Billboard That’s Supposed to Attack Trump Proves the Point About Muslims in America


– 18 October 2016 –


Janus-smallA billboard in heavily-Muslim Dearborn, Michigan attacks Donald Trump for his supposed bigotry. The sign translates as “Donald Trump, he can’t read this, but he is afraid of it.”

Nearly all of the 330,000 people who drive past the sign each week can’t read this sign either. The sign will remind many of them that we have too many Muslims in the United States, that they pose a threat to our security and our identity by their very presence here. To top it off, the sign’s white Arabic scribbles on a black background bears a resemblance to the ISIS flag.


They’re only making a political statement, you racist bastards.

Via RT:

The campaign was bought by the Nuisance Committee and cost $4,850.

“We came up with it because we believe that Donald Trump’s hateful rhetoric is not based on reality. It’s based on fear,” Melissa Harris, a Nuisance Committee spokeswoman, told the Detroit Free Press. “And we think that irrational fear is what’s driving his anti-immigrant message.”

At the bottom of the billboard is the web address, which features a timeline of Trump’s previous statements about Muslims.

[. . .]

The Nuisance Committee is co-founded by Max Temkin, whose grandfather Ira Weinstein was shot down over Germany during a World War II combat mission and was interned in a POW camp. At the camp, Weinstein and other Jewish POWs banded together to form a “nuisance committee” to irritate their Nazi captors in ways that wouldn’t get them killed.

The group said “the comparison between Trump and Hitler is intentional.”

More Jews against Donald Trump. They sense a popular threat to their “open society” from people who are tired of a decadent, valueless society full of foreigners meant to displace us.

What’s actually funny about the Jews’ resistance is that Trump himself probably doesn’t pose a serious threat to their order. He’s not going to reverse the moral decline in the country, as he accepts homosexuals and trannies. He loves blacks and plans to create even more programs to falsely elevate them. He might stop illegal immigration, but who cares should they enter through a “big, beautiful door”. A Trump victory could mollify American whites into accepting today’s status quo. (Will I still vote for him? Yes. He’s a gamble. She’s a sure loss. Plus there’s the “fuck you” factor.)

A Trump loss on the other hand will only keep the pressure of resentment rising. The next phase of this resentment will likely make Donald Trump appear as milquetoast as the Tea Party.

If Hillary wins in November, she’d better start that nuclear war quickly before she has a civil war on her hands.


Food For Thought For Those Expecting a Trump Defeat


– 8 August 2016 –



Another prediction, like that of Vox Day, for a “Trumpslide” in November. Personally, I’m not so sure, but the primary turnout numbers do give pause for thought.

Via The Politik:

In 2012, Barack Obama won reelection with 65.9 million votes.  Mitt Romney finished 5 million votes behind, at 60.9 million.  That earned Obama 332 electoral votes to Romney’s 206.

Just four years earlier, Obama had become the first African American ever to be elected president of the United States, winning the highest amount of votes (69.5 million) by any presidential candidate in history.  Despite his historic nature and relative popularity, his margin of victory decreased from 2008. Consequently, Obama became the first incumbent in seven decades to get reelected with fewer electoral votes and a lower popular vote percentage.

Obama lost approximately 3.6 million votes from 2008 to 2012.  Romney gained slightly on 2008 candidate John McCain’s 59.9 million.

[. . .]

In 2008, the last time the Democrats did not have an incumbent on the ticket, they had approximately 38 million Primary voters.  In 2016, that number slipped to approximately 30 million.  A loss of 8 million primary voters.

In 2008, Republicans had 21 million primary voters.  In 2012, the number slipped to 19 million.  In 2016 however, the GOP had over 30 million primary voters – approximately 9-10 million more than 2008.

That is a change of approximately 17-18 million voters in favor of the GOP.

John McCain lost by 10 million votes.

Mitt Romney lost by 5 million votes.

And since 2008, the Democrats have lost 8 million primary voters while the GOP has gained about 10 million.

[. . .]

In 2012, the voting age population was 235 million, but only 129 million voted.

Both parties left a possible 106 million votes on the table.

Because of Donald Trump’s candidacy, all the rules have been thrown out.  We’ve seen that few of the old political playbook tricks work against him.  Money being spent by his opponents have all gone to waste.

We saw every single professional political pundit in the country get the entire primary season wrong – on both sides.

The media and their phony polling consultants don’t have any clue what turnout will look like.  If they did, they wouldn’t have bungled their Trump and Clinton predictions so badly in the primaries.

What we do know is that Trump is attracting voters from all over the map and into the Republican fold, just to vote for him.  It’s how he unexpectedly massacred 16 opponents in the primary.

It’s how he will massacre Hillary Clinton in the general election.

When the media tells you that this race is close or that Hillary is leading, just simply laugh it all off.

This election is already over and Donald Trump will be the 45th President of the United States.

Of course, Vox Day and many others on the Right mistakenly called 2012 for Romney. That was a rough day. . . .

Still, the hard numbers and the failed primary predictions of the blabbering, metropolitan experts are encouraging this time around.

Barring shenanigans from rigged voting machines, hidden millions of immigrants paid to vote, third party spoilers, et cetera, Trump should win.

But “should” doesn’t mean shit.

 C. F. van Niekerk:

150708-van-NiekirkWow! Someone actually took the time to write readable stories under those fake headlines!

I was absolutely certain that the articles would say “Raalkd dr alad maic dl masdalf drls” like that old Daily Growl squeak toy used to.



Some Thoughts on Thursday’s Republican Debates


– 8 August 2015 –


Patulcius-sqLast Thursday’s Republican debates demonstrated that Fox News is just another tilted blabber-box of the Left-wing establishment, as if most of us didn’t know that already.

Presumably the real agenda of the debates was to attack and tear down Donald Trump and to promote Jeb Bush, all framed within the Leftist dialogue of race, religion, and sexual deviancy.

When Trump was questioned by the panel of Fox weasels (Bret Baier, Megyn Kelly, and Chris Wallace), the demeanors of the questioners grew harsh and accusatory; Kelly and Wallace in particular scowled and smirked.  Trump was questioned on very specific issues in his past from his personal business dealings, his personal statements about women from his show, his former support of universal healthcare and of the Democratic party.  These are fair questions, but that level of detail was unfairly applied to Trump only, and the moderators’ tones were unmistakably manipulative.

Record numbers of people watched this debate just to see what Trump would say, and a lot of the “low-information” conservatives won’t have known about Trump’s liberal past.  According to the liberal blabbering heads, this exposure will count as a loss for Trump’s side, and those people (the majority) who didn’t watch these debates will believe what the TV and talk radio pundits tell them.  Trump’s weakest defense was his excuses for donating to liberals, where he candidly explained that he donated to get paybacks later.

Despite the bias, and contrary to what the pundits are saying (digesting the debates for the idiot masses), Trump held his own pretty well against a hostile group of peers, moderators, and large segments of the audience  He gave some outstanding answers.  He stood up to Kelly’s feminist attack by denouncing Rosie O’Donnell and political correctness.  He called the US government “stupid” for allowing illegals to flood the country and Mexico “cunning” for exporting its unwanted people so the stupid Americans will pay for them.  He explained how he changed his views on abortion over time because he saw a child grow up who was supposed to be aborted.

The attempt to damage Trump over his subsequent and typically juvenile attacks on Megyn Kelly will probably not impact his polling numbers by themselves (unless Republicans just love that woman from “their” network so much). Frankly, Kelly did express hostility to Trump, particularly in her statements after the debates.  I don’t watch television news, so I had never seen her (or the other moderators) before, but I gather that the man-voiced Kelly poses convincingly as a conservative on her Fox talk show.  Of course, a “conservative” these days could mean quite a lot.  What I saw from Thursday’s debate was a liberal acting like a liberal, but who knows?


Megyn Kelly scolds while Chris Wallace smirks. The moderators showed subtly hostile attitudes towards Trump while they blatantly interrogated him more aggressively than the other candidates, especially Jeb Bush.

Contrary to Trump’s inquisition, the moderators treated Jeb Bush with warmth and deference.  The moderators seemed to give Bush more than his share of softball questions (how are you different from your brother and father; how would you make the economy grow?).  Bush responded to every question with touchy-feely, aww-shucks feel-good answers where he tries to sit on both sides of an issue like an exploded bag of Jello.  For instance, his answer to a question about illegal immigration:

I believe that the great majority of people coming here illegally have no other option. They want to provide for their family.

But we need to control our border. It’s not — it’s our responsibility to pick and choose who comes in. So I — I’ve written a book about this and yet this week, I did come up with a comprehensive strategy that — that really mirrored what we said in the book, which is that we need to deal with E-Verify, we need to deal with people that come with a legal visa and overstay.

We need to be much more strategic on how we deal with border enforcement, border security. We need to eliminate the sanctuary cities in this country. It is ridiculous and tragic…


BUSH: — that people are dying because of the fact that — that local governments are not following the federal law. There’s much to do. And I think rather than talking about this as a wedge issue, which Barack Obama has done now for six long years, the next president — and I hope to be that president — will fix this once and for all so that we can turn this into a driver for high sustained economic growth.

And there should be a path to earned legal status…


BUSH: — for those that are here. Not — not amnesty, earned legal status, which means you pay a fine and do many things over an extended period of time.

All of Bush’s answers fit this model.  Gentle Jeb cares so much; he’s so safe and warm, like a thick sweater vest.  If he gets nominated, this is going to be one boring election campaign.

I must confess that I skipped through most of the answers by Christie, Rubio, and Kasich.  What I did hear were a few “Nine-elevens” from Christie and “we’re just lowly working-class guys” from the other two. I just don’t care what these RINO’s have to say.

I think the rest of them spoke rather well.  Ben Carson, whom I admit I’d never heard speak, gave very sound, if somewhat vague and philosophical, answers delivered in a very relaxed, almost soothing, fashion.  I can see why so many people like him.  My respect for Carson has increased somewhat, though I don’t think he has the political experience or the temperament to handle the reigns of power.

Rand Paul came across as weak and quarrelsome, like a freshman in high school, though some of this arose from the tendency of the moderators to pit two candidates against one another.  This is a shame because I agree with many of his political stances and much of his record.

I think Cruz, Huckabee, and Walker spoke well.  Huckabee is a smooth, clever speaker, but his record as governor of Arkansas is mixed, a politician through-and-through.  Walker is a very competent and succinct speaker, and his record of success in a liberal state is appealing, but he has expressed support for amnesty and universal healthcare.  Cruz has shown that he has backbone, honor, and sticks to his principals, but the poor guy has the face of a rodeo clown and the voice of Chuck-E-Cheese.  I have to support Cruz, though he hasn’t got a chance.

But I still would love to see Trump get the nomination if only because the establishment seems to hate him so much.

Overall, I think the processed and packaged reaction to the debate, repeating how Trump lost, might hurt Trump a little in the polls, but only a little.  And this debate won’t by itself succeed in improving Jeb Bush’s numbers.  The effects of these manipulated debates are going to take time and will proceed in a cumulative way.  We get one debate per month until February, when they start doubling.  Hooray.

I suspect that the next debate will feature a rising Carly Fiorina, and she will be pitted against Trump to make him appear even more sexist than Megyn Kelly has tried to do.


Hispanic Voters, Trump, and Caudillo Politics



– 30 July 2015 –

C. F. van Niekerk:

150708-van-NiekirkDonald Trump has predicted that he will win the Hispanic vote, and the oh-so-serious journalists seem incredulous as they barely conceal their sneers.  “Impossible!” they think while they inwardly squirm, insecure behind their hubris.

But contrary to P. C. convention, a few recent polls, (for example: here, and here) indicate that Trump, despite his blunt opposition to illegal immigration, might appeal to Hispanics more than Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, or Ted Cruz do in the primaries, if not the general election.

Rubio and Cruz are of Hispanic descent. Jeb Bush, who believes that his marriage to a Mexican wife brings automatic Hispanic credentials, (hopefully that’s not why he married her) takes the Hispanic vote for granted.  But somehow Trump competes with them, even beats them, with Hispanic voters.

The Hispanic vote is very important for Republicans, you know.  It’s true because, as we know, white people are dying off and the Hispanics will inevitably become the majority one day.  Like a force of nature.  And Hispanics, you know, are natural-born conservatives.  Only they don’t know that yet.  Republicans have to convince them with inspirational—and festive—speeches over and over, you see.


What a festive, spicy logo! Just like the festive and spicy Latino, right? (Where’s my free chips?)

The FOX Latino logo, if you’ve never noticed, is so very hot and spicy.  Just like Hispanics are, of course.  And this depicts in a nut-shell how American political parties see Latinos.  Imagine if FOX African-American used Jamaica-mon style letters for its readers, green-yellow-and-red. There is the idea that Hispanics like hot and spicy things, immigration, Univision, and, hmm… not much else.  There was a very Anglo-sounding Hispanic woman on Limbaugh today who said that she was tired of being a targeted demographic, that Trump speaks to her like she’s an American, and she liked that! Imagine that.


Fox News African-American logo for the stereotypical black American demographic.

Columnist and Hispanic-ologist Ruben Navarrette Jr. at USA Today says that Donald Trump could win more Hispanic votes in the Republican primary than any other candidate:

There are at least three reasons that Trump is likely to make a decent showing with Hispanic voters:

  • What’s the Republican alternative? Will Hispanics flock in droves to Mike Huckabee, Scott Walker, Carly Fiorina, Ben Carson, or much of the rest of the GOP presidential field? Not likely. Only two of the other 15 “also rans” could get in Trump’s way with Hispanics in the GOP primaries: Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush. And instead of speaking forthrightly about issues such as immigration, the Floridians often seem cautious and reserved in their comments as if they’re afraid of alienating white people. Here’s a warning to them, and politicians everywhere: When you flinch, Hispanics notice.
  • Trump’s immigration hard line is not a deal killer with all Hispanics, many of whom want stricter border security. More than half of all Border Patrol agents  — about 52% — are Hispanic. Moreover, the closer you get to the border, the more likely you are to find Hispanics who worry about the issue that Trump brought to light: the alleged criminal element coming across the border. That was true in Arizona, where a controversial immigration law requiring police to check the legal status of anyone with whom they came in contact found pockets of support among those who lived on the front lines.
  • Hispanics are just like other Americans. And why not? In New Mexico and Arizona, some trace their family histories back seven or eight generations. Thus what appeals to many other people about Trump also appeals to them. Hispanics have been deceived and manipulated by both parties. And they’re hungry for a candidate who says what he thinks, doesn’t back down, hammers the news media, and doesn’t sugarcoat differences with opponents. Apart from substance, Trump will get points for his style which — during a hot summer — seems as refreshing as a cool breeze.

Historically Hispanics have rallied behind strong leaders. The 19th Century in Latin America was the age of caudillos, military strongmen who ruled with an iron fist. Local caudillos would rally their people into armies and clash with other caudillo armies for power, so usually a caudillo wouldn’t stay king of the mountain for very long. While politics in Latin America has somewhat moved beyond those rough and tumble days, the tendency to support the strongman remains very much a part of the Latino DNA.

But if the tendency to support the strong man is particularly powerful with Hispanics, it isn’t unique to them.

People in general are drawn to the magnetism of strong leaders. The alpha males, men who say what they mean and mean what they say, men who get things done. Our dainty, feminized society wants to paper over this part of human nature, so primal and basic as it is, but the force is there nonetheless.  This is the secret to Trump’s appeal, especially compared to the pre-staged, teleprompter-reading, finger-to-the-wind cookie-cutter candidates he is competing against.


The time for BS is over: John Wayne just showed up. People are drawn to the strongman, men and women both, whether they want to admit it or not!

Women say that they cannot stand assertive, dominant men, the winners of life, but they surely don’t mind sleeping with them, evidence shows.  Likewise women surely cringe in disgust from the advances of the weak and always-helpful doormat.  They can’t help it.  It’s hard-wired.

Men cannot help to be drawn to the service of the strongman, the winner, the Napoleon and the Hitler.  They will throw their whole lives away to serve these narcissists.  This is hard-wired, cave man behavior also. It’s natural, and to some extent it’s even good.

Hitler described the phenomenon of the strongman, comparing electorates to swooning women:

The psyche of the great masses is not receptive to half measures or weakness.

Like a woman, whose psychic feeling is influenced less by abstract reasoning than by an undefinable, sentimental longing for complementary strength, who will submit to the strong man rather than dominate the weakling, thus the masses love the ruler rather than the suppliant, and inwardly they are far more satisfied by a doctrine which tolerates no rival than by the grant of liberal freedom…

Hitler seemed to know what he was talking about, successfully seducing a nation to match their will to his own.

Do I compare Trump to Hitler, therefore automatically losing my argument? Trump does not equal Hitler. I don’t expect Trump, should he win, to round up minorities into camps, to talk about the master race, or to prance around in a military uniform while he watches columns of tanks and troops parading past.

But the campaigns are very similar. The media of the 1930’s considered Hitler a buffoon, not to be taken seriously. The electorate, fed up with the degenerate excesses of the liberal Weimar Republic and the humiliations imposed by France and the UK, hardly cared what Hitler stood for as long as he stood up for the German people.  Hitler said the things that needed to be said.


People in the 1930’s thought Hitler was a buffoon. The common Germans were fed up with the degenerate Weimar Republic and the burdens of French and British reparations.

Today the media scorn and laugh at Trump but rarely take him seriously, and conservatives are really, really pissed off at the last six or seven years!  I’m one of them!  Many will vote for Trump if they believe he will stand by his words.

I myself kind of somewhat support Donald Trump despite knowing that he really hasn’t described any of his specific stances on a variety of issues, that his history doesn’t line up with who he says he is now, that there is no telling what he would do once attaining office.  Part of me doesn’t care so long as the enemies of the country are put in their place. I admit that this is foolish, but I’m not in the mood to care.

As far as the Hispanic vote, Trump could certainly win a larger share of their vote in the primaries than the other chumps.  And in the general election, he would win just about the same low percentage of Hispanic votes that any other Republican candidate would win.  There might be more turnout by Hispanics who oppose him, but the turnout could be high from those who support him, too.  In the end, two-thirds of the Latinos will vote for the Democrat and it won’t make any difference to the Republicans at all!  It all comes down to who can turn out more of their base!  (Or how many illegals and felons Obama pardons before the election!)

As time passes, it looks more and more like Trump might stick with this campaign to the very end.  At first I thought he was an election ploy, maybe designed to run interference for Jeb, or to force a convention vote to determine the candidate, or to spoil the election with a third-party run.  Now I’m not so sure.  It seems possible that Trump could even win.  Or maybe they’ll shoot him down like they shot down Huey Long.

We’ve got a long, drawn-out fifteen months to see how this madness plays out. We all ought to be drunks on anti-depressants by then.

Trump, McCain, and What’s a War Hero, Anyway?


– 20 July 2015 –

C. F. van Niekerk:

150708-van-NiekirkAs inane as the whole spat between Donald Trump and John McCain may be, I think it brings up a valid question regarding what makes someone a war hero.


In a July 16 article at the New Yorker, John McCain expressed his dismay over Donald Trump’s July 11 rally in Phoenix, Arizona. The 15,000 people who attended don’t share McCain’s enthusiasm for illegal immigrants. McCain referred to these people as “crazies” and complained that he’s been fighting for years to keep them from influencing the state’s Republican Party, with some success. He prefers to follow the way that the wind blows, meaning the direction of the foul wind emanating from the open bowels of progressives and degenerates.

Later that day, Trump responded to McCain’s attack on Twitter with somewhat childish taunts, including calling McCain a “dummy”.


On July 18 at the eight-hour-long Family Leadership Council Summit in Ames, Iowa, where eight other Republican candidates also spoke, the host asked Donald Trump about whether it was very presidential of him to call McCain a dummy.

As Trump explained his case he mentioned, offhand, that his enthusiasm for McCain had diminished after he lost in 2008, “because I don’t like losers”.

The host protested that “He’s a war hero! Five and a half years in a POW camp!” to which Trump quipped “He was a hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured, okay, I hate to tell you.”

“Do you agree with that?”

“He’s a war hero because he was captured, okay. And I believe,”—Trump shrugged—”perhaps he’s a war hero…” and he continued with his story, eventually answering the host’s question about whether he acted presidential.

“I want to make America great again. We want to get down to brass tacks. We don’t want to listen to his stuff with being politically correct… We have a lot of work to do… We have people, Christians, having their heads cut off in the Middle East. We have people dying all over the border, where I was right, one hundred percent. We have all of this, like, Medieval times and she [Hillary Clinton] said ‘I didn’t like his tone’…What does it have to do with tone? We want results!”



Trump makes a good case, and I frankly don’t care about whether he thinks McCain was a war hero or not. McCain’s heroism is a valid question, just like it is for any politician who uses it to advance his career, such as John Kerry back in 2004.

The fact is, there isn’t anyone in the limelight who is standing up to the shrieking paper tiger of political correctness like Trump is. The rest of these sniveling, back-biting Republican candidates, with the notable exceptions of Cruz and Huckabee, have rushed to condemn Trump. They know that Trump’s stance on immigration is very refreshing to many conservatives who have grown absolutely incensed over the lying, smiling, groveling phony Republicans whom they have repeatedly elected to no avail.

Is Trump for real? Nobody really believes so, and I’m one of the doubters.

My best guess is that Trump is deliberately acting as a foil to draw media attention and criticism away from the establishment-favored candidate, probably Jeb Bush.

If this is really a deliberate strategy, it’s very clever. During the 2012 primaries, the media kept “pumping and dumping” one Republican idiot after another, from Rick Perry who couldn’t remember what federal department he would scrap, to the buffoon Herman Cain’s 999 Plan, to Gingrich’s moon base, and Santorum’s overall goofyness. Perhaps some Republican strategist has persuaded Trump to keep the media busy while the unpopular and liberal real nominee, maybe Bush III, builds momentum with his 15 percent slice of the electorate. But this is only a guess.

poll collapse

Pump and dump during the 2012 primaries. One loser candidate was pumped up by the media and then dumped a few weeks later as another fool was inflated. It’s possible that Trump is an agent to foil to this game.

Certainly Trump used to be a Democrat who lavishly supported candidates like Hillary Clinton. In the past he has expressed left-wing opinions on abortion, universal healthcare, and gun restrictions. There is no reason why he wouldn’t switch again, or no reason to believe he believes what he says. In electoral politics, a candidate’s past gives a more reliable indication of future performance than what the candidate says.

Could I vote for Trump in the 2016 primary? I live in Indiana and our primary is in May; usually the nomination is all-but cinched by March. It’s hard to tell what hare-brained tack I will take next year, but at this point, it’s easy to throw my vote away for a middle finger to the liberal establishment when I don’t believe the vote really matters anyway. So maybe I will vote for Trump if he’s still running by then. On second thought, probably not.

As for right now, I can’t help but enjoy Trump’s rhetoric, especially against John McCain whom I despise, and that includes Trump’s scoffing at McCain’s hallowed war hero status.


John McCain has capitalized greatly through the years on his perceived status as a war hero. It helped him to enter national political office. When accused of being a carpetbagger during his 1982 campaign for the US House in Arizona, McCain responded:

Listen, pal. I spent 22 years in the Navy. My father was in the Navy. My grandfather was in the Navy. We in the military service tend to move a lot. We have to live in all parts of the country, all parts of the world. I wish I could have had the luxury, like you, of growing up and living and spending my entire life in a nice place like the First District of Arizona, but I was doing other things. As a matter of fact, when I think about it now, the place I lived longest in my life was Hanoi.

And I’ll say that’s a damned impressive reply! It surely won McCain that election. Too bad he couldn’t have roused any of this famous temper against Obama in 2008!

Since winning his Arizona Senate seat in 1987, McCain has spent his entire career straddling the political fence, a “maverick” in the mushy middle. McCain would rather attack his own side and work “across the aisle” with Democrats than support his party’s base, whom he now calls a bunch of “crazies”. This attack-from-behind strategy has worked well for McCain, giving him lots of favorable media attention, and he managed to win the 2008 Republican presidential nomination because his moderate slice of the Republican electorate wasn’t as sub-divided as the other, more conservative, slices.

McCain’s 2008 campaign against Obama was a joke. He refused to confront that despicable scarecrow Obama over his radical Leftist past, choosing instead, “my friends”, to politely discuss dreary issues like social security and taxes. After he lost miserably, McCain gave such a fawning concession speech that I have no doubt that he had voted for Obama instead of himself.

McCain certainly fought harder and dirtier in 2010 against J. D. Hayworth during his primary campaign for re-election than he ever did in 2008 against Obama, demonstrating that he would rather see Obama in power than those nut-jobs who oppose illegal immigration!


“You’re the dumbest man in Congress, Hayworth!” McCain fought harder and dirtier for the 2010 Arizona primary than he ever did in 2008 against Obama.

What’s a War Hero, Anyway?

But back to John McCain’s status as a war hero.

What is a war hero? Maybe it’s a subjective matter, but I say that a war hero is someone, military member or not, who deliberately acts above and beyond the call of duty, at risk to one’s own life in circumstances of immediate danger, to save the lives of others during war or to support the military mission of their side.

Just because a pilot is shot down and captured doesn’t make him a hero. In itself, there is no valor or heroism in accidentally getting shot. And, despite the humble sincerity of well-meaning conservatives, someone is not a hero just because he served honorably in the military. I think we’ve gone way too far in our military worship.

So what about John McCain?

I tried really hard to find fault with his service, mostly because I don’t like him.

After he was released from captivity but before he ran for public office, McCain was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross. This medal was awarded because:

Although his aircraft was severely damaged, he continued his bomb delivery pass and released his bombs on the target [in Hanoi]. When his aircraft would not recover from the dive, Commander McCain was forced to eject over the target.

The Distinguished Flying Cross is awarded “for heroism or extraordinary achievement while participating in an aerial flight.” It was given to Charles Lindbergh for his trans-Atlantic flight, for instance, so it’s not necessarily a recognition of heroism. However, in McCain’s case, it is clear that he was recognized as a hero for going above and beyond his duty to complete his bombing mission.

What about McCain’s heroism for being a POW? I don’t believe that all POW’s are heroes just because they were held in captivity. Once again, any poor soul can get captured and held by the enemy whether he was a hero or not.

But when McCain’s captors offered an early release in 1968 because his father had become naval commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, McCain refused to leave unless his fellow prisoners were also released, causing him to remain captive for another four and a half years. I think we can give McCain the benefit of any doubts over whether this would qualify as heroism.

So I must admit that John McCain was a hero during his military service, much as I really can’t stand the guy.

But this really doesn’t affect my opinion of Donald Trump one way or another.


Patulcius-sqHow mighty big of you, C. F.


Republican Damsels Fret Over Nominee Suiters for 2016


– 31 January 2015 –


Patulcius-sqIn the aftermath of Mitt Romney’s announcement that he won’t run for president in 2016 (probably), it’s funny to listen lately to the earnest Republican callers on the various conservative talk radio shows.

Some dork calls into the show—it doesn’t matter if it’s Limbaugh or Hannity or Beck or that especially awful Mark Levin, or some other clone—and he expresses his unthreatening frustration with the likes of Jeb Bush or Chris Christie as the 2016 Republican nominee, then he whimsically dreams over the prospects of Ted Cruz, or more recently of Scott Walker, or of the hallowed Ben Carson.  These earnest callers sound like teenaged maidens swooning in fantasy over their distant wedding days. Oh dear! From which of her many smiling suitors will she have to choose for that glorious day?

This brand of caller speaks with particular hushed reverence for retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson.  Ben Carson is definitely an accomplished man in his field, though if he were a white man he would only have won respectful acclaim rather than lively adoration.  Ben Carson gave one speech at a National Prayer Breakfast in which he expressed some very typical, even prosaic, conservative thoughts on various subjects in the presence of Barrack Obama, and from that time he’s been the darling of the Republican right.  But, similar to Herman Cain before him, his accomplishments and experience are too meager to qualify him for the presidency.

White conservatives have this dream of an accomplished black man who believes in everything that white conservatives believe.  Such conservative black men, when they can be found, prove to white conservatives the lofty white ideal that race is only skin deep, a mere superficiality.  These conservative black men generate enthusiasm and excitement among white conservatives for the expression of thoughts and viewpoints that, were they expressed by another white man, would hardly win any attention at all.  Sincere as most black conservatives may be, they overpopulate conservative editorials and serve as keynote speakers for nearly all-white conservative events.  White conservatives blindly support these black conservatives to prove to themselves and to others—if only subconsciously—that they are not racist at all, but in their overcompensation they fail to see that race is their primary consideration.


“What do you call a black guy at a conservative convention? The keynote speaker.”

Ted Cruz is also a universal favorite among the conservative damsels of talk radio, both among the callers and of the blabbering hosts.  Cruz consistently expresses viewpoints that are in line with the right side of the Republican Party, to the infatuated delight of the Republican faithful, although he’s sometimes weak on immigration, perhaps owing to his Cuban ancestry.  But this funny-faced, weak-voiced two-year Senator hardly stands a chance of winning the approval of the overall electorate, let alone the Establishment who really decides the nominees.  And if somehow he does win the primary or even the presidency, he’s still just a conservative.  Conservative politicians are dead weight, something to slow down the egalitarian agenda rather than tear it up.  Would a President Cruz really have the vision and the will to lead a restoration of even a constitutional government with states’ rights and traditional values? Or would he merely promote the globalist interests of the Establishment just as every president of the last twenty-five years has done?

The damsels of the Republican Party may hold their breath, but it is all in vain.  Their suitors don’t really love them, they only want the money and the power.

What strikes me is the sincere faith of these callers that their votes will really matter, that the government can be fixed.  The party leaders owe their allegiance to the Establishment, and the Establishment won’t let anyone rock their boat if they can help it.


Clusivius-sqIf conservatives act in vain through their faith in the electoral system, then at worst they do no harm, and at best they, through their organization, unite themselves against their enemies.

And if the system isn’t totally rigged, these faithful conservatives may do some good in the government and for society.  The corruption of a civilization isn’t always a linear process. Sometimes periods of corruption are followed by periods of restoration and reform.

Too much pessimism breeds paralysis of action and bitterness of spirit.

  • May 2018
    S M T W T F S
    « Feb    
%d bloggers like this: