicably, when this concern is demagogued by the Left, Conservatives rarely if ever articulate the obvious counterpoint: “We don’t care if new legal immigrants are green, orange, black, white, yellow, or brown. We welcome people of all races and ethnicities – and even sexual preferences – and from all countries. But there must remain two invioble criteria: Legal immigrants must a) demonstrate they bring contributions to American Society – or at best will not become a burden to that Society; b) demonstrate they are committed to assimilating into American Society, committing henceforth to being Americans first and everything else a distant second.”

Terrorists at the Border

Can there really be any debate among sane people about the growing danger of terrorists entering the country in the midst of the flood of illegals? Really?

The Possible

What can be done? It is hard to imagine we will fail to mount an aggressive response to Obama’s Executive Order legalizing illegals. Certainly, however, our response should not be whatever we’ve been doing already. Any action we take must be overwhelming and definitive. How could it be otherwise? Is there really nothing we can do about this issue given the majority of Americans are against Amnesty and in favor of securing the border?


The Black Horse of Famine obscures the growing misery and want of a nation oppressed. A Complicit Press assists in the deception.

What “Recovery?”

Consider, have there been any signs whatsoever we’ve been in a “Recovery?” Has there been some visible point at which things clearly “turned around?” The labor workforce participation rate is lower than it was when Obama was first elected – in the middle of the Recession. Where is the “Recovery?” beyond the deception of numbers proclaimed by sycophant economists? Median family income continues to fall. Business starts are meager, business failures overwhelming. And Obama is about to unleash more job-killing and economy-killing rules and regulations from the likes of the EPA, NLRB, EEOC, and other alphabet agencies. A nation wanting for, hungry for, the free markets and free enterprise of the 1980’s is instead served the thin gruel of Newspeak and forced to beg “please sir, I want some more.”

Is it possible any conscious person in the United States is unaware of the economic devastation wrought by this President, his cronies and his policies – and all by design? Gas prices, food prices, and all other prices (except for I-phones) have hugely outpaced the “official” numbers ladled to us by the State. Real unemployment is far higher than admitted by the State. Inflation is far worse than admitted by the State. Instead, in Obamaworld, every prior measure of circumstances is redefined to the end of obscuring the worsening of those circumstances. Obama and his cronies are unprecedented in their masterful manipulation of words and definitions to their own intents. They borrow heavily from the propaganda universe of Humpty Dumpty, who declared to Alice, “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”

Stock Market Silliness

Amidst such loss and chaos the Press dutifully report – every half-hour – the machinations of the Dow, a (poor) measure of Stock Market valuation. Can the media truly believe the citizenry so “soma”-tized they fail to notice the disconnect between the Dow’s “unprecedented highs” and the real world in which they live and suffer?  Likewise, can the Media truly believe the sufficiently-informed citizenry find the Media’s incessant reporting on the Dow to be anything more than the disingenuous pabulum of circus clowns? Understandably, the modern media, unofficial Marketing Division to the Democrat Party, is urged to sell this slop, never mind the Janet Yellen behind the curtain, dutifully shoveling 85 billion every month into the securities markets. As any Freshman student of economics can tell you, this places enormous inflationary pressure upon stock prices, unmooring each from its fundamentals and creating a stock bubble soon to be as devastating as the subprime mortgage crisis and consequent recession of 2008 (thank you Sallie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Community Reinvestment Act).

Doomed to Suffering?

Can it be true that the famine and malaise besetting our land will continue for two more years? Are we meant to suffer further at the well of little sustenance, forced to starve for the fruits of the Freedom Economics of Capitalism provided us in an earlier age?

Can our leaders really sustain themselves in a narcissism so evil they fail to liberate an entire nation in suffering? Can they be so incompetent or obstinate they choose to or fail to articulate the simple fundamental truths of Conservatism, Constitutionalism and Capitalism?

Final Apocalypse, Here We Come

Obama’s reign has sacrificed America upon the altar of Marxist claptrap ideology and a breathtaking ignorance of history, economics, U.S. history, the Constitution, and international relations.

Perhaps we deserved an idiot as a President. However, did we really deserve a man who would unleash the gates of hell upon us?

Obama has summoned the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse – making manifest his goal of “fundamentally transforming America.”

If we cannot mount a credible counterattack, immediately following this election, it is hard to imagine when we might.

And if we don’t, we should understand the outcome is otherwise foreordained. We will be destroyed, utterly, our ashes cast upon indifferent winds and our country “transformed” into a burning wasteland.