The first round is over and the results are in. It will be a contest between Macron and Marine Le Pen and I would like to say that #imwithher. If you have any liberal friends here or in France feel free to say that they are a racist sexist bigot if they are voting for the straight white male Macron. After all we want to break the glass ceiling for all women.

Marine Le Pen

Let us be clear about one thing Le Pen represents change in this election. From economics, to social policy, and even culture itself. Ultimately the election is about changing the course of the country. Le Pen represents a shift in the direction of the ship. From east to west or north to south while Macron at best represents a change of 1 or 2 degrees either way. If you are happy with Hollande and the work he has done you should definitely vote for Macron. If you are not happy with his work then I encourage you to vote for Le Pen.

Macron and the opponents of Le Pen do not want you to think about that. They cannot engage Le Pen on ideas as it will be obvious they stand for nothing more than the status quo so they engage in the old tactic of calling her a Nazi. At this point I would like to issue a challenge to all my readers. Look up articles from the elections or Reagan, Bush daddy, Dole, Bush 2, Mccain, Romney, and Trump. Every single one of them has been called a nazi during their election. Of course after they were no longer politically relevant they were no longer nazis and the left was fine with them.

Chances are you voted for someone else in the first round after all most people voted for someone other than Macron or Le pen, after all most people did. Think about why you made that vote. Did you do it because you were happy at the way things are? Or did you do so because you were not happy with the situation in the country and wanted to change it? Take a look a chance with Le Pen. If it does not work out you can always go back to status quo later.


Due to the control of the media by the elites who favor Macron he has somehow been able to market himself as the agent of change in this election.  Nothing could be further from the truth. He was a socialist for the longest time, the same party as Hollande. He was in the Hollande administration himself before he resigned to take part in the election.

The only reason that Macron left the socialist party is that he was not going to get the nod to be the candidate for the next election and it was becoming impossible to win as the socialist candidate. I recall Hollande receiving a 4% approval rating at one point in time. It is like a hand off between Obama and Clinton. They may differ on some minor points but they will largely continue each others policies.

Hollande is Macron and Macron is Hollande. Why continue policies that will got you 4% approval? Why continue something that already failed France? There is only one answer.

Vive Le Pen Vive Le Resistance Vive Le France

Foreign Policy: The Caesarean Doctrine


Over the past few weeks the foreign policy doctrine of President Trump has become clearer and clearer. It looks like it is based on the model of ancient Rome.

The Roman Citizen

When Caesar was running for consul he said ” Once elected I will work towards the day when a Roman Citizen can go to any land and declare that he is a Roman Citizen and expect good treatment, for they will know he has the might of Rome behind him”. Trump is following this doctrine.

A week ago a green beret was killed in Achin district in Afghanistan. A week later President Trump drops the mother of all bombs to them. Of course there are other benefits to dropping this bomb but the message is clear. If an American citizen dies vengeance and it will be vastly disproportionate to the amount of damage suffered. The retaliation may not always be military but it will always be there.

Leading by Example

Rome has always been very good in leading by example. That is they made an example of some nations for others to follow. When Carthage challenged Rome they destroyed their city and sowed it with salt so nothing would ever grow there again.  When Spartacus led his rebellion Rome crucified all of them as a warning to future rebellions. Rome made an example of its benevolence as well. Caesar turned back the hordes of Helveti encroaching on Aedui lands and to be an ally of Rome meant that the empire would support you in war.

Did we really need to drop 59 tomahawks in Syria? Surely 20 would have sufficed. Did we need to drop a bomb that is as close to a nuke as we can get in Afganistan? Surely a bunch of regular bombs would have achieved the same result. The answer is of course yes. The missile strikes serve as an example to North Korea, China, Russia and our other adversaries. Is it necessary to threaten to ruin the Mexican economy? Yes because other nations need to learn that there are consequences when they take advantage of our good graces.

Rome First

Roman foreign policy always put Roman interests first. Allies were constantly evaluated at how useful and compliant they were to empire. Allies who were not were replaced by those who are. Even age old enemies like the Persians or the Germanic tribes were given help when greater threats appeared.

Our President is using these principles today. China, Russia, and even our old allies in Europe have to constantly prove themselves as worthy of our support. This allows us to derive the maximum benefit for our support.

Heirs of Rome

For better or for worse America has inherited the mantle of Rome as the Empire of the West. We can hardly do worse than emulating the foreign policy of an empire that has lasted a thousand years.

4D Chess: The Syrian Strike was Necessary


The Trumposphere is alive with denunciations from his closest supporters. Milo, Ann, Watson, and even Alex Jones are all up in arms about the missile strike into Syria. They are all wrong.

If you want the promise of jobs fulfilled, more equitable trade terms with China, and a handle on North Korea then this strike was necessary.

China not Syria

In my previous piece “Why Russia?” I explained that in the mind of President Trump the primary concern is economic. Everything else comes after that. The primary target of this strike was China not Syria. Syria is just a convenient excuse to launch missiles. Think about the timing of the event. It could have happened a couple of days later or a couple of days earlier and the reaction of Syria, Russia, Democrats, and Republicans would have been largely the same. Yet it happened right before President Trump was due to meet with President Xi of China to discuss trade and the North Korean situation. Hours before that meeting he was treated to a live show of US missiles being launched for the first time in a long time.  Just to put a sense of perspective the US used around 120 tomahawk missiles in Libya according to Forbes.

Shows of force like this are important. Syria does not exist in a vacuum. Since the red line proclamation of President Obama China has viewed the US as a paper tiger. In their mind we have all the military power in the world but are unable to muster the necessary political will to use it. This leads to a more belligerent trade policy from them, a more aggressive stance in the southeast china sea, and more aggressive stances from their satellite nations like North Korea. In this case the target was less important than the fact that force was used.

Equally important is the fact that this kills the Russia narrative of the Democrats. Russia has a strong army and a good geopolitical position vis a vis China which makes them a necessary ally in dealing with them in the future. With their narrative the democrats were making it difficult to exert the proper pressure on China using Russia.

Not an Escalation

The strike destroyed one airbase and killed around 6 people. That is not out of the ordinary in the middle east. If you were to have a missile strike New York and kill 6 people it would be a national scandal. If the same thing happens in the Middle East it would be just another Tuesday. Little Shalifa who has been sent by her parents to suicide bomb a building would have killed more people when she claimed her 99 virgin barbie dolls with the great pedophile in the sky.

When we look at the middle east we have to remember to judge things by their standards. For something to be an escalation in that savage part of the world it would have to be a lot more than one airstrike that kills 6 random people.

To the Trumposphere

Everyone wants Trump to succeed. We want those jobs back, we want better terms with China, and we want other countries to live up to their obligations to us. How is Trump supposed to accomplish that if other countries do not believe that we are willing to use our military at some point?

At the end of the day our primary argument for everything that Trump is trying to accomplish is that we are more important to you than you are to us. If Mexico does not give way we would have an easier time finding a market for our exports than they would for theirs. If China or North Korea does not give way then we are more powerful than them and could take what we needed or move them out of the way.

If you are like Ann Coulter, Milo, or the others who want Trump to succeed then asking him to tie one hand behind his back is counterproductive. In fact your insistence on it may guarantee failure. At the end of the day Trump has 4 years to prove himself and his promises. We have to give him the freedom to employ the different negotiation techniques that he needs. Let us try and refrain from acting like democrats and demanding that Trump be deposed at the drop of a hat.

Why Russia?


Since the campaign President Trump has been going out of his way to repair relations with Russia. He has faced intense criticism from both Republicans and Democrats who prefer that we maintain an adversarial relationship with this country. Russia as a country presents several problems as they have their own national interests that they are trying to pursue which is sometimes at odds with ours. It is a very fair question to ask Why Russia? Why should we bother pursuing warmer relations with this country?

By itself Russia is not important. Taken on their own there is not much value in forming better relations with them. The value of Russia lies not with them but with their proximity and historical relationship with another country, China.


To understand the importance of Russia you first have to understand how the President looks at the world. Trump looks at the world thru the lens of the economy. That is his primary consideration. Military, diplomacy, human rights, climate, and everything else you can think of is only a distant second. From this standpoint the primary competitor of the US is China. It is the only country worldwide that is capable of overtaking the country in global dominance. By this standard Russia, with an economy the size of Italy, is barely a secondary power. In fact the military of Russia would be a burden to them in this case as they would not be able to afford it long term.

This worldview might be different from other people but it is not wrong. In a micro sense we see richer people being afforded better interest rates than poorer ones. We also see that when they default on their obligations the banks are more willing to work with the richer customers while taking the collateral of poorer ones. Trump has taken advantage of this himself. You would be foolish to think he is the only one to have done so. This also holds true in a macro sense. Debts of countries with weak economies like Greece do not get renegotiated and its people are forced into austerity while everything is done to make sure that countries with stronger economies are not inconvenienced by paying their debt.

In this world view everything flows from a stronger economy. Economy leads to military success as you are able to afford a bigger army and pay to keep it deployed longer and in more areas. Economy leads to diplomatic success as you have more leverage in dealings with other countries. Economy even leads to domestic tranquility as the populace is more content.


Every simulation done by the Chinese general staff on a potential conflict with the US assumes that Russia is a friendly nation or at worse a neutral one. A Russia that has a chance to be friendly to the US in a conflict with China is the worst nightmare for the Chinese. First off you have the massive border between Russia and China. There is just no real way to defend a border of that size while still keeping your coasts adequately protected. Second you have the type of military the US has and the type Russia has. At the end of the day the US is and always will be a naval power. Most of our force projection involves the navy and our carriers. Russia on the other hand is a land power. They also have the willpower to sustain casualties that the US cannot.


At first glance you would not see any great importance of Russia to China in trade. While it is true that the first priority of China in trade is the southeast region of Asia, this area is also the most easily disrupted if conflict were to arise with the US. The more China relies on this region for its wealth the more power it gives the US over it.

China knows that its navy will never equal that of the US. It is just too far behind and the US improves its navy all the time. This means that the Southeast China sea and Southeast Asia will always be at risk. Due to this the Chinese are spending trillions of dollars developing a land trade route modeled along the lines of the Silk Road used in the middle ages.

The silk road is not one straight line but rather a spiderweb of land based trade routes stretching from China all the way to Europe. These routes have to pass thru one of two major regions. The Middle East or Russia. The Middle East is the Middle East, there is no reasonable expectation for it to be a stable region anytime in the future. At any point in time any of its countries can enter a state of war. In any case the US already has significant allies in the region with Israel and Saudi Arabia. A Russia friendly to the US would mean that even these routes can be cut off.


The Chinese have been trying to set up an alternative world order without the US. From Brics, to its own version of the TPP, to various bilateral relations with countries around the world. In most of these endeavors Russia is its biggest partner and helps provide stability and credibility to these alternative institutions.

A Russia that is friendly to the US would mean that one of the primary members of this new world order would be able to make decisions that is favorable to the US.


Trump needs Russia in order to contain the Chinese and make it harder for them to compete with the US. China has a history spanning thousands of years. The current communist government does not see themselves as a New China but rather a continuation of the Old Chinese dynasties. Even Rome the longest civilization the west has had can only claim a history of 1000 years.

This gives the Chinese a mindset that favors the long term rather than the short and favors certainty above all else. The more uncertain they are over their alliance with Russia and all the plans coming from it the more they will be willing to give up to the US in the negotiating table.

If Trump is a Russian Puppet then why…..

download (5).jpg

Here is a series of questions that liberals have never been able to answer about their Russian conspiracy theories.

Why is Trump pushing oil and natural gas? 

This is actually the biggest one. Russia relies on oil and natural gas for its economy. In fact it would not be an understatement to say that this is the biggest weakness of Russia. Any major reduction in price would be enough to trigger an economic downturn in Russia. If Trump were a Russian puppet why would he increase production of oil and natural gas by the US? Economics would say that the more supply in the market the lower the price gets. Would it not be more beneficial for Russia if the US were to decrease production increasing the price of oil and gas?

Why is Trump speaking out against refugees in Europe  ? 

The biggest event to destabilize Europe in recent memory was not the election of Trump, Farage and brexit, or even the Grecian debt crisis. It was Merkel inviting millions of savages from the middle east to settle in Europe. This completely overwhelmed border countries who were not in great shape to begin with and even caused a backlash of independence movements across the continent demanding to withdraw from the EU culminating in the UK actually voting to leave. For single handedly inflicting the greatest crisis the EU faced upon itself Merkel was lauded by the liberal world order. If Trump wanted to help Putin by destroying the EU would it not be simpler for Trump to let the situation continue by praising Merkel? After all the refugee crisis has made the EU so weak that it has to bow to the demands or face them releasing their refugee hordes. Instead Trump tells Europe they are hurting themselves by welcoming so many Muslims.

Why is Trump insisting that NATO countries increase defense spending?

Forget about the border countries. Most of them like Estonia are already hitting the target and the rest are too small to matter. In any case their spending is trending up. The real military power in continental Europe would lie within Germany and France. They have the economy necessary to equip a force that can stand up to the Russians and more importantly their spending for defence is trending down. If Trump was a Russian puppet would it not be easier to let the European armies stagnate so the Russians can march into Berlin again?

Reckless Robart


By now everyone will have heard about the ruling of Judge Robart. Leaving aside the fact that he made a nationwide ban on an issue raised by two states and the text of the relevant immigration law which gives plenary power to the President over immigration law, I find his decision legally problematic on three grounds. Not only is it the wrong decision here but the precedent it sets can be used by other judges, whether on the right or the left, in the future.


At your first year of law school one of the very first subjects you will discuss is something called statutory construction. In essence it is how to interpret laws and executive orders made by the executive and legislative. To simplify things for everyone, you first limit your view to the statute itself. If there are any ambiguities you then try to divine legislative intent, which the courts normally do by looking at the transcript of the deliberations. In rare situations when you still cannot get the intent by these methods then you go to other factors that may help you divine intent.

In this case the muslim ban was not borne out by the text of the order as the word muslim does not appear there. In any case the travel ban was so limited in scope that most Muslim countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, or even Kuwait in the same region are not even affected by it. The judge did not even bother looking for any deliberations nor did he give any credence to the stated intent of the administration which was to ban travel from the most unstable countries in the region.

Judge Robart immediately went to statements made by President Trump during the campaign trail to derive legislative intent. What is worse he even gave credence to statements by former Mayor Giuliani, a well known Trump ally, but one that is not part of the administration for corroboration.

Think about the implications of this. Any president at any time can have his public statements, even before he became the president, taken and used to provide intent for a certain executive order to have that blocked. What is worse is even his allies can have their statements taken as legislative intent for the president. By the standard Robart is using any comments someone like President Obama even while he was a senator could be used to block his orders. Any comments by Soros, Emmanuel, or any other ally could be used to block executive.orders. By his standard you can block any thing you want.


In the courtroom the government argued that the travel ban protects the country from terrorists. Robart said he found no support for these claims. Instead of judging based on constitutionality Robart instead judged based on how effective the ban was. I believe this is something he has no right to do.

Generally there are two sources where people draw their decision making legitimacy from. Electability or expertise. Congressmen, Senators, and the President make laws and executive orders that they believe is effective and are believed to have the right to do so because they have been elected by the people. The second one is expertise. The various heads of the government agencies and the people working under them are assumed to have expertise on the subject as they were appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate.

Judge Robart has neither of these, which is why he was asked to adjudicate based on the constitutionality of the issue and nothing else. There is no limits to their power once the judiciary can strike things down based on effectivity. Do you have a judge that does not like Obamacare? Well he can find that they are not effective in reforming healthcare and strike it down. Do you have a judge that does not like social security? Well he can find that it is not effective at providing a social net and strike it down.


One of the questions of the case was whether or not you could give priorities to religious minorities which were persecuted. The President would normally have the power to do this given that he has wide plenary powers given to him by the legislative to tailor immigration to national interest.

Understand the implications of this. If the Germans decided to start gassing their jews again you would not be able to prioritize them for the refugee program. Given that religions are banned , the same argument can also be applied to other divisions such as nationalities or race. If the South Africans decided to massacre their white population you could not give them special treatment. If the Chinese did the same to Tibet you could not either. In fact arguing in this same line of thought it is arguable that you could not even give Syrians special treatment as that would discriminate against everyone else.

I am actually stunned at these decisions and the massive judicial overreach that they represent. I do not see anyway they can hold but if they do then the precedent they cause will change our legal system forever.

Merkel is Close to Achieving Hitlers Dream


It has now been 70 years since World War 2 and the German dream continues. Merkel is well on her way to achieve the goals as determined by Hitler. If you recall those goals were expulsion and then later death to all Jews and German dominance in Europe over most of the other countries.

The Jewish Question

Merkel has made more progress towards expelling the Jews than any other German leader since Hitler. Record number of Jews have been leaving Europe since 2015 usually headed for Israel, the USA, or Canada. The record levels of emigration coincides with the decision of Merkel to unilaterally welcome millions of Muslim refugees from the Middle East which sparked one of the great refugee crisis Europe is now facing.

At the time she made the decision to unilaterally commit the EU in the major undertaking of welcoming millions of Islamic refugees everyone was confused as to why she made that decision. Now that we see the results the reasoning is clear. It is an understatement to say that there is some animosity between Jews and Muslims. Since the time of Hitler Muslim majority nations have banded together twice in an effort to eradicate Israel, the only Jewish nation on the planet. To this day Muslims still regularly send mortar, rocket, bomb, and other type of attacks into Israel. Some Muslim nations still deny the right of the Jewish state to exist as well. Importing an entire culture that hates the Jews would have the desired effect of expelling them.

Like Hitler Merkel will not stop at expulsion. As noted there are three major destinations for the Jews. Israel, USA, and Canada. Merkel has been very vocal about the USA and Canada accepting more Muslim refugees creating the same type of environment in those countries that have been successful in expelling the Jews from Europe. An inhospitable environment in those countries would then lead the Jews to go to the other destination, Israel. Germany under Merkel has been consistent in voting for sanctions against Israel at any opportunity and has generally sided with the countries who say Israel has no right to exist.

Continental Dominance

In the past Hitler tried to conquer Europe by force. He was able to get France and some other countries but ultimately failed. In the continuation of his dream Merkel has tried a different tactic. She has fostered the growth of the European Union. Of course this union is problematic for Germany as well. France and Britain are equally strong economies and in the case of Britain they have a stronger military as well. Instead of a system where Germany has complete dominance it is forced to share power with them.

Merkel in her usual brilliance used the same refugee crisis that helped expel the Jews to force out the economies that could survive on their own. Britain officially voted to leave the EU and by all indications France may soon follow. This then leaves the weaker economies which have been hurt by the strength of the Euro and by the refugee crisis as well. Greece who is on the verge of bankruptcy and unable to provide any social services to their people, has been denied any debt relief by Germany, yet has been criticized for not having the funding and infrastructure to deal with the refugee crisis. Germany as the dominant economy with the other weaker European economies attached to it is the European Empire Hitler always dreamed of. Once Germany is the dominant power we will see more consolidation of power in the EU and even a joint army moving it closer to a true German Empire.

We may hate the principles that Merkel stands for and her continuation of Hitler’s legacy but we cannot deny that she has been more effective at it than anyone else in history.