The Social Justice Pope


The Vatican is currently being ruled by someone who is as close to a social justice warrior as you can get and still belong to the catholic leadership. This is in stark contrast to the previous Popes who have acted much more closely with Catholic orthodoxy and people are wondering why.

The reason is fairly simple. To paraphrase Bannon, the Catholic church needs more kneelers to fill their pews. There may be some of my readers who consider themselves to be true believers of whatever religion they follow and to them I want to say this is by no means a knock on your faith. I understand you truly believe but you must also acknowledge that an organization like the Catholic Church loses its prestige without funding and followers. If you belong to any church then they would have probably asked you to donate money at some point in time.

Catholic leaders know that their religion is in decline. The problem they face is that the solution they have chosen would fundamentally alter Catholicism as we know it and they have not realize it yet. Worse it would not be effective in revitalizing their fortunes.

South America

The social justice warrior masquerading as a pope comes from South America. This is not a coincidence. This is the last stronghold of Catholicism on Earth. They chose a Pope from here to shore up the region and to see if they could replicate their success here in other regions. What they forget is that the strain of Catholicism practiced in this area is different from anywhere else. Religion in this part of the world has been influenced by liberation theology. Leaders like Castro or Che used it to spread the revolutionary message to the masses so that they would join in on their revolts. This has not stopped and liberation theology which paints Christ more in the role of communist fighter rather than spiritual savior still exists today. Religion was used as a means to promote communism.

By modeling the entire church after this area the entire religion becomes a tool to promote the socialist agenda which seeks to eliminate religion in the end. Or at the very least turn it into an arm of the state which answers to the government and not to God.

Wealthy Countries

It is not difficult to see how the Catholics found themselves in this predicament. In North America, East Asia and Europe they face pressure in two directions. On the left people are becoming increasingly agnostic or atheist. Seeing no value in religion as a whole they just leave it. On the right they increasingly turn to other branches of Christianity which does not have the burden of having leaders in the Vatican.

By becoming a church for social justice warriors they alienate the right and appeal to the left. Since the people in the left they appeal to would have no problem not having a religion in their lives at all they make the Church weakens their position in these countries.

Poor Countries

In Southeast Asia, Africa, and the Middle East the Catholics face pressure from Islam. There is no hope for revival in the Middle East of course where Christians from any branch are regularly killed or discriminated against by Muslims so we can discount that area entirely. Theoretically their message of liberation theology should increase their appeal to the poorer areas of Africa and Southeast Asia.

The Catholic Church misses that Islam is not just a religion. It is a complete package. It offers economic assistance as well as spiritual. The only reason they have not been able to do this in South America is they have not had time to establish their roots there yet, but this will be developed over time. Let us take the markets of the Philippines or Malaysia for example. It is common knowledge that areas like this are havens for the sale of pirated materials. What happens when the Muslim vendor in the stall next to yours gets the new Thor movie and you as the Catholic have to wait for two weeks to get yours? What happens when the devout Muslim who pays the daily collector the money for the fund to build the local mosque gets their stock before you who have not paid have to wait for weeks? Islam rewards those who follow it with economic benefits. Even Halal product requirements which most likely need to employ Islamic workers operate under this system.

In essence it does not even matter what Islam teaches. As long as the Catholic church cannot match its political, economic, and theological integration they will continue to lose ground against it. By focusing on the content of their message the Catholic Church is attempting to combat Islam where Islam is least vulnerable.

Death of Catholicism

The social justice pope alienates the faithful in the first world countries, whose money it needs to combat Islam in the third world, in order to increase its presence in the third world countries. Which it cannot do because there are economic benefits to Islam that it cannot match. Leading to a retreat of the religion on both fronts.

The Catholic church must wake up and depose of its head social justice warrior. Modify your religion to be attractive to those on the right in the wealthy countries and use that money to provide the same level of economic integration in the poorer countries. Only then can there be a revival.


The White Pill on Daca

th (2).jpg

There has been plenty of negativity going around about what is happening regarding DACA. I have seen people who used to have plenty of faith in Trump withdraw their support just on this issue. I wanted to write this today as a white pill to all the negativity floating around.


The first thing we have to remember is that there is only one thing that has actually been done regarding DACA so far. That is DACA is ending in 6 months. No matter what Trump gets credit for this. DACA would not even be on the table without Trump. Everything else has been things that have been reported by the media. Schumer said this, Trump said that, unnamed source said this. Let me remind everyone that we just had the media report that the US was staying in the Paris agreement which turned out to be fake news.

Don’t get me wrong. Trump could reinstate DACA in the end or congress could pass the Dream act without significant concessions to the Republicans. I fully realize this possibility. If that happens then we can take a look at what law or EO is passed and condemn it if necessary. Until then the only thing that has actually happened is that DACA is officially ending and that is a positive.


One of the best developments to come out of the DACA issue is that the feelings of the Republican base has been made clear. Everyone can see that any deal on DACA without major concessions will be a cause for major reprisals from the Republican voters. This is the reason why Paul Ryan and Mcconnell have gone out of their way to point out that any deal they reach will have the blessing of President Trump. This is very useful to our agenda since it proves that the Republican base cares more about the priorities of its nationalist side more than those of the establishment.


One of the running narratives of the left is that Trump is literally Hitler. Their leaders have called for him to be resisted at every turn. Except now, if the media is to be believed, Chuck and Nancy are apparently willing to work with Trump on DACA and other issues. Why would anyone work with Hitler on anything?

There are liberals for whom Trump is Hitler and that will not change. There are others who get  their cues from their leaders and will begin to question the logic of the whole narrative.


My greatest hope for the rumors about DACA and what was done with the debt ceiling is that it would push congressional Republicans further to the right. In the past they had little reason to accommodate President Trump because Democrats would not work with him. Now that they have proven they are willing Republicans have to give Trump some of what his base wants. Paul Ryan showed us that this is working when he says the wall will be fully funded. Of course we have to wait for this to be actually done.

Last Thoughts

The most important thing I want everyone to remember is not to condemn Trump for something he has not done yet. Coulter , Hannity, and other people who have supported Trump since the start have already begun condemning him for something that only the media says he has done. This is not the first time that they have said Trump did something that he did not do.

As of right now DACA is ending in six months. Period. Full stop. Trump gets credit for that. Period. Full stop. If something happens after six months then we can take a look at that and withdraw our support if needed.

Clinton Ran A Good Campaign


This will most likely be the most unpopular article I have ever written. Something I pride myself on though is being able to look at an event as objectively as I possibly can so that we can draw the proper lessons from it. Punditry has been unified in their opinion that Clinton ran a terrible campaign. I disagree. I think that Clinton maximized every single advantage she had. There were some things she could have done better but she was limited by other factors as well. The current groupthink only emerges because Clinton lost. If the reverse happened then they would all be saying Clinton ran a wonderful campaign and Trump a terrible one.


This brings us to the first point we have to address. If she ran such a good campaign then why did she lose? As a gamer (both computer and LCG/CCG) I know first hand that you can be a good player and have a good deck and still lose. In life there are times when you lose because the other player is just better. Clinton may have run a good campaign but Trump ran one of the best campaigns I have ever seen. Simple repeatable messages. Excellent branding of both himself and the opponent. Lastly marginalizing tactics his opponents could use against him. After all if you already know the mainstream media is biased against you then you call them fake news to turn people against them.

No Message

When you ask why Hillary Clinton was a failure the first answer people will give you is that her campaign had no message. What critics don’t understand is that this is a feature not a bug. Hillary Clinton ran as the establishment candidate to the radical change presented by Trump. The establishment candidate is not supposed to have a revolutionary message. They are supposed to say that things are going fine and that the other guy is crazy for proposing the changes that he wants done. Which is exactly what her message was.

Hillary Clinton being who she was could not run as anything but the establishment candidate. To do otherwise would be like getting a card pool filled with burn spells but making a control deck out of it or running a control character like a tank in Dota. It just would not work. One of the most important things in a candidate is knowing what you can do well and what you cannot do well.

First you had her history and connections all over the political world. People would scream fake if she was presented as the change candidate. Second she was running as the third term of Obama. If she were to be a change candidate then she would have to criticize policies enacted by Obama. Anything she said in that regard would just be used by Trump who was running against Obama just as much as he was against Clinton. More importantly the liberal media just made the case for the past 8 years that anyone who dared criticize Obama was a racist. Clinton would have difficulty doing this.


Being the establishment candidate Clinton had an easier time raising funds than Trump did. She milked this advantage for all it was worth. At the end of the process Team Clinton was able to raise 1.6 billion dollars for her election while Team Trump only raised something like 600-700 million. I cannot recall any other presidential election in recent memory where one candidate had a 2:1 advantage over the other in funding. It is true that one party will usually have the advantage over the other like with Obama outraising Romney, but never to this extent.

People have tried to say this did not matter as all the media coverage Trump got gave him something like 9 billion in free advertising. What they do not say is that of his coverage multiple studies show that over 90% was negative. If you want to consider negative advertising as money raised for the candidate then anytime someone runs an attack ad the money used for that should be considered spent by his opponent.

Political Connections

Clinton also maximized her political connections. Lawmakers, both Republican and Democrat, overwhelmingly wanted Clinton to win. This meant that major political figures did not attend the Republican National Convention or get involved in the Trump campaign. More importantly it also meant that they were able to threaten staff who used to help run Republican campaigns with being black listed for working with the campaign forcing Trump to rely on people who had gotten their experience in other countries like Manafort.

Beyond neutrality members of the Republican establishment even went over and above to help Clinton win. The Bush clan let it slip towards the end of the campaign that they would not be voting for Trump. The libertarian vice presidential candidate Weld went out and said he would only campaign in states that Trump was strong in like Georgia. Places which coincidentally the Clinton camp was trying to snipe. Most amazingly, the Republicans even ran a spoiler candidate in Mcmullin against their own guy.

Very few other candidates would have been able to achieve this much.

Last Word

I am not saying that Clinton made no mistakes. I think that she could have treated her left wing supporters better as she was trying to attract the center voters for example. While she did make mistakes she maximized every advantage that she could in ways no other establishment candidate was able to in the past.

If we are to learn anything from the 2016 election we have to give credit where credit is due. That is true for both Clinton and Trump.


Trolling to Educate the Left

th (1)

Today I want to discuss how to use trolling to educate the left. The most crucial thing to remember about trolling is that it has to look as innocent as possible. The purpose of it is to be able to draw a response from the audience which will let them come to a moment of self-realization. This is similar to the socratic method used in law school.

The best example I can provide for this is when the left accuses me of racism. Im sure everyone from the right has been accused of racism at one point or another.  At this point I only ask one simple question.

Should the color of your skin should be a factor in determining eligibility for higher education. (yes/no)?

Of course you can imagine the autistic screeching I have to endure after I bring this up because it blows the narrative out of the water. Almost everyone from the left would answer in the affirmative and almost everyone in the right would answer in the negative.

Make no mistake the moment you answer yes to that question you are a racist. Period. End of sentence. Anything that you say after that is merely justification for being a racist.

If you are a liberal reading this I understand you have all sorts of justifications for answering yes. They all boil down to “People were racist in the past so I have to be racist now to correct it”.  If it makes you feel better you can be a noble racist. But you are still a racist.

Of course in their eyes everyone is a noble racist. People are always the heroes in their own stories. They are rarely racist just because. There is always some justification for racism to make it a moral good. To make it noble. The black people just cannot take care of themselves. We need to bring religion to the heathens. We need to correct previous injustices.

A is A

At this point I would like to bring in Ayn Rand, one of my favorite authors. Her thoughts on morality is something that everyone should read. The reason why liberals fall into this trap is because they have no moral absolutes. One of the most important points Ayn Rand makes is that A is A. Racism is always racism. Almost all liberals practice morale relativism or in certain conditions A can be B. For example if you are racist for noble reasons then you are no longer racist.

You can use this on a variety of topics not just racism. Here is another question which will generate some autistic screeching.

Are people accused of Rape entitled to due process and a fair trial? (yes/no)

This of course refers to the Dear Colleague letter just repealed by Devos. To those who don’t know Democrats removed the rights of people accused of rape in a college campus to a jury of their peers. They also lowered the standard of evidence from “guilty beyond reasonable doubt” to “preponderance of evidence”. Of course all the major Democrats like Obama and Biden support it.

I hope you have the same enjoyment as I do triggering liberals into self-awareness.


The Debt Ceiling Deal Explained


Conservative pundits like Ann Coulter and Ben Shapiro are up in arms about Trump making a deal with the Democrats to extend the debt ceiling by three months and to provide aid for areas affected by Harvey. They cannot fathom why Trump is giving away all of his leverage and cannot see a reason as to why he is doing this. Make no mistake the conservatives have a right to be upset and it is a very dangerous time for the Republican party. But they are wrong to think there is no reason Trump is doing this.

I will try to explain as best I can why this happened and what it means for the nationalists on the Team Trump.

Before we begin the first thing you have to do to understand what happened is to forget about the Harvey relief bill. That was always going to happen no matter what. Neither party can afford to be seen holding that up. Focus exclusively on the debt ceiling.


I will start with them because they are only marginally involved in this. Our biased media is playing this up as a huge win for Democrats. It is not. What have they actually gotten? Have any major policies they want been included in the debt ceiling increase? Has their position improved at all? All that happened is that they will have another negotiation three months down the line.  The only benefit that they got from this negotiation is that Trump agreed with them and not the Republican leadership. This was done deliberately by Trump.


To understand why Trump did this we have to understand the position he is in. Congressional Republicans have proven to be very ineffective at pushing his agenda while Democrats refuse to work with him. In a situation where one side has been useless you try to motivate them by working with other parties. In this meeting Trump provided the Democrats with a taste of the benefits of working with him.

In addition to siding with them in the meeting Trump also tweeted something at the request of Pelosi and brought the Heitkamp to his rally in North Dakota.

Trump can see that the GOP is not pushing his agenda properly. He wants to show them that he has an alternative party to work with.


The GOP is the big loser in this meeting. The debt ceiling is only a minor thing. With his recent actions Trump has shown them that he can really hurt the GOP where it counts. If you were to believe our media the GOP is about to be routed from all halls of power because of the unpopularity of Trump. The reality is that after the 2018 elections it is very possible that the Republicans will have a 60 seat super majority in the senate. By taking Heitkamp to North Dakota with him, which is one of the prime seats the GOP want to take, Trump is showing that he can throw a monkey wrench in their plans. The Washington Post ran an article saying that this guaranteed the reelection of Heitkamp which is laughably naive. We are one year from the elections. Trump can easily turn on her if the situation requires it.

The Republican political establishment thought that they could force Trump to bend to their will because he had no other options. If they did not they thought there would be no consequences except for a lame duck Presidency. Trump is showing that that is not necessarily the case and he has other options.

3 Months

Has anyone considered why this particular move was done in this deal? Raising the debt ceiling for 3 months is really insignificant. Both sides will be back at it again come December so why? These 3 months are what the Republican establishment has to show that they can be of some value to Trump so that he will work with them. If not then Trump will move to align himself further with the Democrats.


What does this mean for us? Obviously the best result that can come from this is that the Republican establishment realizes it needs Trump and unifies to pass the things he needs in his agenda. In this case we get most of what Trump campaigned for.

We have to be prepared for the other scenario though. What if Trump is forced to align himself more fully with the Democrats to get things passed?

First of any immigration reform goes out the window. Democrats will never agree to it and there would be no scenario where we get anything meaningful done in that regard.

The other things could still be done though. Withdrawing from onerous international agreements is something both Sanders and Trump agree on and could still pass. Raising the standardized deduction for income taxes could also be done as it would mean that more low to mid income people would be exempt from tax. Legislation to return jobs to America would be done as well. Both parties want it they just don’t want the other party to get credit for it.

I could provide more specifics but to cut everything short think of everything that Bernie Sanders and Trump agree on. That would be our best case scenario for a Trump presidency that is allied with Democrats.

Pivotal Moment

We are at a pivotal moment in the Trump presidency. Conservative pundits are condemning Trump for caring more about TV ratings than his agenda. To those people I would like to ask what has Trump actually gotten for working with Republicans in congress? With the exception of the Supreme Court nomination every other achievement of the Trump administration has been done using the powers of the executive branch.

The next three months and whatever Ryan and Mcconell get done in them will determine whether Trump governs like a Republican or Democrat.

At this point I would like to remind nationalists that while we are more closely aligned with Republicans the party itself does not matter to us. What matters is getting things we approve of passed.




The Truth About DACA and the Economy


The defenders of illegal immigration are now arguing that ending DACA would cause economic doom. Some reports from CNBC state that ending DACA would cost the economy 200 billion. Still other reports say it will cost 400 billion.

Let me be clear. This is false and using a line of argument that only an economic illiterate would make.

Debunking the Theory

When the defenders of DACA give out the amount of money that the economy will lose they do so by calculating the total amount of wages all the illegals under the Dream act earn and then having that magically disappear from the economy. In what world are these jobs contingent on having illegals? If there were no illegals around these jobs would still need to be done. There is no special skill someone under DACA would have that an American would not and conversely there is no special skill an American would have that these DACA recipients would not have. Except they work for far less than an American would. Which explains why big business is lobbying very hard to keep them around.

The people who make this argument rely on the public being kept in the dark about what type of jobs the DACA illegals hold. There is an idea out there that these jobs are things no American would do at any price which is why we need the DACA illegals to fill them. Apple recently bragged that it had DACA recipients employed in its software division, marketing, and sales. Do those sound like jobs no American is willing to do? Microsoft defiantly said that they would defend their DACA employees in court. Is Microsoft running a plantation somewhere where these illegals are employed in backbreaking labor?

The reality is that there is plenty of available labor to take these jobs. The government may say that we are at full employment but we have one of the lowest labor participation rates ever recorded. There are plenty of people to take the jobs these illegals will vacate.

Going Further

In contrast to the doomsayers I would like to argue that the removal of DACA illegal in the labor pool would actually a benefit to the economy not a drain. The primary reason illegals are hired by corporations is that they are willing to work for less money and benefits. If an American were hired for the job they would have to pay more. Higher wages means that they get to spend more money on the economy and generate even more employment for the community. This is actually the free market working as intended as the only reason price of labor was down is because too much additional labor was introduced.

DACA illegals also have a much higher chance to have relatives abroad that they need to send money to. Every dollar that they send back to Mexico or any other country is another dollar that is taken out of the US economy. Instead of generating jobs and demand in the US economy it generates jobs and demand in another one. If a citizen were to get the job then almost everything would be spent inside the US. Please note that even if you buy goods made by foreign companies it still generates demand and jobs in your local community as those stores need more employees, more delivery people, and a bigger supply chain for the increased demand. These newly employed people then repeat the same cycle of demand.

Lastly it is even I would argue that it is even beneficial for the government to remove the DACA illegals. The current argument is that they pay taxes so their removal would lead to those taxes no longer being paid. Whoever fills their roles would still pay taxes too. Best of all they would no longer be part of those who are too discouraged to look for work and would be off government welfare leading to the government spending less.

To sum everything up. Whether the DACA illegals are there or not the jobs they leave still need to be done. If we hire Americans to do it it is better for the economy as a whole. Those who disagree with this have no right to ask for any minimum wage increases.

DACA: Sins of the Father?


With the Trump administration set to end DACA its supporters have come up with a uniform rallying cry in its defense. “In America we do not punish children for the sins of their parents”.

Except we do. All the time. One of the most important concepts that almost all Democrats hold dear is affirmative action. Doesn’t this punish the children because their ancestors were supposedly racist?

If somebody robs a bank and gives the money to his children what do we do? Do we leave the money with his children as returning it to their original owner would be punishing them? No we would return the money to the owner of the property.

What if the parent and child would illegally squat in an apartment or home owned by someone else? Would we say they can stay there because the child did nothing wrong? Or would we evict them?

If a single parent murders someone in cold blood do we keep him out of prison because it would hurt the child? No the murderer goes into prison and the child gets put into some foster home or relative.

It would actually be fairly rare to find a situation where a child is not punished in some way for the actions of his parent.

In any case the illegals are not blameless as they did cross the border without getting the proper authorization. Remember we are not talking about criminal cases here but rather civil cases where in some cases actual commission of the act is enough even without intent. I encourage everyone to keep this in mind as supporters of DACA try to make the case for its morality using the much stricter standards of criminal justice and law.

Now that we have dispensed with the platitudes let us discuss what is really happening. Why is congress both republicans and democrats so hell bent on encouraging illegal immigration?


For Democrats its simple. Its all about the votes. I will not go down the path of people voting illegally as that is always sure to start an argument. I will just point out that political parties think in terms of decades and not just years. The DACA “children” have already been here for 8 years and for some of them even longer. They may even be adults now capable of having children of their own. Children who by virtue of birthright citizenship (something only one or two countries provide) will be American citizens. These people can then vote for Democrats in the future.

Democrats are fond of saying that Demographics is destiny as a prophesy of their eventually victory. This is the Democrats pushing that along.


To be completely fair this next section does not only apply to Republicans. Establishment Democrats want this as much as their Republican counterparts do. Our politicans want this because it serves their corporate paymasters. Encouraging more illegal immigration with DACA and other measures like that increases the amount of labor available which reduces its cost and bargaining power. Leading to lower wages to everyone.

All Republicans and most Democrats claim to be capitalists who favor free trade and free markets. Under a capitalist system labor is just like any other commodity. If there is a scarcity of labor then its prices increase and if there is too much labor then its prices decrease. It is funny. When the free market dictate that the price of labor decrease our politicians turn into avatars of the free market. When the free market dictates that the price of labor increases our politicians cannot stand it and work to correct it.

We all want wages to increase to help the economy. The only way to do that is to control the supply of labor. Ending DACA is a step in this direction.

How Obama Wiretapped Trump

th (1)

The Washington Post recently came out with an article that says the DOJ states there were no documents showing that Trump Tower was wiretapped. They would like to focus on the strictest definition of what Trump said because to widen it would mean we would have to look at the biggest scandal since Watergate. At least Nixon had the shame to use criminals instead of the government.

Why did they not ask if there were any documents showing that the Trump campaign was under surveillance? The simple answer is because it would have come up positive. Let that sink in. The administration of the Democrats had the campaign of the Republican candidate under surveillance using the powers of the government.


When I first brought up the fact that Obama wiretapped Trump there were some gaps in the story which we filled in using logic. At this point the only gap that exists is whether or not Obama explicitly gave the order to wiretap the Trump campaign. Everything else has been confirmed. Here is the timeline for easy reference.

1. During the primaries never Trumpers start work on the Steele dossier. This is then later on funded by Democrats.

This dossier alleges that Trump watched Russian hookers pee on a bed slept in by Obama on tape and that one of Trump’s associates had a meeting in Moscow, when multiple eye witnesses place him in the country at the time of that meeting, among other things.

2. The suspect nature of the dossier did not matter. All it was needed for was to provide justification for FISA warrants for associates in the Trump campaign. There is no one to challenge it in the FISA court as only the government is represented.

The secret FISA courts have so far rejected 9 out of 35000 requests from the government. They rejected this request twice. Obama had to shop around for another judge to approve it on their third attempt.

3. As of now Trump campaign members are now officially under surveillance. It would have been impossible to listen in on people involved in the campaign without picking up information of political value.

At this point it is worth noting that Trump would have been factually correct. When these members were in Trump Tower, and they were at certain points, then the people spying on them could listen to conversations inside Trump Tower.

4.The Democrats now have the information in raw form which needs to be processed. This takes place when Susan Rice requests for the names of the American citizens in these documents to be unmasked.

The media insists that the reason this is so is because there was a need to know who the people were for further investigation. This is false. FBI agents themselves were the ones conducting the surveillance. Administration lawyers drafted the FISA requests. They already knew who the people under surveillance were. The reason that requests for unmasking take place is so that you have a record on paper saying that this person did that instead of redacted did that.

5. Once the names are redacted they can be used for anything. They can be used for further charges. They can be leaked to the press. They can be passed on to Clinton campaign officials.

It is also important to remember that at this time Obama relaxed the rules of sharing between government agencies which means more people would have had access to the unmasked information.

A Rose by Any Other Name

I suppose it would have been more accurate to say “the obama administration abused the FISA courts to put the opposing campaign under surveillance and then used this information for political purposes in a scandal of a scale that dwarfs watergate” but that is a mouthful. Obama wiretapped Trump is much more simple, direct, and covers the essence of what happened.

The New Korean War


For the record I fully support an armed intervention in North Korea. In my opinion the US has tried every other option and all of them have failed. Bill Clinton tried complete and total submission. Offering a yearly tribute in oil to North Korea as well as offering to build their nuclear program with American aid. Undisclosed provisions in the deal suggest that the North Korean leaders could have personally gotten something as well. It did not work. Bush Jr tried belligerence with economic sanctions. Stopping the tribute provided by the Clintons and then using the UN to contain North Korea. The regime did not care. Obama tried ignoring North Korea. That did not work. Now it is very likely that they have nuclear weapons as well as the means to deliver them.

Equally important is that I am confident Trump is the best man for the job. In my opinion Bush made two very critical mistakes in the Iraq war which could have changed the flow of history.


This is the first mistake. When Bush was making his case for the war in Iraq he led the public to believe that it would have been an easy task. The US military would overwhelm the Iraqi army and their resistance would crumble. Even if this was the case he should not have said so. One of the most important strategies to managing expectations is to underpromise and overdeliver. This allows you to have a margin of error in case things turn out worse than you expect. In case things work out better than you expect then you can always congratulate the troops for doing a good job and keeping casualties to a minimum.

At this point I would like to direct you to the tweets of President Trump during hurricane Harvey.  At all times he was pointing out how big and terrible the storm was while praising the capability of Texas and the American people to get through the disaster. If you think that the storm is huge then you mentally prepare yourself for lots of damage and suffering. When things turn out to be less damaging than you expect then you can always give credit and praise the first responders.

When we finally go into North Korea Trump will be using this tactic.

Nation Building

This is the second and most critical mistake from Iraq. The US army is actually very good at conventional warfare. I divide the Iraq adventure into two episodes. The first is when we actually had an Iraqi army to fight and the second was when we were fighting the insurgency. The US was actually very successful during the first phase. In fact it was so successful and so widely covered that the entire thing felt like a video game instead of an actual invasion.

Things went south went we stayed instead of pulling out right after. As a nation the US is not equipped to handle insurgencies. We just do not have the moral fortitude to do the things required to defeat an insurgency or to sustain a campaign of attrition. Part of being able to implement successful operations is understanding your own limitations. If we pulled out right after unseating the Iraqi then we would have been able to declare victory. What ever happened to Iraq after would have been a thing for the foreign section of the nightly news instead of a national concern.

I am very confident that President Trump will not make this mistake. Nation building seems to be the last thing in his mind nor is sacrificing military efficiency for humanitarian concerns which is another good thing.

I am fully aware that leaving Iraq or in this case North Korea right away may cause a humanitarian crisis. I would rather the world deal with a humanitarian crisis there, after having achieved the downfall of the Kim regime, than have the United States deal with a humanitarian crisis here after LA gets nuked.

Who is the Anti-fa?

antifa on campus hero.jpg

With their recent coverage in the news it is important for everyone that we understand who Anti-fa is, what they stand for, and which major political figures have been supporting them.

Anti-fa is of course short for Anti fascist. They are a group which believe in opposing fascism by any means necessary. They believe that fascism must be stamped out in its infancy before it takes root. To Anti-fa physical violence, intimidation, and suppression of free speech are all valid and legitimate tools to combat who they deem as fascist. One of the defining traits of Anti-fa is they have very little in the way of central leadership so each particular “cell” (for lack of a better term) determines who or what is fascist too them. Another defining trait of Anti-fa is they have widespread political support. The alt-right has been denounced by nearly all major politicians of both parties. In contrast nearly every major Democrat has expressed support for the actions of Anti-fa. Even Republican leaders such as Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney have cleared Anti-fa of any wrong doing with their statements.

Since every division of Anti-fa decides for themselves what defines fascism they have declared a lot of events as fascist. In college where conservative speakers such as Ben Shapiro or even the more controversial Milo have been scheduled to speak, Anti-fa has been on hand to prevent the event from taking place. Sometimes it is thru physical threats, actual violence, or blockading the entrances. Even their presence sends a chilling effect as conservative speakers are forced to pay huge sums to provide adequate security for their talks. In political campaigns they have decided that the Trump campaign and its supporters are fascist. They were on hand to break up the Trump rally in Chicago during the primaries. In Arizona they even forced President Trump to enter one of his rallies thru the back. In California there was even a rally by Trump supporters where Anti-fa used pepper spray on children. Even Republican town halls discussing the potential changes to Obamacare were also protested or demonstrations against planned parenthood.

To date I am not aware of any demonstrations against any political activities done by the left which goes a long the uniform support they draw from Democrat politicians. On the other hand it seems like the definition Anti-fa uses for fascist has been expanded to include any activity which furthers the Republican agenda. This makes the refusal of mainstream Republican political leaders such as Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and Mitt Romney to condemn them very strange. To date it looks like President Trump is the only major political figure to condemn violence caused by Anti-fa.

To sum everything up. Anti-fa is an organization supported by Democrats and establishment Republicans which violently suppresses anything they deem as fascist. They have also determined that anything having to do with conservatives is fascist.