Friday, March 30, 2012

Why Obama Just CAN'T Win

"Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have."

Saul Alinsky, Rules For Radicals, Rule #1

This is textbook Alinsky.

Barack Obama is in much worse shape politically than most people (with the notable exception of Rush) realize; he cannot win this election.  He can no longer even keep it close enough to steal.  That's why he's deliberately sowing chaos.

Most people, even on our side, have no clue just how much trouble Obama really is in.  This purpose of this piece is to present the evidence.  What's surprised me in working on this piece is how strong the case Obama can't win really is, and how much I had to cut.

Just a reminder, to win a Presidential election, you need 270 electoral votes.

I base my understanding of Barack Obama's efforts on his publicly announced re-election strategy.  Also, this fact-free video from Obama's campaign backs up the understanding from the Jay Cost piece.  The short version is this: Obama plans to win re-election by boosting turnout among minorities (especially Hispanics) and the Jon Stewart crowd and mitigating his losses among everyone else.

The biggest problem with Obama's publicly announced re-election strategy is that it's never been done before.  As Cost notes:
So this would be a path to 270 electoral votes that might include Colorado, Nevada, and Virginia (which historically have been Republican) but not Ohio (a quadrennial swing state) or even Pennsylvania (which historically has been Democratic).
That's not to say it's impossible, but it seems highly improbable.   Also, as this video from the RNC makes clear, the state by state polling data for Obama in the key states STINKS.

Finally, whatever flaws he might have, Karl Rove has been doing an excellent job tracking Obama's fundraising and it also stinks.  As Karl observes:
Last July, President Obama's campaign announced that it had raised an average of $29 million in each of the previous three months for itself and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). I was only mildly impressed. After all, that was well below the $50 million a month needed to reach the campaign's goal of a $1 billion war chest for the 2012 race.
Seven months later, I'm even less impressed. Through January, the president has raised an average of $24 million a month for his campaign and the DNC.
By themselves the interrelated issues of Economy/Bailouts/Debt/Spending/Health Care and Obama's Catastrophic Foreign Policy nearly doom Obama; those broad national issues are anvils around Obama's ankles.  Beyond national issues and campaign inside baseball, however, certain actions by the Obama administration alienate key voter groups in key states in a way that makes it impossible for Obama to get to 270 electoral votes.

Consider the following seven examples:

Catholic Church and Obama's War on Faith:
I've already discussed this issue at length.  The short version is that Catholics are almost perfectly distributed across traditional swing states in a way that alienating them does unique damage.

Beyond the simple distribution of where Catholics live and vote, alienating Catholics is stupid from an ideological perspective.  Despite Chris Matthews' ill-informed suppositions, most Catholics aren't particularly conservative.  As Jonathan Last notes: Catholics "tend to be politically liberal and socially cautious. If they were less holy men, stauncher conservatives would call them squishes."  Remember, Obama won Catholics in 2008 and many Catholic Institutions supported Obamacare in 2010.

Finally, for a campaign that has based so much of it's publicly announced strategy around courting Hispanics, it's worth noting that Hispanics are overwhelmingly Catholic.

Anyone who thinks Obama's shameful treatment of Israel won't cost him significant votes missed the special election in New York City last September.  In that election, Republican Bob Turner won in large part due to opposition to the Obama administration's Israel policy.  As the Jerusalem Post reported at the time:
The district, well known for being a Democratic stronghold, was captured by the Republicans after their successful efforts to reframe the race as being an opportunity to “send a message” to Washington – and to tap into Jewish discontent with the US president’s Middle East policies. 


“In Tuesday’s special election, Jewish voters supported the Republican candidate by a clear, but not massive majority. That vote evidences a maturity of judgment as opposed to robotic partisanship.

“Thus, unlike some other minorities who instinctively vote for the candidate of their race or religion, irrespective of whether they are the best candidate,” Zell concluded, “the Jews in NY-9 voted on principle and ignored our common religion with Mr. Weprin to support the candidate who will support Israel most effectively.”
In that election, Turner was supported by former NYC Mayor Ed Koch (D).   Since then, Prof. Alan Dershowitz, another prominent liberal Jew, has turned on Obama's allies at Media Matters.

Alienating Jewish voters over Israel hurts Obama in Florida and Pennsylvania.  Based on the economy alone, I doubt Obama can win Florida; Obama's treatment of Israel seals this deal.  Remember, liberal Jews in Palm Beach county were at the center of the 2000 election controversy.  There are over 600,000 Jews living in Florida and a modest shift in their voting, on top of the general disgust that exists with Obama over the economy, makes winning Florida damn near impossible for Obama.  We'll cover Pennsylvania in more detail next.

Energy Development:
Barack Obama's refusal to permit energy development hurts him in traditional swing states like Pennsylvania and Ohio and even less-traditional swing states like Virginia.  Obama's opposition to energy development makes an abstract argument against Obama's economic policies VERY concrete.  While Obama said some nice things about natural gas in his State of the Union, SOTU speeches are notoriously meaninglessness.

Energy issues are unique in that they give Republican Governors like John Kasich in Ohio and Bob McDonnell in Virginia an opportunity to kick the crap out of Obama in local media.  As gas prices continue to rise and employment continues to stagnate, the daily contrast between Obama and the Goverors of these key states can only hurt Obama.

As noted above, mobilizing Hispanics is a key element of Obama's publicly announced strategy.  Obama needs Hispanics to show up and vote for him in droves if he hopes to win Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada.  Unfortunately, for Hispanics, Obama has been all over the place on Immigration reform.  The biggest problem with Obama is that he promised the moon to Hispanics on Immigration and he's failed to deliver or even fight particularly hard.  Most people can live with a failure to deliver, but they can't stand being pandered to insincerely.

Obama is correct when he states that deportations are at an all time high, but he fails to mention that the bulk of those deportations are from illegals who are basically harmless. Meanwhile Obama hasn't done squat about the Drug Cartels that threaten the daily physical safety of Hispanics.  As I noted in this space a few weeks ago, Obama's failures have created an opportunity for Republicans among South Texas Hispanics.  I strongly suspect a similar dynamic exists in other states.

Medical Marijuana:
This is the most politically stupid thing the Obama administration has done.  As the Cost piece above states, Obama's publicly announced re-election strategy is dependent on heavy turnout among the Jon Stewart crowd.  In February 2009, Obama's Justice Department promised to end raids on Medical Marijuana clinics.  In 2011, Obama broke that promise.  This is a surprisingly big issue in Colorado, and it antagonizes Obama's biggest supporters.  On Medical Marijuana, Obama has treated the Jon Stewart crowd the same way he's treated Hispanics on Immigration.

This is the one issue I've seen anger my Obamabot friends.  I don't know how many of these folks will vote for a Republican, but considering how few of them follow politics closely, it wouldn't surprise me if a substantial number of them pull a classic stoner move and forget to vote.  Could you pick a stupider issue on which to alienate the Jon Stewart crowd?!?

North Carolina:
Barack Obama's publicly stated strategy hinges on North Carolina.  All the "smart" people (who aren't really that smart) say the election will come down to North Carolina.  That's why the Demorcat Party convention is in Charlotte.

Unfortunately, for Obama, he won North Carolina by less than 14,000 votes in 2008.  The Democrat Governor has chosen not to run for re-election in the face of persistently high unemployment.  And finally, Obama's violent allies in Occupy Wall St have promised to make their presence felt at the Democrat party convention; how'd that work out in 1968?!?

The conventional wisdom that the 2012 election will come down to North Carolina is painfully weak and Obama can't win without it.

While the so-called smart people are telling us the election will come down to North Carolina (traditional Republican state), the truth is that this election will come down to Wisconsin (traditional Democrat state).  Over the past year, Wisconsin has been the most important state to watch in politics.  Governor Scott Walker, elected in 2010, has enacted sweeping structural reforms to fix his state Government.  As a result, he now faces a recall from the state's public employee unions.  As the American Thinker reports:
So is the left winning there?  Wisconsin is a left-leaning state, the sort whose general support Democrats need if they are going to rule America.  If Democrats fail in these recall elections, then the left will have suffered a strategic loss which may unravel its long dominance of American politics.

The efforts to stop Walker's reforms include: (1) Democrat state senators fleeing to Chicago, that Mecca of Good Government, to deny their chamber a quorum, (2) mobs of angry state employees trying to bully legislators, (3) trying to defeat Judge Prosser to get a more favorable judge on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, (4) trying to recall enough Republican state senators to give back control to Democrats, (5) litigating the new labor law as "unconstitutional" and failing, and now, (6) trying to recall the governor, lieutenant governor, and three Republican state senators.

The left has pulled out all the plugs to thwart Governor Walker.  In the recall election for six Republican state senators last August, the left spent about $30 million, much of it from outside the state.


Most of all, if the left throws every single weapon it can at Wisconsin Republicans and yet cannot prevent a conservative agenda from becoming law, then the left must know that it is vulnerable everywhere to conservatives who do not back down.  If this last desperate effort of the power-mongers of leftism fails, then their whip may become a wet noodle, and the whole corrupt syndicate of leftism may completely unravel.  Watch Wisconsin.
 The American Thinker piece captures most of what you need to know about Wisconsin.  I'll only add a few points.  First, the union assault on the (repeatedly demonstrated) will of Wisconsin voters alienates the broad apolitical middle.  Second, because the unions have forced Tea Party groups in Wisconsin to stay in the fight, Tea Party groups in Wisconsin are becoming incredibly battle hardened.  Finally, by the time November rolls around, the contrast between Governor Walker's successful reforms and Barack Obama's failure will be obvious.

While it's premature to make definitive statements about November, early signs are very positive.

What does this all mean?!?
In 2008, Barack Obama won 365 electoral votes.  He won't win Indiana (11 EV, 40.1% Job Approval).  That means he caps out at 354 EV.

From those 354 EV, I've identified major trouble for him among voter groups that are essential to his publicly announced strategy in Wisconsin (10 EV, 47.4% JA), Florida (29 EV, 43.6% JA), Pennsylvania (20 EV, 45.0% JA), Ohio (18 EV, 42.1% JA), Virginia (13 EV, 44.5% JA), Colorado (9 EV, 40.4% JA -- ouch), New Mexico (5 EV, 41.7% JA), Nevada (6 EV, 41.3% JA), and North Carolina (15 EV, 43.7% JA).

Even without including Michigan (16 EV, 48.1% JA) or Iowa (6 EV, 45.6% JA) in the Republican column, that leaves Obama with 229 EV.  You need 270 Electoral votes to win.  For those of you in Rio Linda, 270 is a bigger number than 229.

Barack Obama already knows everything I've outlined in this piece.  He has access to much more sophisticated polling data than I do.  That's why his administration and Occupy Wall St is deliberately sowing chaos.

Conservatives need to understand reality and act within it.  Stop worrying about losing this election and start planning for assuming power amidst massive chaos.

It's really that simple.

Update:  My dumb ass forgot to factor in Electoral Vote Re-Apportionment from the Census in that analysis: subtract another 11 EV from Obama.  I got it right the first time.

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Governor Perry and the Tenth Amendment: Re-Loading His Magazine

The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Over the past century, Washignton D.C. has steadily encroached upon the powers reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment.  This is a trend that long predates Barack Obama that has, nevertheless, accelerated dramatically since Barack Obama took office. As the Obama administration has systematically encroached upon state authority, they have specifically targeted Texas, for example our efforts to develop energy, maintain clean elections, and educate our children.

Today, I had the honor of sitting in on a conference call with Governor Rick Perry where he discussed the Obama administration's latest assault on Texas Law and Texas Voters, as expressed by the 82nd Texas Legislature.  In the 2011 session, our legislature passed a law prohibiting taxpayer dollars from going to abortionists.  Earlier this year, consistent with Texas Law, Governor Perry directed our state government to stop directing Medicaid money to Planned Parenthood.  As a result, the Obama administration has pulled a substantial portion of Texas' Medicaid Funding.

As Governor Perry stated on the call, it is an outrage that Washington D.C. can forcibly confiscate our own money from us (ie. taxes) then hold our own money hostage unless we agree to the strings they attach on it; as Governor Perry said: "Mr. President, there are enumerated powers in that constitution."

The good news, for this specific program, is that Texas' conservative budgeting over the past decade will allow us to continue the program even without the Federal Money.  Even better, by cutting big and bureaucratic Planned Parenthood out of the mix, Texas will actually be able to operate the program far more efficiently than it was run before.

The really exciting thing, however, was what Governor Perry said when I asked him about the future of the plan he introduced on the campaign trail to Uproot and Overhaul Washington D.C.  As I have said for months, Uproot and Overhaul is the long-term solution to EVERY Federal Encroachment on the states over the past 100 years.  Governor Perry's message was clear: Over the next few months, he's going to launch a MAJOR national effort to identify and elect candidates to the U.S. House and Senate who want restore the Tenth Amendment and support Uproot and Overhaul.  I know I've spoken to one such U.S. Senate Candidate here in Texas.  This seems similar to efforts from Freedomworks and Senator Jim DeMint.

As Governor Perry said: "I haven't left the fight; I came home and re-loaded my magazine."

Saturday, March 24, 2012

Marginalizing Congress: Obama's Revolutionary Consistency

Two months ago, I had a meeting with the Staff of Texas U.S. Senate Candidate Ted Cruz.  A few days later, I had an extended conversation with Ted.  I know is sounds craaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaazy, but Barack Obama's actions over the past few weeks are totally consistent with one of the major concerns I expressed in those conversations.

One of Barack Obama's long-term objectives is to replace the constitutional authority of Congress with the unconstitutional authority of Commissions and Czars.  Making this objective an inescapable reality is much more important to Barack Obama than winning any election.

Barack Obama's unconstitutional war in Libya is always going to be piece of evidence #1 in this analysis.   Libya was about establishing a precedent for U.N. Security Council resolutions to be more important to deploying the U.S. military overseas than the Article I, Section 8 authority of Congress.  Also, just so we're clear, whatever his flaws, George W. Bush at least had Congressional authorization in removing Saddam Hussein from power.

Over the past few weeks, we've seen two MAJOR pieces of confirmation for my hypothesis.

Piece of Confirmation #1:

Barack Obama isn't going to raise money for members of Congress of his own party.  Huh?!?  Isn't the President ALWAYS the number one fundraiser for members of Congress of his own party.  Of course he is.

I can't help thinking back to a Houston fundraiser George W. Bush attended for a GOP Congressional Candidate in 2008.  Two people I know were in the room when George W. Bush made news.  The key, however, for this analysis is that that incident occurred when George W. Bush's approval rating was in the mid-30's.  Barack Obama is refusing to raise money for members of Congress of his own party when his approval rating is about 8 points higher than Bush's in 2008.  It doesn't make any sense; unless, of course, you have a long term goal to marginalize the constitutional authority of Congress and you don't really care about any transient election.

Piece of Confirmation #2:

Did you hear Obama's speech in Oklahoma on Thursday?!?  Among his many lies in that speech, Obama told this whopper:
"Unfortunately, Congress decided they wanted their own timeline.  Not the company, not the experts, but members of Congress who decided this might be a fun political issue decided to try to intervene and make it impossible for us to make an informed decision."
 Notice how, in that statement, Congress is the bad guy and so-called 'experts' are the good guys?!?  That's Progressivism 101.  You'll note, also, that Obama isn't distinguishing between parties in that statement.

Obama's real game is obvious, if you're willing to admit the truth to yourself.

Thursday, March 22, 2012

On Treyvon Martin, Manufacturing Outrage, and Chaos

"The first step in community organization is community disorganization.  The disruption of the present organization is the first step toward community organization.  Present arrangements must be disorganized if they are to be displaced by new patterns that provide the opportunities and means for citizen participation (*).  All change means disorganization of the old and organization of the new."

Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals, Page 116

*Keep in mind, for Alinsky 'Citizen Participation' is a euphemism for ginning up an angry mob.

If you haven't heard about the Treyvon Martin story this past week, you're living under a rock; something about this story stinks. 

The main thing that bugs me about this story is the speed with which it's taken off.  Over the past week, I've seen it go from obscure websites, to Think Progress and the Huffington Post, then to ABC News.  Each time the story has moved forward, it's gotten posted on more Facebook pages.  Considering everything we know about Media Matters, something doesn't add up.  I can't shake the feeling that we're at the beginning of another Tawana Brawley Yankel Rosenbaum episode.

So, what's going on and why would anyone advance something like this?!?

In Rules for Radicals, Saul Alinsky said: "Before men can act on an issue it must become polarized" (78). I've believed, for some time now, that some VERY powerful forces are deliberately sowing anger and chaos in America.  If you're looking to polarize the nation to sow anger and chaos, this story is perfect.  Consider:
  • Is the story racially charged?!?  Check
  • Does the story demonize gun owners?!?  Check
  • Is the story friendly to straw man arguments?!?  Check
  • Does the story lend itself to an easy villain?!? Check
  • Is the Villain tailor made for an angry mob?!?   Good Grief, Check
Saul Alinsky's eleventh rule teaches: "Pick the Target, Freeze It, Personalize It  and Polarize It."  George Zimmerman is the perfect demon for this sort of campaign.  Based on media reports, George Zimmerman does not seem to be a good guy.  He's easy to demonize.  This is key, because if you're looking create an escalating series of demons to gin-up anger and chaos, then the first demon has to be someone or something indefensible.  Remember, long before Barack Obama demonized Jews and Catholics, Michael Bloomberg demonized smokers.

It's an old saying, but a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth gets its boots on. That's why I don't trust stories that appear out of nowhere on the internet.  A year ago, you had this phony Arab Spring take off out of nowhere on the internet, we now know that was a lie.  A month ago, you had the #PhonyKony internet video, we also know that was a lie.  This Trayvon Martin story stinks worse than those other two, and I cannot shake the feeling that it's sophistocated twenty-first century cyber-astroturf.    I've tried to start viral campaigns on the internet, and it's hard; it's a lot easier if you have powerful people helping you behind the scenes.

So, what does this all mean?!?  It's impossible to know at this point, but if the following events happened, it wouldn't surprise me:
  1. Several months from now, we learn this is a massive Overton Window.
  2. We start seeing gun owners demonized as racist
  3. George Zimmerman ends up being the first person dragged into the streets and killed by Occupy Wall St.
Again, caution is in order, because we don't know the full facts.  But something about this case stinks.

It stinks BADLY.

    Friday, March 16, 2012

    Austin Freedom Press: What needs to happen in Politics

    Looking forward this year, certain political realities are obvious.  The first is that Republicans suck; not only do Republicans suck, but in Congress they've failed to learn many basic lessons from why they were thrown out in the first place.  A fundraising e-mail from Senator Jim DeMint yesterday said it best:

    Let's be honest. One of the reasons our country is in such trouble right now is because too many Republicans in Washington were unwilling to fight for our principles. They thought by supporting more spending on new entitlement programs and corporate bailouts they would win swing voters and protect themselves from liberal attacks.
    They were wrong.
    Instead, each time Republicans abandoned the principles of freedom they claimed to support, voters lost trust in the Party and kicked many out of office.
    Senator DeMint is right.  Unfortunately, the Democrat party has been taken over by open and outright communists. At the same time, the Obama administration is engaged in a clear war on Texas, and Texas Democrats are aiding and abetting this war.  Obviously, they're not an option.

    Thus, on the political level, we're stuck working thru the Republican Party, at least thru the end of this election cycle.

    This, however, does not have to be cause for despair.  I quoted the fundraising letter from Sen. DeMint for a reason.  We need to apply the Jim DeMint approach inside Texas.  While the Presidential and U.S. Senate level is different, in the U.S. House, the Texas Senate, and the Texas House you don't need more Republicans, you need better Republicans.

    As the most well known elected official in Texas has made clear, we need a simple four point governing philosophy: 1) Do Not Spend All the Money, 2) Keep Your Taxes Low and Simple, 3) Have a Regulatory Climate that is Fair and Predictable, and 4) Reform the Legal System to prevent over-suing.  These are the core issues and the core questions.

    In other words, we need to find Republicans who will actually live up to their own party platform.  Unfortunately, that's easier said than done.  In the 2011 Session, there were 101 Republicans (ie. a Super majority) in the Texas House of Representatives.  Unfortunately, they didn't accomplish much.

    To accomplish more, we need to become masters of process.  First things first, we need to get our candidates thru Primary day (when they can be overwhelmed by people coming out to vote in the Presidential election) and into run-offs.  In Texas, run-offs occur 9 weeks after primary day.  Given the shenanigans in this year's election scheduling, that means that run-off elections won't occur until late-July or August.  As smug dickhead mainstream journalist Paul Burka recently pointed out: "If this scenario comes to pass, it means that the runoff electorate will be dominated by the ultraconservative base of the party, and the majority of the turnout will be tea party types."  Amen to that....

    Furthermore, in Texas, it's actually the legislature that writes the budget.  The original budget is proposed by the Texas Legislative Budget Board, who's membership is decided by the Speaker of the House and Lieutenant Governor.  The budget is then passed thru the state House and Senate and the two plans are reconciled in Conference.  The Governor only comes into the picture AFTER the conference committee, and his only leverage is his ability to either sign or veto the budget.

    To summarize, we need to elect better Republicans to the State Legislature (and U.S. House) seats we already have.  We then need to master the inside baseball and get a good person elected speaker, who is pledged to appoint solid conservatives to the LBB (we can't do anything about the Lieutenant Gov. until 2014).  Then, we need to watch the 83rd legislature like a hawk and hold the people we elected accountable.

    Over the next several months, I'll profile candidates running in Central Texas who fit this profile.

    In 1975, Ronald Reagan said: "Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?"

    I say the latter.


    Thursday, March 15, 2012

    How Obama Can't Win and Wants Chaos -- The Strategic Petroleum Reserve

    It's been clear to me for some time that Barack Obama can't win, he knows he can't win, and he's deliberately sowing chaos along with the Hard Left to prevent his successor (Hint: This Guy) from unwinding his previous legislative 'accomplishments.'.

    People don't necessarily agree that Obama can't win, and I'm going to catalog the reasons why at some point soon.  I've already sat down to do this, but it's a MAJOR undertaking and it's going to take some time to do it right.  I ask for your patience.

    In the meantime, just today we had an example of an action coming out of the Obama administration that makes zero sense from the perspective of winning an election, but makes all the sense in the world from the perspective of chaos and crony capitalism.

    Today, you had the Obama White House leak that they would release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve followed almost immediately by a retraction.

    This makes ZERO sense from the perspective of winning an election; consider...

    1) Voters know it's a gimmick, releasing SPR oil never lowers prices.
    2) Even if you think the voters are stupid, you wouldn't do it 8 months before the election
    3) You wouldn't release the information this clumsily; releasing this information this clumsily both creates uncertainty in financial markets AND it makes your campaign look inept.

    If, on the other hand, your goal isn't re-election, but chaos, this begins to make sense.  I don't pretend to have access to any inside information about Obama's real motives, but consider:

    1) Market Uncertainty gives Crony Socialist insiders opportunities to make oodles of money.
    2) There was Major Uncertainty Over Energy leading up to the 2008 crash
    3) Market Uncertainty hurts the economy, which makes sense if you want people on Food Stamps and prepared to riot if your successor tries to cut food stamps next year.

    Again, doing this move this clumsily makes no sense from the perspective of winning an election, but makes all kinds of sense from the perspective of Creating Chaos and Crony Capitalism.

    Tuesday, March 13, 2012

    What needs to happen in Afghanistan

    The Situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating.  We need to calmly assess the situation and adjust accordingly.  Don't Panic.

    Right now, the United States needs to draw down our troops to about 20,000.  We need to clarify the mission to a narrowly focused military mission against the Jihadist infrastructure and an intelligence operation designed to counter the influence of both the Jihadists and the Russians.  Then we need to stay, and stay forever.

    This is a sustainable mission.  The Afghans will respect a long term presence of 20,000.  Americans, outside of the progressive Left and their useful idiots on the Ron Paul psuedo-Right, do not oppose overseas military operations; we oppose pointless casualties.

    The United States has two major interests in Afghanistan: to prevent the re-emergence of Afghanistan as a training/planning ground for Jihadists and to counter Russian influence in Central Asia; Afghanistan offers us an under appreciated opportunity to raise hell in Vladimir Putin's backyard. 

    Current U.S. policy in Afghanistan is the result of a Bush-Era Democrat talking point that was bogus then and remains so today.  Whether making Afghanistan a better place was always a naive impossibility, or if the current situation is due only to Obama's lack of commitment and rules of engagement, the fact remains that changing Afghan society no longer passes any rational cost-benefit analysis and it isn't a core American interest (if it ever did or was).

    The United States secured most of our national interests in Afghanistan within a year of the initial invasion; we only need about 20,000 (or so) troops to maintain that security and provide a future base of operations should the situation with the Jihadists or Russia change.

    Some will argue that we should leave entirely because the Jihadists and Russains will leave us alone if we leave them alone.  This is nonsense; Vladimir Putin and the Jihadists don't want to be left alone, they want to dominate the globe.  They're going to play that game whether we like it or not.  In the book 48 laws of Power author Robert Greene addresses this tiresome argument in Law 18: Do Not Build Fortresses to Protect Yourself – Isolation is Dangerous:
    The world is dangerous and enemies are everywhere – everyone has to protect themselves.  A fortress seems the safest. But isolation exposes you to more dangers than it protects you from – it cuts you off from valuable information, it makes you conspicuous and an easy target.  Better to circulate among people find allies, mingle.  You are shielded from your enemies by the crowd.
     The Jihadists and Vladimir Putin are going to work against us regardless of what we do; failure to accept this reality and take effective countermeasures is national suicide....

    Saturday, March 10, 2012

    A Neutron Bomb in the Middle of the Culture War

    Wow, just wow:

    Act Like Men: A Titanic Lesson in Manliness - Trailer HD from Biblical Worldview Media on Vimeo.

    The Utter Collapse of Texas Democrats: Big Doings in the Rio Grande Valley

    For about two years (since early to mid 2010), I've heard rumblings from the Rio Grande Valley.  Folks have told me that, beyond the longstanding failure of the Federal Government to secure our border, the degree to which it has gotten worse under Obama has shaken the foundation of Democrat dominance in South Texas.  I've yet to write about this, but this trend is starting to pick up steam; in just the past week, we've seen:

    - A Cannibalistic Democrat county chair race descending into threats and a Constable race thrown into chaos because of $1million in shady money found on one of the candidates.

    - A Latino member of the Texas House (HD - 43) switching parties because: “It is voting in line with being pro-life, pro-business, pro-oil and gas exploration. That is huge in my district. Jim Wells and Bee County are playing an important role in the Eagle Ford Shale exploration. The port in San Patricio builds multi-million dollars of equipment for the Eagle Ford Shale and for offshore drilling. I am a product of my environment. If I am to continue to support that, the same values I was raised on, it is in line with the Republican Party....I am voting my district, I am voting my conscience and it is clearly not in line with the Democratic Party, it is in line with the Republican Party....I tried, at the start of the [2011] session, to make the Democratic Party the party of small business. I said in one of our meetings that I was a small businessman and that so were many in my district. Not only was I ignored, I was, in a condescending way, dismissed. So, I can say that I tried. I will no longer try. I will do my part in the Republican Party to continue to vote pro-life, pro-business, and pro-oil and gas exploration.”  Ouch.

    - Another Latino Democrat switch parties in HD-41 citing 'threats' from the Democrat party junta in Hidalgo County: "I felt saddened that there is no transparency and openness in the Democratic Party in Hidalgo County and I want to see change. I want to see an open platform. This is why I have decided to switch to the Republicans."

    As I said, I might do a longer write up on this at some point; for now, however, I want to document this trend picking up steam.  The Federal Government's utter failure to secure the border, the fact that border security has gotten orders of magnitude worse under Barack Obama, and the Obama Administration's well documented opposition to energy development in Texas have combined to create a massive opportunity for Republicans in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas.  This could get fun, stay tuned....:)

    Friday, March 9, 2012

    Why Obama Just Can't Win -- Dems are Fleeing

    At some point soon, I'm going to do a longer post outlining all the reasons Obama's CANNOT win this election.  In the meantime, this National Journal piece came out today.  Money quote:

    In fact, Obama’s reelection campaign has a split personality when it comes to the general election. One side is confident and growing more so about the turbulent GOP primary, an improving U.S. economy, and better numbers for Obama in swing states. The other side harbors fears bordering on paranoia about massive spending by the GOP and outside super PACs for the party’s nominee.
    “There is already unprecedented super-PAC spending going on,” Messina said. “There will be super-PAC spending in key states against us. We have to be prepared for that.”

    To prepare for it, Obama’s campaign has put the rest of the Democratic Party on a starvation diet. Messina and senior White House adviser David Plouffe (Obama’s 2008 campaign manager) have told top Democrats that they won’t receive any cash transfers from Obama’s campaign or the Democratic National Committee. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi sought commitments for $30 million, the amount distributed to them in the 2008 and 2010 election cycles. Not this time.

    Let me translate for those of you who don't speak bull crap:  as Karl Rove has noted, Obama's fundraising is disappointing and Democrats are panicking.  Confident parties have more than enough resources to go around, and this sort of cannibalism reveals a party that knows it can't win turning on it's own.  Stay tuned, this is going to be fun to watch....:)

    Tuesday, March 6, 2012

    The Great Lie and Marxist Sexual "Freedom"

    "Now the Serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made and he said unto the woman(1)....your eyes shall be open and you shall be as gods (5)....and the woman said, the serpent beguiled me, and I did eat (13)."  Genesis 3:1-13

    "Lest we forget an over the shoulder acknowledgement to the very first radical...who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom -- Lucifer." Saul Alinsky

    Marxist Sexual values are the tip of the Cultural Marxist spear that is poisoning our society.  Cultural Marxism uses Marxist ideology to reshape basic social values.  To paraphrase Herbert Marcuse one of the founders of Cultural Marxism:
    the current organization of society [has] produced "surplus repression" by imposing socially unnecessary labor, unnecessary restrictions on sexuality, and a social system organized around profit and exploitation. In light of the diminution of scarcity and prospects for increased abundance, Marcuse called for the end of repression and creation of a new society.
    Cultural Marxists understand that in order to re-create society in their evil image, you first need to undermine the "bourgeois" values that create a successful society in the first place.  In order to undermine self-reliance, Cultural Marxists use sex to sabotage the discipline necessary to delay gratification.  By surrendering to your primal lusts, instead of controlling (to the best of your ability) those lusts, you undermine your own self-respect; anyone who has ever taken a walk of shame knows this.  This is a deliberate form of mind control; once individuals give into chaos and disorder in their personal lives, Cultural Marxists know eventually society will give into chaos and disorder followed by tyranny.  Cultural Marxists use sex as a smokescreen, a VERY tempting smokescreen, and they've been VERY successful.

    Potential for sexual decadence (which, in reality, never materializes as planned) makes utopianism an easy sell. As author Lisa Fabrizio has noted the Marxist:

    conception of sex is that exercise of bodily functions that exists only for the use of human beings by other human beings solely as instruments of physical pleasure; often perversely so.

    Cultural Marxists understand that, once people give into basic sexual urges, you can then re-shape their values in all sorts of other ways.  As just one small example, once we've made our own souls subservient to physical urges, it's a small step morally to make an unborn child's very life subservient to those same urges.  Marxist values re-define sex from an act of sharing and creation into an act of selfish gratification.

    Cultural Marxists redefine freedom by confusing liberty and license.  Actions have consequences; traditional Western values believe you should be free to engage in the actions you choose so long as you're prepared to accept the consequences.  Marxists pervert that definition of freedom into one where you're encouraged to engage in self-destructive actions and some mythical "rich" person will subsidize the consequence.

    There's a vast difference between letting people make their own decisions and celebrating their worst traits.  For example, should a woman choose to get gang-banged by the football team, traditional western values wouldn't stop her from engaging in that action, but they would insist that her and her family and her church bear the full cost of it's consequences.  Marxists, on the other hand, would say that she's the victim of a sexist 'power structure' and is thus entitled to a "free" abortion or treatment for the ensuing STD.  For the record, most women I know don't define freedom as having the government pay to have their insides scraped out by some abortionist after getting gang-banged by the football team.

    These sexual decisions have very real economic consequences for society.  As history teaches, once a society collapses morally, economic collapse shortly follows.   As Dr. Melissa Clouthier details:
    The nut of Sandra Fluke’s argument is this: pay for my contraception. If it doesn’t work, pay for my abortion. If I decide to have the kid, but not work and do something like “community organizing” or “reproductive rights activism”, pay for my lifestyle choice. 

    And herein lies the problem with a purely libertine argument: Someone has to pay for all this freedom.
    True personal liberty comes with a lot of personal responsibility.
    The way it stands now, though, feminists are pushing for the state to take care of everything.  ...A truly “free” woman would pay for her choices, but the fact is, that these choices can all be very expensive.
    Simply put, subsidizing the consequences of bad sexual decisions for everyone in society will undermine the individual personality traits that allows a productive economy to exist in the first place. 

    Marxists claim they're the descendents of the Summer of Love and Woodstock.  That's true.  What Marxists fail to mention is that, just as night follows day, Altamont, Kent State, and Roe v. Wade are the inevitable consequences of the Summer of Love and Woodstock.  The sexual revolution lead to dramatic increases in abortion, divorce and illegitimacy; none of that is good.  Sex always has consequences, both good and bad; as a society, shouldn't we seek to maximize the former and minimize the latter?!?

    Morality is the character to do what you should, and a free society in the traditional sense depends on it.  Sex, as anyone who's been sexually active for more than thirty seconds knows, can be either the most amazingly wonderful thing in this world, or the most terribly awful.  Whether sex is amazing or terrible depends on the underlying moral framework you approach it with.  As has documented married, conservative, Christians have the most and the best sex.  Marxist sexual values, on the other hand, lead to really, really, REALLY bad sex.  Good sex NEVER ends in a walk of shame or abortion; traditional sexual morality never necessitates "Rape Free Zones."

    Marxist sexual values are the serpent, and the rest of us are Eve.

    Author's Note: I wrote this piece over three sessions.  During the first session, I could not help overhearing/eavesdropping on a conversation three tables down about some girl's attempt to get a cervical cancer screening via Planned Parenthood and her four month (and counting) wait time.  This has to be said....

    Thursday, March 1, 2012

    Andrew Breitbart: In Memoriam

    I've been asked by several people to comment on the death of Andrew Breitbart.  I'll do my best.  Andrew Breitbart was an apostle of the third Great American Awakening.  Andrew Breitbart was a missionary of the new media.  We will miss him.

    I met Andrew Breitbart one time, at Governor Perry's blogger summit in January 2010.  I always assumed our paths would cross again.  Sadly, that won't happen.  Several weeks after the January event, Governor Perry shared his impression of Andrew Breitbart.  I concur with Governor Perry when he said:
    Andrew Breitbart, man, let me tell ya, WHAT A STUD!!!
    To me, at least, Andrew Breitbart focused on America's core challenges; he didn't react to the news of the day.  Andrew Breitbart drove the news of the day.  Andrew Breitbart understood that America's corrupt culture and America's corrupt government are the natural result of America's corrupt media.  Furthermore, Andrew Breitbart understood that the influence of the entertainment media on America's culture is much more dangerous than the influence of the so-called 'news' media on the government.  Andrew Breitbart was committed to replacing both.

    As someone who shares Andrew Breitbart's long term goals, I'm often asked if Andrew Breitbart was/is one of my heroes.  Hero is the wrong word; Andrew Breitbart wasn't a hero, Andrew Breitbart was a guide.  Andrew Breitbart was the guy seven steps ahead teaching the rest of us the most effective next step.  Andrew Breitbart might not have been Moses, but he was certainly a modern Joshua.

    Andrew Breitbart's key insight was that our mission isn't (really) about politics.  Washington D.C. follows Hollywood.  Barack Obama would not be possible today without Antonio Gramsci and The Frankfurt School sixty years ago.  A nation obsessed with Jersey Shore and the Kardashians deserves Obamacare.

    Hollywood is America's default cultural premise, and Hollywood is based on lies.  Unfortunately, because Hollywood is America's default cultural premise, Hollywood is the prism through which average Americans interpret the actions of our government.  Right now, truth is something you have to seek out; that cannot continue.  Truth must become our cultural foundation.  We have to replace Hollywood; entertainment competition competition is the key to America's soul.

    Andrew Breitbart stood for Truth.  We have to restore that truth.  We have to restore the truth about God.  We have to restore the truth about History.  We have to restore the truth in our Culture.  We have to restore the truth about our Economy.  We have to restore the truth about our Government.  The truth can be terrifying, especially at first, but the lies will kill you.

    Today, alongside news of Andrew Breitbart's death, you have government officials lying about Rush Limbaugh's comment regarding this Marxist Skank useful idiot.  This kerfuffle, of course, occurs against the backdrop of one of the greatest assaults on faith in American History.  Andrew Breitbart did the legwork to excoriate flawed premises like these, while exposing stories others ignored, and it gave him all the right enemies.  That's why Andrew Breitbart was one of three people (along with Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck) I trust in my personal quest for truth.

    In 1968, Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. said:

    Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land!

    Like Rev. King, Andrew Breitbart had been to the top of the mountain.  Like Rev. King, Andrew Breitbart saw the promised land.  Like Rev. King, he will not get there with us; but, thanks to Andrew Breitbart, get there we shall.

    We are in the earliest stages of the Third Great American Awakening.  A MIRACLE of truth is about to sweep this land.  When that miracle comes, we will owe it to the foundation Andrew Breitbart helped lay.

    A good man; gone far too soon.

    Andrew Breitbart; 1969-2012.

    Rest in Peace.

    P.S. In the spirit of Andrew Breitbart, and new media/distribution models, if you enjoyed this memoriam I ask you to post it on ten Facebook pages!!!