Sunday, October 23, 2016

Adolf: "Now the Far Right Even Has Better Faggots Than We Do!"

Dalrock brings us one of the funniest and most intelligent Hitler parody videos ever made…

Hitler Learns Wikileaks Released Democrat Campaign Emails

When I saw that Ecuador cut off Assange’s Internet access I decided to try my hand at satirically scripting this famous scene.  Language warning.

Saturday, October 22, 2016

À Marseille, « Nous sommes face à un Everest de folie meurtrière »

« Nous sommes face à un Everest de folie meurtrière », a résumé le procureur de la République, Brice Robin, lundi 4 avril, au lendemain de deux règlements de comptes qui ont coûté la vie à quatre hommes à Marseille en quarante-huit heures.
Ainsi commence l'article de Luc Leroux dans Le Monde, alors que Français et autres Européens ainsi que démocrates US s'accordent sur le fait que l'Amérique des armes et de la violence devrait prendre l'Europe paisible et lucide en exemple. 
Marseille connaît un regain de violence, avec onze tués depuis le début de l’année lors de règlements de comptes, sur fond de guerre des clans pour contrôler le trafic de drogue dans les quartiers nord. Samedi 2 avril, vers 22 heures, trois hommes ont tiré à l’arme automatique à l’extérieur puis à l’intérieur de l’épicerie située au centre de la cité Bassens (15e arrondissement), l’une des plus déshéritées de la ville et longtemps l’un des plus juteux points de vente de drogue marseillais – au détail mais aussi en gros et demi-gros pour alimenter les autres cités.

Friday, October 21, 2016

The Marching Orders of the MSM

Mainstream Media Propaganda has given it marching
orders to the low information voters — by A.F. Branco

Thursday, October 20, 2016

Lilliputian Foreign Aid Percentages Coupled with Gargantuan Military Budget Amounts: What, If Anything, Is Hiding Behind Two Allegedly Damning Statistics About Uncle Sam?

    Most of us are familiar the adage attributed to Mark Twain, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." Fewer of us know Georges Fischer's saying: "Statistics are like bikinis; they show a lot, but they hide the essential" (Les statistiques, c'est comme les bikinis : ça montre beaucoup, mais ça cache l'essentiel).

    Let the following be a demonstrating why, or in what ways, such sayings are largely truthful.

    You have probably heard and read — not once but many times — that America’s aid to the developing countries of the Third World is nothing short of disgraceful, as it amounts to nothing but a much smaller percentage of that of many other Western nations.  For example, in 2013, the official development assistance by country as a percentage of Gross National Income was at about 1% or above for Sweden, Norway, and Luxembourg, with the United States arriving a dismal 20th, at "only" 0.17%.

    But wait!  There is a second statistic, one that is just as, if not more, damaging:  you have also probably heard or read that the amount of money that America uses on its military is far larger than that that other nations use, and indeed, you have probably heard broadsides to the effect that America's defense budget is larger than that of the next 20-25 or so nations combined.

    Paired, this pair of statistics, this couple of “facts”, seems to give nothing but a damning image of Uncle Sam.

    Both of these “facts”, incidentally, are mentioned in the famous rant that is often called "The Most Honest Three Minutes In Television History".  (In the opening scene of The Newsroom's Episode 1, Aaron Sorkin has his Will McAvoy character (Jeff Daniels) spit out: "we spend more than the next twenty-six countries combined, twenty-five of whom are allies … We [used to wage] wars on poverty, not poor people").

    So we have here two “facts” that, by themselves, “prove”, or ought to prove, and that behind the shadow of a doubt, that America is egoistical, that Washington is power-hungry, that Uncle Sam is war-mongering, that Americans are blind, and that the rest of the world is in distress because of Uncle Sam's despicable policies.  (Or, that at the very least, its leader — except when he or she happens to be a Democrat, of course — and/or the leader's policies are racist, greedy, bellicose, and self-centered.)

    But may we be allowed to take a closer look at these facts and figures?

    What is the first thing that we notice?

    We notice that one “fact” is a percentage figure. And we notice that the other “fact” is an amount figure.

    More precisely, one puts America (and other countries) in a list according to a percentage of GNP.  While the other puts America (and other countries) in a list according to absolute dollar terms.

    Does this signify anything?  At all?

    As a matter of fact, yes.

    It signifies a great deal.

    Both ways of making comparisons are valid and, in an ideal world — in a world where the reader, the student, the citizen, is given all necessary data — all figures, all facts, and all relevant statistics would be supplied — would be set forward for him to make up his own mind.

    How about if we provided all necessary data on these two subjects?  Wouldn't that be something?

    (For instance, changing the dollar figure of military expenditures to the dollar figure of military expenditures per capita used to drop the U.S. to third place a few years ago (with $936 per person, in third position following Israel and Singapore, with respectively $1,429 and $1,010 per person) and today to fourth place.)

    In the meantime, how would you like to try a fun experiment?  We have two "facts" about America, right, based upon two different types of calculating statistics.

    How about this?

    How about if, in each category (foreign aid and military budgets), we tried reversing the way the positions of countries are calculated?

1) What Happens If We Calculate Uncle Sam's Foreign Aid According to the Process Used to Compute Uncle Sam's Military Budget?

    Shall we try the foreign aid list first?  Let us see what happens when we calculate foreign aid in absolute terms and what position the countries end up in then.

    Lo and behold!

    While America’s development assistance as a percentage its GNP is indeed smaller than that of other aid nations, the net amount that it donates in absolute terms turns out to be — by far — the largest!

    At $31 billion, it is close to double that of the next country in the list (the UK, at $18 billion) and until recently (Germany has inched up over the past couple of years), more than double than every other country on the list, including all the Scandinavian countries combined (indeed, with the smaller Northern European countries mentioned above dropping to four to five times less than the USA each). As it turns out, for those among you who love the "combined" comparisons, the U.S. gives as much as Sweden, the Netherlands, Canada, Norway, Italy, Switzerland, and Australia combined.

    Obviously, it turns out that because the US is the superpower, in economics as well as everything else, the (far) lower percentage turns out to be an amount (far) superior to any amount offered by less rich countries.  (Now, think about this:  Does a farmer in central Africa, in southeast Asia, or elsewhere have a chance of profiting more from a donation of millions of dollars or from a donation of 1.40%?  The question doesn't make much sense, does it?)

    Now, you may well reply : Yes, you may agree …somewhat, but still, think about the following:  if Washington were to raise its percentage to the same level as, say, Japan and and the Europeans, wouldn't the amount of aid be that much larger?

    Alright, let us keep this in mind, we will get back to it (in the third part of this post), but first we must address the second “fact” discussed above.

    For the moment, notice that many people who reacted as mentioned above have not been willing to even entertain the thought that the Washington critics were even slightly wrong, not to say misleading.

    Indeed, those critics do not advertise the “amount” aspect of the aid matter, for one simple reason:  it does not go far in nourishing their (self-serving) message, which is that Americans, or their leaders, are inherently greedy, simple-minded, self-centered, short-sighted, etc.

    That is why we do not learn that, in real terms, the U.S. is
• top donor at the office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees
(its $157 million is three times as large as the next country (Holland)),
• top donor at UNICEF (along with the UK and Japan),
• top donor at the UN's fund in the fight against AIDS (half a billion dollars),
• and of course top donor at the United Nations itself.
Related: • Misleading Statistics — Would the EU Really
Dominate the Olympics in Medals Won If It Were "United"?

• The Misleading Statistics of Gun Control
• Mass shootings in the U.S. have fallen so much in the past century
that the political left has had to redefine what a mass shooting is
• Facts Which Europeans and American Leftists Conveniently Ignore

2) What Happens If We Calculate Uncle Sam's Military Budget According to the Process Used to Compute Uncle Sam's Foreign Aid?

    What do we notice with the military budget “fact” mentioned above?

    Lo and behold!

    Yes, this description of a problem with America turns out to be exactly the opposite of what was criticized in the foreign aid field.

    (Needless to say, one problem with statistics is that, as we have seen, there is more than one way of calculating sums, ratios, and other types of proportions)

    If we calculate military budgets as a percentage of GDP, we find that the figures change drastically.  We find that the USA falls to fourth place (3.5%) in one report, below Israel (5.2%) and Russia (4.5%).  First place?  That belongs to Saudi Arabia with almost three times as large a percentage (10.4%) as America. By capita, Riyadh also spends as much as three times the amount as the next country (as mentioned, not the United States) on the list.

    If we calculate military expenditures as a percent of GDP, the U.S. drops even further, falling to 9th place in one study and to 11th place in another, below eight or nine countries in or close to the Middle East (including Israel) as well as Russia.

    And if we try calculating the dollar figure per GDP, we find that the figures change drastically.  The U.S. drops down, not to second place, not to fourth place, not to 10th or 15th or 20th place, but almost all the way down to 30th place (it's actually position 29)!  This is according to the Global Militarization Index (GMI), which compares a nation's military expenditure with its gross domestic product (GDP) and which is roughly comparable to… the foreign aid statistic so widely bandied to scold America for.

    In some earlier studies, America has appeared at or near the 50th mark (#47, to be exact)!

    But hold on — what many of the above studies seem to fail to do is mention North Korea, although it has been reported variably as spending an astonishing quarter to a third of its GDP on its armed forces and should therefore belong in first place.  Indeed, let's go to the NationMaster website, where the 10-year-old figures for military expenditures as an estimated percent of gross domestic product already then put the US all the way down in position 27.  This makes more sense, with North Korea coming up front. (At almost 23%, it is double the percentage of the next entrant (not the United States but Oman).)

    And what nations follow it?

    The next nine countries are all in the Middle East. The first 30 nations are all in the Middle East, in Africa, and in Asia, from Yemen, Eritrea, and Mauritania to Chad, Angola, and Swaziland. Besides Israel, Bosnia, Greece, and the United States, along with Turkey, there is not a democracy and/or a European country among the first 50 or 60 nations.

    Does that leave those Western nations off the hook, however? Hardly, given the very fact that many of them are cosseted by Washington’s providing for their defense, which — who knows? — may go some way towards explaining why they can afford having both their amounts and their percentages be so low.

    As for the developing countries, an inordinate amount of money is spent by Third World leaders on the army, on security forces, and on police battalions, forces that amount to their leader's (to their leaders') personal bodyguard and forces which are then often turned loose… on the countries’ own population.

3) How Do We Tie Points 1 and 2 Together and Which Fundamental Factors Are Being Overlooked?

    Now we're getting to the gist of things.

    Because what you are saying now is:  Hold on for a second:  Back in section 1, you said that we would tie this second “fact” in with the first “fact” mentioned above.  How so?  Well, it so happens that this — any number of countries run by an autocrat using the country's military as his personal bodyguard — is the… type of country that… many of Washington’s critics would have America provide… a larger percentage (or a larger amount, whichever) of aid to!

    Of course, the critics will say, rubbish, they in no way want to provide aid to régimes that are oppressive and murdering their own people.

    I think it would be quite easy to come up with a number of examples disputing their claims.  (Leftists' support for and their aid to Saddam Hussein's Iraq — including peace-for-oil — comes to mind, for I don’t know which reason.)  But if it is true that a number of these countries are not having their personal bodyguard forces machine-gun their unarmed civilian populations (or otherwise disposing of internal enemies, imaginary or other), they are using quite an amount of moolah to buy luxury vehicles for their government ministers, and putting their friends in high places, and engaging in other types of corruption.

    Corruption, inefficiency (except in repression), wasted money:  this is a seemingly integral part of a number of the countries that would supposedly benefit from increased American (and Western) aid.

    Have you ever heard the old joke told inside the NGO community:  How can you predict when a famine is about to threaten an African nation?  Give up?  It's when the country's president needs a new Mercedes.

    Enter Kenyan economist James Shikwati.
If [Westerners] really want to fight poverty, they should completely halt development aid and give Africa the opportunity to ensure its own survival. Currently, Africa is like a child that immediately cries for its babysitter when something goes wrong. Africa should stand on its own two feet.
    Thus spoke James Shikwati to Der Spiegel's Thilo Thielke in July 2005 as the Kenyan economics expert pleaded, For God's Sake, Please Stop the Aid! (See also Dambisa Moyo's Dead Aid (Why Aid Is Not Working and How There Is a Better Way for Africa).)

    Good intentions such as eliminating hunger and poverty
have been damaging our continent for the past 40 years. If the industrial nations really want to help the Africans, they should finally terminate this awful aid. The countries that have collected the most development aid are also the ones that are in the worst shape. Despite the billions that have poured in to Africa, the continent remains poor.

 … Huge bureaucracies are financed [with the aid money], corruption and complacency are promoted, Africans are taught to be beggars and not to be independent. In addition, development aid weakens the local markets everywhere and dampens the spirit of entrepreneurship that we so desperately need. As absurd as it may sound: Development aid is one of the reasons for Africa's problems. If the West were to cancel these payments, normal Africans wouldn't even notice. Only the functionaries would be hard hit. Which is why they maintain that the world would stop turning without this development aid.

 … Africa is always only portrayed as a continent of suffering, but most figures are vastly exaggerated. In the industrial nations, there's a sense that Africa would go under without development aid. But believe me, Africa existed before you Europeans came along. And we didn't do all that poorly either.

 … Millions of dollars earmarked for the fight against AIDS are still stashed away in Kenyan bank accounts and have not been spent. Our politicians were overwhelmed with money, and they try to siphon off as much as possible. The late tyrant of the Central African Republic, Jean Bedel Bokassa, cynically summed it up by saying: 'The French government pays for everything in our country. We ask the French for money. We get it, and then we waste it.'

 … There must be a change in mentality. We have to stop perceiving ourselves as beggars. These days, Africans only perceive themselves as victims. On the other hand, no one can really picture an African as a businessman. In order to change the current situation, it would be helpful if the aid organizations were to pull out.
    Case in point.  Tanzania was supposed to be Sweden’s showcase in the aid “industry.”  A couple of decades ago, it was said that there was as much chance of seeing a blond head behind the wheel of a vehicle in Dar es Salaam as a black one.  Now, I have a question for you:  How often do you hear the government in Stockholm bragging about the wonderful advances it has made in Tanzania?  Not often, do you?  As a matter of fact — and I write this perhaps primarily for those who love to dish out statistics — the per capita income in that Western African country has decreased since Sweden’s millions of kronor started flowing in.

    So: must we do nothing, ask Washington’s critics?

    I will try to answer that in the a later post.  For now, just notice that the question doesn’t, as before, even start to cast doubt, be it a single iota thereof or otherwise, on the claims, implied or otherwise, that foreign aid is working, that aid in general is undoubtedly a proof of generosity, that Uncle Sam's military budget is a monstrosity, that Washington is greedy and evil, and that Americans are devious and mean.

    In fact, isn't the (pressing) question meant to change the subject as quickly as possible?  Change it back to the old we-are-still-the-most-compassionate-most-intelligent-most-humane-people-to-ever-tread-the-face-of-Earth mantra?

    To sum up: 

    What is the reason that all of us are not more familiar with the net amount figures in the matter of foreign aid?  Because it would be much harder for the critics to depict America capitalists as greedy, clueless, heartless clods.

    And what is the reason that we are not more familiar with the percentage figures on the question of military budgets?  Because it would be much harder for the critics to demonize Americans as bellicose imperialist warmongers.

    By the same token, it would be much harder for America's critics — U.S. leftists and Europeans foremost amongst them — to laud themselves as the most compassionate people in the world, as the most intelligent people in the world, as the most tolerant people in the world, and as the most humane beings in history ever to walk the face of the Earth.

Wednesday, October 19, 2016

Fired not for tolerating voter fraud for years but for admitting that there’s a problem at all

Voter fraud deniers will have to grasp those straws a little tighter 
predicts Benny Huang,
after an undercover video released last week showed Alan Schulkin, Manhattan’s Commissioner of the Board of Elections, admitting in no uncertain terms that the problem exists. Schulkin, a Democrat, was not aware that he was speaking to an operative of the public integrity outfit Project Veritas. Unfortunately, Shulkin is just another public figure who says one thing in public and something entirely different in private.

“I think there’s a lot of voter fraud, people don’t realize certain neighborhoods in particular, they bus people around to vote,” said Schulkin to a Project Veritas journalist. When he was asked what kind of neighborhoods he was talking about, he replied: “Oh, I don’t want to say.” The journalist pressed a little harder, asking: “Oh, like minority neighborhoods? Like black neighborhoods and Hispanic neighborhoods?” Schulkin replied, “Yeah. And Chinese too.” Nor did he believe that the problem was confined to in-person voting. When he was asked about absentee ballot fraud, he replied “Oh there’s thousands of absentee ballots. I don’t know where they came from.”

The problem of voter fraud is real. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either trying to perpetuate it or extremely naïve. None of this should come as a surprise to anyone who’s the least bit cognizant of the culture of corruption that pervades many American cities. All that is required for voter fraud to flourish is a corrupt political machine willing to scam the honor system that operates our vulnerable elections.

And yet vote fraudsters are protected by a code of silence nearly as sacred as the mafia’s omertà. Even Alan Schulkin won’t talk about it unless he thinks no one will hear. As an election official he’s overseen numerous elections and had the opportunity to witness the shenanigans firsthand, yet he won’t do anything about it. That tells me that he’s under extreme pressure to keep mum.

And alas, that pressure has predictably come to bear. Mayor De Blasio is now calling for Schulkin’s resignation—not for tolerating voter fraud for years (which really should cost him his job) but for admitting that there’s a problem at all. De Blasio, like most Democrat politicians, is less scandalized by the existence of voter fraud than that anyone would speak its name aloud. If you ask them, it’s not happening, and anyone who says that it is happening ought to pay an enormous social penalty up to and including his job. “Again, this is just urban legend that there is a [voter] fraud problem,” said De Blasio. “There isn’t. There’s no proof of it whatsoever.”

Is that so? The definition of “proof” can sometimes be elusive, but I would argue that when a major election official, speaking off the record and with nothing to gain, says that voters are being bused around from precinct to precinct, that’s at least a form of evidence, if not proof. At very least, it merits further investigation, which is exactly what De Blasio doesn’t want.

But in fact Mayor De Blasio is wrong; there has been a major voter fraud operation uncovered in New York City in my lifetime, which means that voter fraud is not some kind of “urban legend” similar to alligators in the sewers. In 1984, a grand jury delivered the results of its investigation, asserting that it had found evidence of systematic election fraud in large parts of Brooklyn taking place from 1968 until it was stopped in 1982. The fraudsters apparently used a smorgasbord of methods to tilt the elections their way—absentee ballot fraud, voting in the name of dead people or people who were known to have moved away, the impersonation of legitimate voters, and the wholesale invention of fictitious voters. Yes, they also bused people around. According to the book “Who’s Counting?” by Hans von Spakovsky and John Fund, “One of the witnesses before the New York grand jury described how he led a crew of eight individuals from polling place to polling place to vote. Each member of his crew voted in excess of 20 times, and there were approximately 20 other such crews operating during that election.” By doing a little back of the envelope arithmetic, I can estimate that these electoral wrecking crews probably cast about 3,600 fake ballots, give or take a few hundred.

The New York grand jury said it all when it concluded: ”The ease and boldness with which these fraudulent schemes were carried out shows the vulnerability of our entire electoral process to unscrupulous and fraudulent misrepresentation.” Yes, indeed.

I can already hear the objections: “But that was more than thirty years ago!”—the implication being that election fraud in the past doesn’t prove election fraud in the present. True, 1984 was a long time ago, though not nearly as long ago as 1964, and we still have federal election monitors in the South to ensure that racist white officials don’t disenfranchise blacks. It seems that people’s idea of what constitutes a “long time ago” varies in inverse proportion to how much they want root out the problem. The argument that the 1984 Brooklyn fraud case is old news misses the point, namely that fraudsters even then had both the capability and the intention to scam the system. All those who think voter fraud is an “urban legend” will have to explain how the problem magically solved itself while those same capabilities and intentions survived.

New York is no less corrupt today than it was in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. Here’s what really changed between then and now—in those days, there was an actual sense of outrage that elections were being stolen. Now anyone who talks about the problem runs the risk of being smeared as a racist. In 1984, public officials were able to see voter fraud because their eyes were open to it, to say nothing of their minds. Today the attitude is nothing less than willful ignorance. No prosecutor in his right mind would go to trial with that case because, as the adage goes, you can’t beat city hall. Even people who are charged with guarding the integrity of our elections, people like Alan Schulkin, have given up trying to stop it. It’s a third rail of politics—talk about voter fraud and you get zapped.

Alan Schulkin himself is now backtracking from his claims, though only because he’s tasted some of the mayor’s wrath and presumably that of the city’s “civil rights” establishment—in other words, the race hustlers. Schulkin now claims that he should have said “potential” voter fraud, but that’s clearly not what he meant when he spoke unwittingly to Project Veritas. When he said that “they bus people around to vote” in black, Hispanic, and Chinese neighborhoods, he wasn’t speaking hypothetically. If he were, that would actually be racist. If we assume that Schulkin was talking about potential voter fraud, not the real McCoy, a prudent person would be right to ask how he knows that it would happen in black, Hispanic, and Chinese neighborhoods. But the answer is moot because he’s lying when he backtracked on his comments. He got caught being honest and had to make up a lie to wiggle out from under the implications of his earlier statement. If he had known he was being recorded he would have denied the existence of the problem just like the rest of the New York City political establishment.

The former congressman Artur Davis, a black Democrat turned independent turned Republican turned Democrat, summed it up well when he said:
“Most people would not change their mind on voter ID if someone walked in front of them and admitted they committed voter-ID fraud yesterday. They have their heels dug in. A number of people opposed to voter ID are opposed for political reasons, for reasons that don’t have substance. People plead guilty to voter fraud, and that doesn’t seem to move the opinions of some of those opposed.”
Truer words have never been spoken. It’s hard to make a political establishment that has risen to power via voter fraud care about the issue because they just don’t see it as a problem.

Tuesday, October 18, 2016

Kirchenkampf: Hitler Was Determined to Diminish the Number of Catholic Schools

As an addendum to my posts on the Nazis' hostility to the Christian faith — proving that Adolf Hitler was no Christian and neither had nor wanted any ties to Christianity or any other organized religion — the International Herald Tribune carried the following item in its In Our Pages 75 Years Ago column:
1937 Hitler to Ban Church Schools
Acting in the face of a specific clause in the Reich-Vatican concordate which guarantees the existence of Catholic schools in Germany, the Nazi government, it was disclosed today [Jan. 26], is preparing a law under which attendance at non-denominational state schools would be compulsory for all German children. The law was considered at a special Cabinet meeting here today under the chairmanship of Chancellor Hitler, and it may be issued in connection with the celebration Saturday of the fourth anniversary of the Third Reich, although on this point there is no certainty. In pastoral letters read Sunday in Catholic churches throughout the Reich German bishops charged that the existing policy of the government in gradually diminishing the number of Church schools was an outright violation of the concordate and appealed to the faithful to resist these “illegal encroachments” of the state.
There is a word in German for the Nazi persecution of the Catholic Church: it is Kirchenkampf ("church struggle").

Adolf Hitler in Religious Surroundings: Is There Really Evidence That the Führer Was a Christian? — an in-depth, dispassionate look at the evidence brought by a couple of commentators claiming that Christianity was an integral part of Nazism…

• Worshipping Little Else But the Aryan Race, Hitler Abhorred the Christian Faith and Wanted to Replace Christmas with the Pagans' Yuletide

 • 卐mas Caroling: The Extremes Hitler Wanted to Go To in Order to Replace Christianity with the "Religion" of National Socialism

Saturday, October 15, 2016

The fact is that airlines have no incentive to end their cumbersome boarding processes

In response to an Economist piece on a how a faster way of boarding planes could save time and money, Hugh Rooney writes that
I think you missed the point in your article about efforts to find faster ways to board planes that could “save time and money” (“Please be seated”, September 3rd). The fact is that airlines prefer to keep their cumbersome boarding processes. That way some travellers will pay more to avoid the chaos by purchasing first class, or priority access, or some other premium-priced ticket. Airlines also reward frequent flyers by allowing them to board early. They have no incentive to end a practice that enhances their revenues.
Hugh Rooney
Glenview, Illinois
• Airplane Etiquette:
Undue Deference Is Not Applicable When Exiting an Aircraft

Do airline companies assume that
terrorists can only afford a seat in economy class?

• Do Airline Safety Rules Make Sense? Yes,
But Not in the Way You Were Taught to Think

Friday, October 14, 2016

Quotas: According to the Obama Administration, the U.S. Air Force should be 51% female and 13% black because the general population is

Grab your ankles
warns Benny Huang,
the Secretary of the Air Force is talking about diversity again.

Deborah Lee James, a career bureaucrat who has never worn the uniform of any service, announced last week that she aims to remedy the supposed problem of too many white men in positions of authority.

“America is a diverse population, and we don’t want to shut down pieces of the population from which we can recruit,” said James. “We want the best we can possibly get from all sectors.” Oh yeah? Well why not just hire the best person for the job and let the chips land where they may? She doesn’t say.

This most recent policy comes about a year and a half after Secretary James announced another equally discriminatory “diversity” initiative. In March of 2015, she unveiled her nine step plan to diversify the Air Force, particularly its most glamorous career fields such as pilots and air battle managers. One of her nine points was to reduce height standards for pilots, thus making it easier for women to qualify—as if height standards were arbitrary obstacles dreamed up by sexist men to preserve their boys’ club.

A year and a half has passed and Secretary James is not satisfied with the “progress” made thus far so more drastic measures will be imposed. … Of course, that one “diverse candidate” has to be “qualified”—a term that is highly malleable whenever race or sex is of paramount importance.

It’s no wonder that the blurb on the cover of the Air Force Times cover blared: “Minorities, Women, Now Have Edge in Key Positions.” Yes, they do. In years past affirmative action proponents framed the issue in terms of “leveling the playing field” but these days it’s all out in the open—minorities and women have an “edge,” which is another way of saying that they’re favored. It is literally impossible for favored groups to exist without the existence of corresponding disfavored groups. Don’t be fooled—this policy has real victims with names and faces.

But the Rooney Rule alone isn’t discrimination, is it? After all, no one is saying that the “diverse candidate” has to get the job. Well…not exactly. While it may be true that the “diverse candidate” isn’t guaranteed to get the job, commanders will now have to explain their decision to a board which will consist of a certain proportion of women and minorities. Commanders who care about their careers will take the hint from on high—things like performance are no longer considered to be as important as race and sex. Commanders are not under any explicit mandate to select the “diverse candidate” but there is pressure to discriminate against white men in order to meet “goals”—or what used to be called quotas.

No one dares use the “Q” word anymore, at least not since the landmark 1978 court case of California v. Bakke. … Secretary James’s 2015 “diversity” initiative failed to reach some critical mass of women and minorities in key positions so she resorted to more drastic measures in her 2016 initiative. If she’s allowed to stay on into the next Clinton Administration she will surely continue to tighten the screws until she gets the numbers she wants. As long as she has any number in mind—the “right” proportion of women and minorities who should be in key positions—that’s a quota and it’s illegal.

 … Secretary James’s lickspittle Chief of Staff, General David Goldfein, is completely on board with the policy. If you listen closely, you can hear him speak openly of quotas: “Having a diverse group of leaders, having a diverse group of airmen that are representative of the nation, that can come together and bring those diverse backgrounds and [ways of] thinking, to provide creative solutions to some of these complex challenges is as much a war-fighting imperative as it is about improving our Air Force.” (Emphasis added).

When the general speaks of creating a force that is “representative of the nation,” he is clearly implying that the program’s goal is to adjust the demographics of the Air Force to match the demographics of the country as a whole—or at least in regard to sensitive categories such as race and sex. In other words, the Air Force should be 51% female and 13% black because the general population is. Not only that, but these proportions should remain constant across all ranks and throughout all career fields—lower enlisted through general officers, cooks, mechanics, pilots and navigators. Again, that’s a quota. Quotas are discriminatory even by the Supreme Court’s screwy logic—and they’re illegal.

General Goldfein’s comment about having airmen that are “representative of the nation” is boilerplate diversity-speak that echoes a thousand public officials before him. …

It’s possible that some discriminatory, quota-mongering bigots don’t realize that they’re discriminatory, quota-mongering bigots. They just think they’re good people who want to make everything fair. They would never use—gasp!—quotas. But alas, they do. Quotas never lapsed into disuse, not even after the Bakke decision which changed nothing except maybe the way people employ language. People learned to speak of “goals” rather than quotas, to talk about reforming institutions to “look like” the general population, and to stress the importance of achieving demographics that are “representative” of the community. These are all coded language, red flags that illegal discrimination is being employed. Watch out for phrases like these and call them out when you hear them. 

Thursday, October 13, 2016

Dalrock Finds One More Major Problem with the Thrust of the Leftists' Complaints Regarding the Trump Scandal

Cuckoldry they don’t mind, but describing slutty women with disrespectful language is unacceptable!
I thought that all the liberals' double standards about Donald Trump's 10-year-old video had been said on scores of Instapundit posts (Bill Clinton, the Kennedys, etc), but Dalrock manages to find another, indeed one of the basic problems with the scandal. Indeed, they can be presented as bring two problems.

Not only may women, even those who do behave sluttily, no longer be called out, but the fact that a man goes after another's wife in no way fits into the scandal equation.

It has been telling that Republican outrage over the audio of Trump describing his attempt to cuckold other men is almost entirely focused on the fact that Trump spoke crudely in describing the way women threw themselves at him.  Cuckoldry they don’t mind, but describing slutty women with disrespectful language is unacceptable!
Trump had claimed he pushed a married woman to have sex with him and said he could grab women “by the p****” because he was a celebrity. A recording of his conversation with then-”Access Hollywood” host Billy Bush was published by NBC News and The Washington Post on Friday.
“No woman should ever be described in these terms or talked about in this manner. Ever,” Priebus said in a statement released that night.
The title of Dalrock's post is

Do as you please with their wives, so long as you respect her in the morning

Wednesday, October 12, 2016

Don't the Main Respected Institutions Gutted by the Left Turn Out to Be the IRS, the FBI, the State Department, and the White House?

A famed Iowahawk meme has been, all to accurately, used to describe every kind of institution, from the Smithsonian and the NFL to, most notoriously, college campuses around the country:
1. Identify a respected institution.
2. kill it.
3. gut it.
4. wear its carcass as a skin suit, while demanding respect. 
Of course, what is the most venerable institution of all? Isn't it the United States government — most notably the IRS, the FBI, and the State Department, as well as the White House itself?

David Burge's meme is the story of Barack "fundamentally transform the United States" Obama and the Obama administration, and David Burge's meme will be the story of the Hillary Clinton administration.

What can we expect regarding the Supreme Court, the Senate, and the House of Representatives under a Hillary administration, as well as "the miracle at Philadelphia" — the Constitution itself?!

Turning America, one step at a time, into a banana republic.

Addendum: For this, you can thank in great part the 26th Amendment.

In reply to "Old enough to fight, old enough to vote," the reasonable reply ought to have been the French proverb, "si jeunesse savait, si vieillesse pouvait" ("If youth had the knowledge, if old age had the energy", i.e., Youth is wasted on the young).

To the Yahoo Answers question, "What is meant by 'youth is wasted on the young'?", the "Best Answer" reads in part:
It means that young people have everything going for them physically; they're in the best health they will ever be in; their minds are sharp and clear BUT they lack patience, understanding and wisdom which results in so much wasted effort.
In other words, Youth has the muscle, so it fights, it goes to war.

Adulthood has the wisdom, so it votes, it takes care of the laws.

Before you are tempted to protest, let's add to the previous sentence: Adulthood has the wisdom, so it votes, it takes care of the laws; including the laws concerning the beings for whom they have the deepest love in this life — their very own sons.

Think of this: don't the reasons given for the Amendment XXVI turn out to be some of the most extreme-leftist arguments ever raised?

Indeed, what is the main assumption behind "Old enough to fight, old enough to vote"?

That a boy's (or girl's) father, and a boy's mother, are clueless clods, incapable of reflecting beyond their own self-interest, thinking of nobody but themselves, far too clueless not to vote in favor of what would be the best for their son (or daughter), especially in what concerns matters of life and death; no, for that, you need to go somewhere else.

And what would that else one should go to be? Tthe government, of course, and its politicians (those white knights in shining armor come to rescue a hapless citizenry, in this case the young), which has/have so effectively taken over the roles of family (as well as religion) — Big Brother — all over the Western world.
young people … lack patience, understanding and wisdom which results in so much wasted effort
Another reasonable reply to "Old enough to fight, old enough to vote" would be the famed saying:
If, at 20, you don't lean to the left, you have no heart;
If, at 30, you don't lean to the right, you have no brains.
You have no choice but to wonder whether the United States is where it is at — institutions identified, killed, and gutted, with respect demanded (not to mention "5 Make the carcass apologize") — because it has, out of a sense of "justice" and "fairness", enacted amendment after amendment during the 20th century, most of which have undermined the Republic while building Democracy, thereby enabling the era of the Drama Queen.

You have no choice but to wonder whether the entire Western world is where it is at because it has allowed election after election to be decided by millions of immature voters lacking "patience, understanding and wisdom which results in so much wasted effort"; election after election to be decided by millions of immature voters with plenty of passion ("this is not who we are") but with no brains.

No brains at all…

To repeat what I wrote on Sunday:
Never would I have thought that the Republican Party, and the United States of America, was ready to commit suicide — certainly not in my lifetime…
“From whence shall we expect the approach of danger? Shall some trans-Atlantic military giant step the earth and crush us at a blow? Never. All the armies of Europe and Asia … could not by force take a drink from the Ohio River or make a track on the Blue Ridge in the trial of a thousand years. No, if destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of free men we will live forever or die by suicide.”
— Abraham Lincoln

Tuesday, October 11, 2016

A "Ferocious" and "Blistering" Attack: MSM Outlet Uses Extreme Vocabulary for the GOP Candidate While Ignoring Both Clintons and Hillary's Campaign Entirely

With the words "ferocious" and "blistering" attack, the BBC has, far from unsurprisingly, shown its true colors again — spinning everything negative towards the GOP's candidate while ignoring his Democratic challenger, leaving her and her spouse out of the equation…

Sunday, October 09, 2016

Abe Lincoln and the USA's Future as a Banana Republic: How Can Republicans — and Americans in General — Be So Naïve?!

I strongly reject the idea that there is some kind of moral obligation to abandon Trump.
Doesn't John Hinderaker have it exactly right (thanks to Instapundit)?
First, … I was never under any illusions as to Trump’s character, his competence or his conservatism. I think he is a horrible Republican nominee. But he is still better than Hillary Clinton. His character is no worse than Hillary’s, he is more conservative (or less liberal), and he would make a better president. So I have every intention of voting for him as the lesser of two evils. I strongly reject the idea that there is some kind of moral obligation to abandon Trump.

Second, it can be useful to ask, What would the Democrats do? Here there is no need to speculate: we saw what they did in the 1990s. They circled the wagons and defended their man to the hilt, using whatever smears and lies were helpful, even though he was credibly accused of rape and multiple instances of sexual harassment. Indeed, that is what the Democrats are doing now with Hillary Clinton, as revelations much more material to her performance in office than the Trump video have come out over the past year or two. See, generally, Clinton Cash. Republicans are always held to a higher standard than Democrats, but why? Maybe this is as good a time as any to reject the double standard and fight fire with fire. E.g., this Drudge headline: “KATHLEEN WILLEY CALLS FOR HILLARY TO RESIGN FROM CAMPAIGN…”

Finally, calling on Trump to resign signals, at best, an unprecedented and humiliating disarray within the GOP. It still may make sense if the party has an opportunity to substitute a better candidate with a greater chance of winning. But, as Paul noted earlier, it is not clear that such a switch is practical. If Mike Pence (not Mitt Romney) could be substituted on the ballot for Trump, it would be an improvement. But I doubt that any such smooth transition is possible.
Ted Cruz's (non-brainer) prediction is coming true (is there no way the GOP can make the Texas senator the party's nominee?). The Alinsky Democrats, having maneuvered a highly controversial candidate into the opposition party's front ranks with the help of the media and idiot Republicans, in true banana-republic fashion, are bringing their October surprises

Applying Alinsky's principles, the Democrats are tempting Republicans — Americans — to live by their higher standards, standards that they never have applied, or had any intention of applying, to themselves (see Clinton, Bill, as well as Kennedy, Anyfirstname).

And those idiots are falling for it.

Paul Mirengoff ponders whether
it may be that no course is better than letting this horror show play out, learning the lessons it has to teach us, and then picking up the pieces
That is, if there are any pieces to pick up, and anybody, any party, left to take heed of the lessons…

As Peter Ingemi, who refuses to let himself "be played" (thanks to Instapundit), puts it,
Right now a lot of people are forgetting that for good or I’ll the only thing standing between us and the financial, military, security, cultural and constitutional rights disaster that a Hillary Clinton administration would be is Donald Trump.
See also Ed Driscoll on the 1990s' "It's just sex", with Kathy Shaidle pointing out that
If ‘it’s just sex!!!’ in 1995, then it’s ‘just sex’ in 2005, and this year and every year forever. THEY made that rule. Make your enemy play by his rules — remember your Alinsky.
Never would I have thought that the Republican Party, and the United States of America, was ready to commit suicide — certainly not in my lifetime…
“From whence shall we expect the approach of danger? Shall some trans-Atlantic military giant step the earth and crush us at a blow? Never. All the armies of Europe and Asia … could not by force take a drink from the Ohio River or make a track on the Blue Ridge in the trial of a thousand years. No, if destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of free men we will live forever or die by suicide.”
— Abraham Lincoln