Islam : an Empirical Crisis for the West

and a new, Rational Doctrine for Neutralizing that Threat.

https://i0.wp.com/deskofbrian.com/wp-content/uploads/Monroe-Doctrine-cartoon.jpg

A New “Monroe Doctrine’ for Countering Islamic Terrorism

In my prior post, The Theological Nature of Islam, I described the rationale and conclusions I’ve reached regarding ‘radical’ Islam. Those conclusions implied a solution to the West’s empirical crisis with Islamic terrorism.

My conclusion is that Islamic radicalism, in all its forms and personages, from the Palestinians to the Iranians, whether Hamas or Hezbollah are a symptom, not a cause and that the cause is Islam itself.

I do not however propose that the West make ‘conventional war’ upon 1.5 billion Muslims. Instead I propose to convincingly threaten to make war upon Islam’s holiest shrines, to make the survival of Islam’s holy shrines, of unique and inestimable importance to Muslims, hostage to ALL Muslim’s future ‘good’ behavior, bringing the consequence of an unthinkable price to pay for any future aggression and terrorism. I contend that deterrence is possible, if properly constructed.

It is my contention that by doing so, Islam’s fanatics will finally face a consequence and thus a deterrence, that they are not prepared to accept. And in their unwillingness to accept that consequence, it will also allow for the time needed for Islam to slowly self-destruct, as it must because I contend that Islam cannot survive another century of cultural exposure to the modern world. The modern world’s culture represents, to Islam, a mortal threat and, that is what has given rise to the resurgence of Islamic jihadism against the West.

It is also my contention that our current course will eventually and inevitably result in nuclear terrorist attack(s) upon cities in the West and, that will finally force the West to confront the reality of the threat that Islam presents to the West.

It is time for the politically correct fantasies to be put aside and for reality to be faced, for otherwise a ‘nuclear terrorist reality’ will sooner or later be imposed upon both the West and the US.

But of course, the left will not allow the politically correct fantasies to be put aside until reality becomes undeniable. Just that reason alone is sufficient to declare that the left is of far greater threat to the West than Islam because they are blocking the implementation of effective defensive strategies. It is the left’s premises and the beliefs that extend from those premises, that is preventing the West from responding effectively and appropriately to Islam’s aggression.

It is my contention that there is only one effective deterrent strategy against Islam because there is only one thing that ‘radical’ jihadist Muslims cherish above their hate for the West.

That strategy starts with recognition that the West is under ideological and physical assault from Islam, that ‘rogue’ nations and terrorist organizations are merely Islam’s agents in its war with the West. This is because the Qur’an, Islam’s holiest of holies, the unalterable words of Allah, proclaims that armed struggle to establish Islam over the entire world is the absolute duty of every Muslim.

Which means that Islam will continue to throw it’s jihadists and logistical resources at the West. If necessary for the next 1000 years, just as it intermittently has for the last 1400 years. Islam is an aggressive, expansionist totalitarian ideology, wrapped within the trappings of a religion. It must act according to its nature, just as the scorpion does…and it is critical to this doctrine to make clear to all Muslims, in an unequivocal and unapologetic manner, that its own tenets declare this to be the case.

This strategy recognizes that Islam does not value, as in the West, their nation’s, tribes or even an individual’s survival, as Islam’s tenets declare that Muslims have no individual value, since Islam implicitly rejects self-determination. That there is only one thing that devout Muslim’s cherish more than the imposition of Islam upon the world…and that is the survival of Islam itself.

Therefore, the only strategy that has even a prayer of deterring terrorist attacks upon the West is to make Islam itself responsible.

That strategy would consist of a new doctrine, that would declare that any future terrorist attack upon ANY Western nation’s cities or peoples, by any nation or terrorist organization… will bring an immediate tactical response upon Islam’s holiest shrines; that conventional terrorist attacks will result in a proportional retaliation upon Islamic mosques and a nuclear or WMD attack upon any Western city will result in the immediate and utter destruction of Mecca, Medina, the City of Qom and the complete conventional demolition of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem.

Many westerners fail to appreciate the inestimable value Muslims place upon their holy places. Mecca, or more specifically the Kaaba in Mecca is the foremost in value and is so revered that it is the holy duty of every Muslim to make a pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in their life. It is so important, that it is proclaimed to be the fifth of the Seven Pillars of Islam. Every Muslim in the world is required to get down on their knees and pray toward Mecca five times, every day. And there are no ‘holidays’ from this duty.

Mainstream, fundamentalist Imams and Mullahs are the primary force driving Islamic radicalism. Once they are convinced that Islam’s most cherished sites, which act as a talisman for their power… are mortally threatened, they will be profoundly reluctant to put them at risk by sanctioning a nuclear attack upon the West. And, since conventional terrorist attacks will place their mosques and them at risk, it will no longer be just the jihadist terrorist who faces reprisal.

“Those who oppose the Mullahs oppose Islam itself; eliminate the Mullahs [and Imams] and Islam shall disappear in fifty years. It is only the Mullahs who can bring the people into the streets and make them die for Islam– begging to have their blood shed for Islam.” –Ayatollah Khomeini

Islam would now face a choice; a conventional terrorist attack will result in the consequential retaliation upon Islam’s mosques and a nuclear or WMD attack upon the West would result in all of Islam’s holiest shrines, ceasing to exist within moments of a nuclear terrorist attack.

That is the reality and inescapable consequence with which the West must confront Islam.

Realistically, it is a virtual certainty that elements within Islam will not believe the West capable of following through with such a policy, so inevitably the West will have to demonstrate its resolve.

When the West announces its new doctrine, the West should warn Muslims that if sufficiently provoked, such as by ongoing rocket barrages on Israel, an appropriate demonstration of resolve will be the bombing of the Dome of the Rock. And that its future survival is hostage to their good behavior.

Based on past experience, Islamist radicals will be ‘certain’ that the West is blustering, so when they attack the West with a terrorist attack, even if it only uses conventional explosives or methods, the immediate bombing of the Dome of the Rock would begin and the West would announce that the bombing won’t stop until the Dome of the Rock is completely destroyed.

When Muslims around the world fly into a predictable rage, the West should be ready with a response at the UN. The West should look the world and Islam right in the eye and say, “OK, now you know we’re serious. Would you like to go for Medina next or do you want to throw Mecca into the ‘pot’ too and go ‘all in’?

Announcing such a doctrine with its identification of Islam as the West’s enemy, will necessitate the West also announcing that in the event of any blockade, embargo or aggression against the West by Islamic elements, such as seizing and mining the Strait of Hormuz or attacking oil fields or pipelines will also result in the consequence of Islam’s holy shrines and/or mosques being attacked.

That is the reality with which the West must confront Islam’s Imams and Mullahs who direct jihadist terrorists.

The West must make absolutely clear to Islam and all Muslims that any attack upon the West, with weapons of mass destruction, nuclear or otherwise, that threatens the existence of the West’s cities … will result in the unthinkable happening to them.

That is the reality with which the West must confront Islam.

Bill Ayers, the ‘Critical Pedagogy’ movement and ‘Cultural Marxism’

Critical Revolutionary Pedagogy and the Politics of Education

First posted on the Verum Serum blog  on December 15, 2009 at 10:30 am

[Morgen: Geoffrey is a regular commenter who we invited to post on occasion, based on his depth of analysis and clear writing ability. The ground war over the future of our nation’s values is being waged in our school systems, and people like Bill Ayers are generals in this war. As they are wont to do, they mask their philosophies and strategies under the cloak of academic research and arcane terminology. Geoffrey’s piece is a great primer on the core of liberal (socialist) strategy to subvert the education of our children.]

The motivational and foundational philosophical theorems of the American Left’s political, social and educational views are ‘Critical Pedagogy’ theory and ‘Cultural Marxism’. Bill Ayers is simply an influential, ‘celebrity’ advocate of these ideologies.

The Critical Pedagogy Movement is coming to a school near you and it means to change the world.

One child at a time.

Most people have never heard the term, Critical Pedagogy’. That is intentional.

Anyone not involved in the educational community would have little reason to be aware of this leftist theory of education. If it were merely a theory however, there would be little reason for concern.

The primary assumption of critical pedagogy is that disparities between individual and social group outcomes in life are due to entrenched societal oppression. So, if anyone or any group has ‘more’ than another it is because they are either oppressing others or benefiting from the ‘oppression of the masses’.

Thus, all whites benefit from an unjust social system and, as a result are inherently guilty of racism.

Advocates implicitly deny any definition of the ‘pursuit of happiness’, which does not result in equality of outcome. That necessarily limits American’s liberty and their pursuit of happiness to the politically correct calculus of Critical Pedagogy theory.

Pedagogy is defined as ‘the art or profession of teaching’. That definition is sometimes shortened by advocates into ‘the teaching’. The theory of critical pedagogy was first fully developed and then popularized in 1968 by the Brazilian educator and influential theorist Paulo Freire. His seminal work, the Pedagogy [The Teaching] of the Oppressed, was highly influential within the US leftist academic community and in 1969 Freire was offered a visiting professorship at Harvard University.

His subsequent work was highly influential with the Bill Ayers of the world. One might think of Paulo Freire as the Saul Alinsky of the US leftist educational community. Critical Pedagogy is the educational arm of the ‘social justice movement’, which is the political arm of “liberation theology”, all of which are aspects of ‘Cultural Marxism’.

Some of the basic tenets of critical pedagogy are:

  • ALL education is inherently political…
  • A social and educational vision of justice and equality should be the foundation for all education
  • Race, class, gender, sexuality, religion, and physical ability are important domains of oppression
  • The purpose of education is the alleviation of oppression and human suffering
  • Schools must not hurt students–good schools don’t blame students for their failures
  • Good schools don’t judge the beliefs students have about their life’s experiences
  • Part of the role of any educator involves becoming a researcher into social oppression
  • Education must promote emancipatory change

Sixteen of the top educational schools in America are heavily influenced by Critical Pedagogy and are shaping the future leaders of our educational system. This belief system is now spreading out of the colleges into our K-12 systems and being promulgated by radical teachers as its ‘agents of change’.

It’s a well-organized, widespread movement, firmly entrenched in many Universities and its advocates are actively seeking to spread it worldwide.

Thus, most recently in Minnesota the agenda of radical teacher education came to light; The University of Minnesota redesigns teachersHere is what the Univ. of Minnesota’s new teacher certification program requires:

Students are required to adopt “race, culture, class and gender” identity politics in order to be recommended for a teaching license.

Students must accept that teachers’ lack of “cultural competence” is a major reason for many minority students performing poorly in Minnesota schools.

All prospective teachers have to meet 14 “outcomes”, as well as “assessment” methods to assure they had achieved the outcomes. The first outcome is typical: “Future teachers will be able to discuss their own histories and current thinking drawing on notions of white privilege, hegemonic masculinity, hetero-normativity, and internalized oppression.” [Think carefully upon that terminology, it’s quite revealing]

Other highlights deserve attention:

“Future teachers accept that they are privileged or marginalized depending on context.”

“Future teachers will recognize & demonstrate understanding of white privilege.”

“Future teachers are able to explain how institutional racism works in schools”

“Future teachers can construct and articulate a sophisticated and nuanced critical analysis of [the American Dream]…. In pursuing this analysis, students will make use of…the following:

Myth of meritocracy in the United States

The historical use of scientific racism to justify assumptions of fixed mental capacity

History of demands for assimilation to white, middle-class, Christian values

History of white racism, with special focus on current colorblind ideology

Students are evaluated and graded on whether they conform to the “race, class, gender” agenda. They must, for example, write a “self-discovery paper” in which they “describe their own ethno-cultural background.” They must describe their own prejudices and stereotypes, question their “cultural” motives for wishing to become teachers, and take two “cultural intelligence”-type assessments. They are graded (for example) on “the extent to which they find intrinsic satisfaction” in “cross-cultural interactions.”

Students must not only demonstrate changed thinking — they must become activists. They must learn that schools are “critical sites for social and cultural transformation.” One outcome reads: “Future teachers create & fight for social justice even if only in the classroom”

Future teachers are required to subscribe to the prescribed ideology, “Every faculty member at our university that trains our teachers must comprehend and commit to the centrality of race, class, culture, and gender issues in teaching and learning, and then frame their teaching and course foci accordingly.”

The goal of critical pedagogy is social transformation, which is the product of the practice of social ‘justice’ at the collective level. Social transformation is accomplished through indoctrination of the young, leading to social transformation of the larger society as succeeding generations inculcate the ‘lessons of awareness’ transmitted to them by their ‘teachers’.

Teachers are urged not to mince words with children about the evils of the existing social order. They should portray “homelessness as a consequence of the private dealings of landlords, an arms buildup as a consequence of corporate decisions, racial exclusion as a consequence of a private property-holder’s choice.” In other words, they should turn the little ones into young socialists and critical theorists.

Young, impressionable children are no longer being taught to feel good about being Americans. Their schools teachers, who traditionally embody socially approved values, are teaching them to be ashamed of being Americans.

Spreading out from the schools that teach our teachers, this ideology is being inculcated into our nation’s K-12 schools and is anti-American in the most profound meaning of the term. It is a movement that is teaching future generations that capitalism and traditional American values are intrinsically evil.

Critical pedagogy and its advocates, in their vehement antipathy toward capitalism, private property and traditional American values amount to a classic fifth subversive column, no less dangerous to freedom than Communism. Its advocates are seeking to transform western societies by covertly indoctrinating our young, through an essentially clandestine and subversive transformation of its culture.

Cultural Marxism is the primary strategy of the American Left.

Italian Marxist philosopher Antonio Gramsci posited that what holds a society together are the pillars of its culture: the structures and institutions of education, family, law, media and religion, as they provide the social cohesion necessary to a healthy functional society. Transform the principles that these embody and you can destroy the society they have shaped.

His seminal thinking was taken up by Sixties radicals, many of whom are, of course, the generation that holds power in the West today. Bill Ayers is most certainly an agent of Gramsi’s agenda and there is a high likelihood that Barack Obama is a covert advocate of Cultural Marxism as well. He cannot, as President, act directly in pursuit of its agenda but viewed in the light of advocacy, many of his actions make perfect sense. That so many of his ‘Czar’ appointments are radicals certainly supports that assertion.

Gramsci believed that a society could be overthrown, if the values underpinning it could be turned into their antithesis: if its core principles were replaced by those of groups who were considered to be outsiders or who actively transgressed the moral codes of that society.

So he advocated a ‘long march through the institutions’ to capture the citadels of the culture and turn them into a collective fifth column, undermining from within and turning all the core values of society upside-down and inside-out.

This strategy is being carried out to the letter.

The nuclear family has been widely shattered. Illegitimacy was transformed from a stigma into a ‘right’. The tragic disadvantage of fatherless ‘families’ was redefined as a neutrally viewed ‘lifestyle choice’. So much so that many now assert the belief that, children do not need either a mother or a father, only the loving support of a ‘caring’ adult.

Education was wrecked, with its core tenet of transmitting a culture to successive generations, replaced by the idea that what children already knew was of superior value to anything the adult world might offer.

The outcome of this ‘child-centered’ approach has been widespread illiteracy and ignorance and an eroded capacity for independent thought.

The ‘rights agenda’, commonly known as ‘political correctness’ turned morality inside out, by excusing any misdeeds by self-designated ‘victim’ groups on the grounds that ‘victims’ can’t be held responsible for what they do. Law and order were similarly undermined, with criminals deemed to be beyond punishment since they also were ‘victims’ of what was asserted to be an inherently ‘unjust’ society.

Radical feminists, anti-racism and gay ‘rights’ thus turned men, white people and especially Christians (as the foremost advocates of foundational western values) into the enemies of decency. An offensive strategy of neutralization designed to keep western society’s advocates on the defensive by essentially categorizing them as “guilty until proven innocent”.

This ‘Through The Looking Glass’ mindset rests on the belief that the world is divided into the powerful (who are responsible for all bad things) and the oppressed (who are responsible for none of them).

This is pure Marxist doctrine.

That doctrine inevitably forms a totalitarian mindset that abhors dissent. Thus, the ‘science’ supporting ‘Global Warming’ is ‘settled”. Opposition to Obama’s policies is declared to be motivated by inherent racism and resistance to ‘Obamacare’ is equated to prior generations resistance to ending slavery. Intolerance toward Christians opposed to gay ‘marriage’ and the vilification as ‘racists’ of any opposed to illegal immigration is rationalized, justified and condoned.

This leftist mindset has led to the belief that a sense of nationhood is the cause of much of the world ills. So transnational institutions such as the EU, the UN and, doctrines supporting International and ‘Human Rights’ laws are increasingly overriding national laws and values.

These organizations are committed to moral and cultural relativism, which sets group against group and guarantees supreme and antidemocratic power to the bureaucrats setting the rules of ‘diversity’ and outlawing all dissent from permitted attitudes.

The doctrine of the “oppressed and the oppressor” is the big lie that many leftist elites use to justify supporting an illogical rationale divorced from reality and human nature itself. Ultimately, the acquisition of power is at the core of leftist’s beliefs with its ‘foot soldiers’ being the ‘true believers’ Stalin referred to as the ‘useful idiots’.

“By their fruits shall you know them” is still a worthwhile maxim and the ‘fruit’ of Cultural Marxism is active opposition to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Americans still have the right to believe what they choose, part of that choice is whether they stand with Jefferson and Lincoln… or with Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Mao. It shall be one or the other, for we cannot profess loyalty to two opposed ideologies. You will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve both Liberty and Cultural Marxism.

Lest we despair, Lincoln also said, “I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts.”

Obama’s Plan

Known fact and informed supposition, lead to a very dark place

Obama’s ‘creative’ plan for ‘fundamentally transforming’ our nation is starting to emerge from the ‘fog’ of calculated misdirection.

He’s actively manipulating the US government’s finances into an economic crisis, employing the ‘useful liberal idiots’ in Congress to do so. By passing the Stimulus and Health Reform Bills and other planned legislation, he is creating mathematically unsustainable levels of debt. Driving the deficit to levels that will inevitably bankrupt our economic system. See: Spiraling into Bankruptcy

These are factual assertions, NOT suppositions.

What is supposition, though based upon what those so educated deduce… is that once the financial crises gets grim enough, see: Rep. Paul Ryan: Obama’s New Budget Will ‘Literally Crash the U.S. Economy’ Obama will seek to pass into federal law a VAT tax (value added tax) which is the tax Europe uses to sustain their social welfare states.

The VAT is hugely intrusive into business and significantly raises the costs of goods and services. To confirm this assertion as fact, just ask anyone who has visited Europe, as to how expensive they found it to be. Europe’s citizens have managed to maintain their social welfare state in which almost everything is ‘free’, through very high taxation and running up huge deficits. While simultaneously relying upon the US to provide ‘free defense’ so that they don’t have to pay for it and include defense costs within any budgetary constraints.

After the US passes a VAT tax and Americans inevitably discover that they cannot easily afford the much higher cost of goods and services that the VAT necessitates, Obama will have created the conditions that will allow him to credibly declare that we need greater financial ‘commitments’ to social welfare programs, so as to help the poor and middle class. Just as they have done in Europe. Essentially setting up a cycle that incrementally deepens the social welfare state, while using the false rationale of social justice to support his ‘solution’.

He’ll then seek to accelerate the ongoing reduction in military capacity of the US. Selling it as prudent but adequate and even as unavoidably necessary though of course, temporary. Using a variety of rationale’s to justify it, including the by now familiar refrain that we are to blame, in creating animosity towards us, by maintaining high levels of armed capacity.

This most pernicious of rationales arose out of European dependence upon the US for its defense, which inevitably led to resentment and then, in order to deflect the internal stress of that resentment, psychological denial arose questioning whether defense was even needed and the ‘mentality’ of those who advocated for a strong defense.

Just as the exhaustion of Europe after WWI led to the rise of pacifism with a grim determination to ‘never again’ experience a “war to end all wars” that then resulted in a Neville Chamberlain ironically expressing the exact same rationale towards Hitler and the Nazi’s that Obama is now expressing with regard to Ahmadinejad and Iran.

We should seek by all means in our power to avoid war, by analyzing possible causes, by trying to remove them, by discussion in a spirit of collaboration and good will. I cannot believe that such a program would be rejected by the people of this country, even if it does mean the establishment of personal contact with dictators, and of talks man to man on the basis that each, while maintaining his own ideas of the internal government of his country, is willing to allow that other systems may better suit other peoples.” –Neville Chamberlain, explaining Munich

In Europe, diplomacy was thus claimed to be always sufficient to the required task, when the sincerity of one side was truly genuine. The rationale being that when earnestly and consistently applied, the other party must, in time, reflect the reality of a heartfelt and genuinely sincere desire for peace with the goal of a mutually satisfactory resolution of any conflicting issues.

Post-modern relativism, (having swept across Europe and America’s leftist Academia and intelligentsia), asserts that reality is what we perceive it to be. That premise necessarily led to another assumption, that others must, in time, reflect our reality if we were only persistent enough. When results do not reflect desired outcome, that belief abjures reflection and demands ‘doubling down’. Essentially requiring that we keep trying, doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results.

But as dependence always confers impotence, this is of course, merely the latest iteration of the appeasement-minded. Who, when defenseless and faced with an adversary both malevolent and coveting sheer naked power, find that they have no other recourse than appeasement.

But the VAT and high taxation have proven to be an undeniably inadequate source of revenue for the socialist state, despite the US providing defensive support for Europe. Living far beyond their means, just look at Greece, Spain, and Portugal’s economic fragility and impending collapse. In fact, every Western nation in Europe, including Germany, France and England are now insolvent having run up huge and unsustainable financial obligations for their entitlement programs. See: Virtually Every Western Government is Insolvent

The US is insolvent too and only the previous robustness of our economy and our privileged position as the world’s ‘default’ currency have heretofore protected us from severe belt-tightening. But increased entitlement programs and a skyrocketing deficit with unsustainable debt levels are creating an ‘albatross’ from which we can’t escape.

A U.S. VAT tax will merely allow the ‘party’ to continue a bit longer. Unfortunately, that delay creates greater consequence, so when the crash does come, the pain will be even greater and the losses even deeper with recovery far more difficult and correspondingly less robust.

Socialism only works, so long as the producers of its benefits, outnumber the ‘consumers’ of those benefits. That ceased to be true in Europe long ago and they are almost at the end of their rope.

In a socialistic system, necessarily divorced from economic reality, once entitlements exceed a certain percentage of revenues, the system goes into decline and eventually reaches a ‘tipping point’, at which it can no longer sustain itself. Collapse and bankruptcy inevitably and unavoidably follow. Eventually, the natural laws governing economics always prevail.

Regardless of intent, economic ‘systems’ such as socialism always fail because at their heart, they depend upon active denial of the natural economic laws that govern reality. As well defy gravity, by jumping off a cliff.

So, Obama’s efforts at raising revenue will prove entirely inadequate in addressing the unsustainable levels of debt, which he and the Democrat majority are imposing upon the American public.

Most significantly, Obama has to know this, as he has knowledgeable economic advisers. That is a factual assertion, so the only rational explanation for Obama’s behavior is that it is quite intentional.

Otherwise and regardless of how inconvenient, one would have to logically conclude that he is behaving irrationally, which of course would be grounds for immediate removal from office. However, neither his demeanor nor his actions are those of an irrational man. In my estimation, he’s been far too calculating for that explanation to fit the constellation of circumstances, which now face us.

When economic collapse inescapably occurs, it will lead to chaos. No one will be able to credibly deny the need for order. The resultant consequence will be calls for the President to declare, that a “state of emergency” now exists and, that Martial Law will have to be implemented. It being unavoidably necessary for public order, especially with the value of money having collapsed and even necessary to ensure the basic survival of many members of the public.

All of this leaves but one conclusion, with but one of two possible desired outcomes for Obama; since he is intentionally engineering a now mathematically unavoidable economic collapse and, will then have to declare Martial Law… after it is imposed, he either plans to unconstitutionally and thus illegally seize power or more plausibly, use the declared state of emergency and Martial Law to attempt to impose a new Marxist/Socialist model of government upon the US.

Blatantly seizing power is highly unlikely for it would be doomed to failure.  No one who knows the military, as presently constructed, could accept that they would ever collectively agree to enable and support any President illegally seizing and holding on to power. So unless Obama is concealing delusional aspirations of a Chavez-like, permanent ‘Presidential appointment’ in a new Marxist Amerika, that is a path he will not follow.

Much more likely is the scenario of Obama using Martial Law to implement ‘reforms’ greatly exceeding the ones that FDR made; turning the US, incrementally but as quickly as circumstance permits, into a Marxist/Socialist State with truly transformational changes imposed upon us; like the nationalization of all major and publicly held businesses, followed by seizure of the property and assets of the ‘uber’ rich*, with mobilization of the National Guard during the declared emergency, suspension of habeas corpus and ‘if’ necessary, the ‘temporary’ imprisonment of political ‘agitators’, etc., etc.

Basically, he’ll do whatever it takes to secure enough power, long enough, to achieve his ends.

That’s his plan folks, it just about has to be because no other explanation fits his behavior, history and beliefs.

“And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?” W.B. Yeats

Yet take heart, for if knowledge be power, then “in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king”. (Irish proverb)

Geoffrey Britain

* Obama seems to personally like $250k as the dividing line, between the ‘rich’ and those merely ‘well off’…

The Emergence of an American Margaret Thatcher.

Most men intuitively understand what is required for command. Though most do not have the personal qualities necessary for command, they recognize it when embodied in another. Many women have long chafed at the seeming unwillingness of men to cede command to a woman. They have railed at the ‘glass ceiling’ in vain, puzzled at its stiff resistance and laid the blame upon men for its continued existence. As is so often the case, the reality of circumstance is both simpler and more complex than a quick, facile examination might indicate.

In regard to the glass ceiling, what American men have been waiting for is the emergence of an American ‘Margaret Thatcher’.

I use Ms Thatcher not because of her politics which are entirely irrelevant but rather as an example of a strong woman, one who likes men and who can be depended upon when the really tough decisions need to be made. One who won’t wimp out, should principle and necessary circumstance demand sacrifice.

The President is the Commander in Chief and the greatest test of a President is during times of war, as it is then that the gravest decisions must be made. Throughout history leaders have had to send good people to their death. They have even had to allow good people to die when doing otherwise would lead to even greater tragedy. Truman had it right when he proclaimed, “The buck stops here”.

Good leaders intuitively recognize the right thing to do, even when that path may lead to the tragedy of innocent lives lost.

The Civil War’s Northern General Sherman recognized this when he said that “war is hell”. He also understood that ending the war victoriously was of more importance than even the destruction of the South, a South whose children certainly did not deserve the destruction that befell them. He understood this even in a war that would ultimately leave almost 600,000 dead. He understood that preserving the ‘union’ was a nonnegotiable principle and that the South’s commitment to its way of life would not allow them to capitulate without the certain prospect of absolute destruction.

That same understanding was shared by Truman when faced with the decision to drop the atomic bomb upon Japan. Truman well knew the terrible destruction it would bring and the many innocents that would die. He also understood the lessons of Tarawa, Saipan and Okinawa. Where nearly every Japanese soldier had fought with fierce determination, many to the death and where even the old and women with their children had committed suicide rather than surrender. Those events had decisively demonstrated that Japan was a culture that would resist surrender and invasion whatever the cost.

Had Truman withheld use of the bomb and invaded instead, many, many millions more would have died. At the time that the decision had to be made, our best estimate was that 5 million American men and 15-25 million Japanese would have died in the invasion and conquering of Japan. Had we suffered those loses, America would have been greatly damaged and in all probability would not have had the strength to rebuild Europe. That great a loss would have inexorably led to the triumph of isolationism within America and thus the inability to resist the soon-to-follow advance of Soviet aggression.

Japan was the aggressor and given their cultures’ militaristic values, anything less than unconditional surrender would have led to the eventual rebuilding of the Japanese war machine. Truman understood human nature and the irresistible lure that empire and nationalism had for Japan’s leaders and its compliant populace.

All of this led Truman to unhesitatingly make the decision to drop the bomb and most importantly, he did not second guess the decision, evidenced by his declaration that “he never lost a minutes sleep over the decision”. It is not that Truman lacked empathy, he was a loving father and husband. Rather it was that his empathy was balanced with another quality.

Empathy is a wonderful quality and we are not really human without it. But it is not the only quality of worth. Empathy, especially in a leader must be balanced with mental allegiance to objective principle.

Governor Palin is that rarity; a likable female leader who evokes both male and female approval, one who exudes confidence and the ‘right’ kind of toughness. This ‘toughness’ is mental, not physical, though mental toughness leads to the ability to endure physical challenges, as John McCain’s life so eloquently demonstrates. The ‘right’ kind of mental toughness is of a special quality.

Mental toughness or fortitude has no ‘shrillness’, shrillness is an unerring indicator of weakness. This is why children do not listen to a parent whose voice exhibits that quality. And weakness revealed cannot lead because it lacks the strength of fortitude required of leadership. It is the quality of mental allegiance to ‘objective principle’ that leads to mental toughness.

Hillary Clinton has the required toughness but it is not the ‘right’ kind of toughness. She literally exudes the shrill ‘odor’ of complaint and anger and men intuitively sense it. Yes, men have intuition too, especially in sensing whom they shall follow. That is why ‘manly’ men want nothing to do with her and why only the hyper-sensitive, feminized and emasculated metro-sexual man can tolerate her presence. She has the ability to make the required decisions but she ‘leads’ out of demand and that leads to men distrusting her leadership.

Ironically, it is Hillary’s and most feminists psychic embrace of victimhood from which their anger arises. Their shrillness merely confirms their embrace of what disqualifies them from the very thing they seek, which is respect. Respect is not demanded, it is earned and when earned it is the ‘gift’ the recipient receives because no other response to their demeanor is possible. That is what is meant by ‘commanding’ respect. Others cannot help but respect those who, out of allegiance to principle, respect themselves. Narcissistic ego cannot substitute for the ‘currency’ required for true leadership.

Governor Palin embodies the quality of empathetic mental toughness and therefore commands respect. For those young women open to emulation, she truly points to, not just the ‘right’ way to break through the ‘glass ceiling’ but the only way to do it.

Breaking through the glass ceiling is not something that can be seized, which is why so many feminists have failed; transcending the glass ceiling is achieved when the many, willingly support the offer of leadership to those whose ‘worth’ compels recognition.

Just as Sarah Palin is demonstrating at this extraordinary moment in history.

Geoffrey Britain

The Best Way to Address the Energy Crisis

Rep. Maxine Waters recently threatened oil companies with nationalization. Venezuela’s nationalization of its oil resources demonstrates this to be a very bad idea. In fact, any politician so deeply ignorant of economics, as to suggest that America nationalize its oil resources, has revealed themselves to be unfit for office.

The best way to address the energy crisis is through a mix of measures:

Development:
1. Issue permits and tax incentives for new nuclear power plants to be built.
2. Issue permits for new oil refineries (no major US refinery since 1976).
3. Open the entire Gulf of Mexico for exploration and development.
4. Open the Atlantic and Pacific coasts for oil exploration and development.
5. Mandate that tax incentives for alternative energy be tied to oil ‘exploration & development’ fees.
6. Don’t drill in ANWR. Leave it as a strategic reserve. But do allow inland exploration and development of oil resources.

Safeguards:
7. Review relevant laws to ensure adequate and reasonable safeguards for environmental protection.
8. Pass legislation with mandatory imprisonment for lawbreaking owners and upper management.
9. Provide tax incentives for technology development in solar and offshore wind power with yearly reviews for possible inclusion of promising new technologies.

Long-term energy independence:
10. No government funded technology initiatives are needed; let capitalism work its magic.
11. Continue research into bio-fuels but it’s stupid to use corn, a food stock, for a fuel source.
12. Windfall taxes discourage investment in exploration and development and increase imports. The way to ensure ‘reasonable’ profit is to increase supply.

There. Simple. Complete.

If Congress passed legislation addressing only items 2 and 3, the very next day the price of oil would drop $10-15 a barrel. The more items implemented, the greater the drop in the price of oil.

To get the economy moving:
1. Submit and approve a balanced federal budget.
2. Increase interest rates at least a full point to strengthen the dollar.
3. Lower federal tax rates by 2-3 points in each tax bracket so as to stimulate the economy and counteract the slowing effect of an increase in interest rates.

Since this is an election year, don’t look for this to happen any time soon. As always, the longer the Feds wait, the more painful it is going to be when they are forced to do something. They are waiting until political pressure escalates to the point of providing political cover.

Geoffrey Britain

GOP – resusitating the brand -part II

I do have some caveats regarding the tenants of GOP 2.0

STRENGTHEN NATIONAL DEFENCE: I support strengthening the military and if necessary, to historical levels as a percentage of GDP. I’d like to hear from experts like Gen. Petraeus regarding his view as to exactly what is needed in economic terms to most effectively prosecute the WoT. As well as maintain our technological and military advantages, so as to be fully prepared for any future threat’s.

GAIN ENERGY INDEPENDENCE: Absolutely, however Long-term, only alternative energy technologies will prevent future energy crises. There is no substitute for development of new choices in energy sources; they are also a necessity and, a National Security issue as well.

Democrats have to agree to limited but adequate, development of short-term solutions.

Republicans have to agree to legislation with real technical safeguards, regulatory oversight and mandatory financial and legal consequences for businesses that violate environmental parameters regarding exploration, drilling and development of new oil, coal and nuclear resources.

Republicans and Democrats have to agree on federal legislation with near-permanent incentives and rewards for development of alternative energy solutions. Place a big enough carrot in front of companies, entrepreneurs and creative individuals and they will rush to fill the need.

SECURE THE BORDERS: immediately building physical barriers, as a precursor to an overarching, sensible immigration policy is only viable if coupled with real, undeniable and comprehensive immigration reform proposals. Physical barriers are at best a short-term ‘solution’, insufficient to fully address the problem. And Democrats will never agree to even temporary barriers without their being convincingly coupled with comprehensive reform and a firm time-line for the barriers eventual removal. Barriers cannot be sold as a means of preventing immigration, they can be sold as a means of funneling immigration into controlled access points.

SPUR HEALTHCARE COMPETITION: no government largesse, and yes free-market solutions… those principles alone however, are I suspect, insufficient to address the problem. Health care is increasing in cost expotentially with fundamental problems within the infrastructure of the American Health-Care system. Affordability is the principal problem of course and prescriptions such as medical pre-tax programs assume that someone is making enough to afford to have even more taken out of their paycheck. For the many millions of American families living paycheck to paycheck that prescription is unrealistic. Without affordability, health care becomes increasingly the privilege of the wealthy.

According to one report employee pay now makes up the lowest share of the nation’s gross domestic product since the government began recording the data in 1947, while corporate profits have climbed to their highest share since the 1960s. This disparity cannot be ignored by any fair-minded person.

The Economic Policy Institute, a Washington think tank, found productivity grew 17 percent nationally from 2000 to 2005, but median family income, adjusted for inflation, fell 3 percent. Millions of American’s are working harder, smarter and at best, just treading water.

Until conservatives address the underlying issue of the have-nots in society, they will always face calls for government ‘largesse’. Capitalism is an economic system with undeniable benefits for society, it is also indisputable that under such a system the 80/20 rule is unimpeded. Regardless of the benefits, when 80% of a socety’s assets naturally gravitate into 20% of the society’s members, social unrest is inevitable.

The answer of course is to find methodologies that allow the middle class to expand and to do increasingly well. As an observation, in the 1950’s, the GI bill, affordable mortgages and an expanding economy resulted in just such an expansion of the middle class. We need to determine the government incentives and societal infrastructure that most encourages that paradigm to return.

Geoffrey Britain

GOP 2.0 – resuscitating the brand

From the Blog: Doug Ross @ Journal

Paul Mirengoff, writing at Powerline:

The Democrats appear to have picked up another House seat in a formerly “safe” Republican district tonight. The latest win for the Dems comes in Mississippi where Travis Childers, a county chancery clerk, seems to have edged out Greg Davis, a mayor. President Bush carried this district twice with about 60 percent of the vote each time. But Childers ran as a strong social conservative (Ed: pro-life and pro-gun).

…my takeaway is that the Republican brand is in such bad shape that the Dems can win virtually anywhere if they nominate a candidate whose position on key issues is, or can be made to seem, close to that of the Republican… Fortunately, the Democrats will not nominate such a candidate for president. And the Republican nominee, whether we feel comfortable about it or not, isn’t necessarily seen as intimately associated with the Republican brand. Even so, I think that Republican nominee is running uphill.

Indeed. The Republican brand has lost its way. I believe that it’s time for citizens to rise up and demand a new Republican Party! I’m calling it GOP 2.0. And I’m perfectly willing to throw out those “Republicans” who are stuck on stupid — and are stuck in the GOP 1.0 world.

The tenets:

STRENGTHEN NATIONAL DEFENSE – increase the size, capability and efficiency of our Armed Forces, bringing back our defense spending to historical levels as a percentage of GDP.

GAIN ENERGY INDEPENDENCE – open up ANWR and the OCS to exploration; aggressively pursue nuclear energy and green technologies; with incentives for private industry to aggressively pursue clean, renewable energy sources.

SECURE THE BORDERS – build physical barriers immediately as a precursor to an overarching, sensible immigration policy. If the boat’s sinking, you plug the holes first.

DEATH TO EARMARKS – zero tolerance for earmarks.

DEATH TO CORRUPTION – zero tolerance for corruption.

ENGLISH AS NATIONAL LANGUAGE – national unity requires a national language. That language is English.

IMPLEMENT FLAT TAX OR FAIR TAX – simplify the tax system by eradicating a tax code gone mad.

REDUCE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT – provide “whistleblower-style” awards for reducing the size of government and task the IRS (which will no longer have to worry about enforcing the tax code) with achieving the reduction goals on an annual basis

SPUR HEALTHCARE COMPETITION – Address health-care deficiencies – with competitive, free-market solutions, not Government largesse.

ADDRESS ENTITLEMENTS – engage a bipartisan consortium to create a multi-million dollar competition to encourage teams from private industry and academia to create solutions for our social security and Medicare liabilities.

This should not be a platform. It should be a promise — an ironclad commitment — to voters.

I’m asking for help here. If you agree, please email this post to your friends and/or post it on your blog (no credit or link needed). We need to resuscitate the Republican brand. ASAP.

Update: A Jacksonian published a comprehensive platform of similar traits in 2006.

In general, I like this proposal a lot. In my next post I’ll cover the details wherein my agreement is qualified.

Geoffrey Britain