By Americans, For Americans

In the Name of The Father, and of The Son and of The Holy Spirit, Amen.


Today Richard Fernandez discusses the power of naming.  I commented:

To name something is to have power over it. Anti-Americans cannot have power over America so they have to rename Her and all Her aspects so they can have power over that and those. But what they rename is now a fantasy, as Richard says. The answer is to very carefully use words that mean exactly what one wishes to say. A large vocabulary precisely used is the world’s most potent instrument for freedom. Latin was perfect in this regard, still is; it built what is named Western Civilization (real name: The Latin Church). Educated Americans of black African ancestry rejected the Ebonics movement because it would paralyze the freedom of its users. QED.

Today the Power Line team was more than usually productive in essential highlighting.  Three posts by them, with my comments added, follow.

Scott Johnson: Obama’s National Security Fraud

“I believe the peculiarities indicate that the document was written by a third party who is a foreign policy amateur, possibly an aide to Kerry or someone in the Obama National Security Council.”

That observation, as I see it, is where the money is. NSC staff is where the work, if any, happens. It comprises 20-something females with social science (made-up sh–) degrees who caveat bullet points to oblivion and have the moral compass of sun-burned newts. Kerry’s staff comprises an admiral happy to lie for a living, civilians happy to subvert their mother country and bimbos eager to lie with the powerful.

Rice holds the reins, Jarrett yells directions and Michelle awaits her turn dressing the window, and more.


Brad Bettin Sr. I take your point but think it weak. Power proceeds from will. Congress — Republicans and loyal-America Democrats — lacks will so it lacks power. It lacks will because its leadership fears the tongue, pen and kinetic resources available to a cocky fraud.

Now, why would said leadership have gotten itself into that entanglement? The usual reason for cowardice is compromised character.

I look forward to this election producing a second political party in the USA, one which works for Her citizens.

John Hinderaker: Hillary Clinton: The Ultimate Empty Suit

I am impressed with Sid Blumenthal’s portrait of John Boehner. Sounds precise, accurate, literate, a sitrep for which I would be grateful were I his superior. It confirms, also, a sense I have of these people: that they are no different than their opponents with regard to how they think, how much of intellectual refinement they bear (quite a lot) and what they see in front of them. They know just as much as their opponents do what is going on, why and what are likely outcomes from it. They read their opponents as well as their opponents read them. I think the premise that exploding heads can occur on either side of the struggle is nonsense. They are playing the same game and know that they are. Thing is, neither Blumental and his team-mates nor Boehner and his are playing the game to defend and protect America and Americans. They are playing it just to play it. Americans are putting themselves into the scrum to force the gamers off the field so they, Americans, can field teams who work for them.

Paul Mirengoff: Hillary Endorsed Blumenthal Email Attacking Netanyahu and Israel

The Blumenthal intel/assessment, just as intel/assessment, strikes me as pedestrian stuff. And Hillary’s interactions as amateurish. These people need a, supposedly, highly-paid lawyer to feed them facts and evaluations a decently-endowed school boy could observe and figure out.

And another thing: conservatives/libertarians claim “the media are Democratic Party operatives with by-lines,” but these Democrats take them as latent or patent threats to their ambitions. If the former were right in that particular, would not the latter be recorded discussing feeding narratives to their trusted operators of the media?

Maybe Democratic Party media operators favor some Democrats over others. I mean, Jarret and Rice have been feeding the NYT, at least, poisons for Hillary. And the choir sings, DUH.

Update 1: Kurt Schlichter: Liberals Use PC Words Because They’re Convenient To Them. Here Are Words To Use Instead

Update 2: Scott Johnson at Power Line quotes and comments thereon a law-learned correspondent in re incalculable damage done by Hillary Clinton to US national security.  All of which is true, of course, but I saw another facet in the subject and commented as follows:

Scott, your correspondent assumes Hillary recognizes a country to secure. She does not. That’s the point of the entire world governance/globalist elite, isn’t it?: there is no national sovereignty, only personal viability in a global communityGet yours, they say to themselves.

Your correspondent’s point works in a law-based system of national sovereignty. But this now is a rules-based system of global governance by hyper-privileged elites — they attend the same cocktail parties everywhere on the globe — in their private global community. So they think. They can do as they wish because there is no authority superior to themselves, no nation deserving much less demanding security.

Their thinking — global governance (by themselves alone, because they mean so well), no national sovereignty — drives the Arab/Pan-African invasion of Europe, the Indo-Chinese/Pan-South American invasion of North America and such as the Obergefell-vs-Hodges decision. We make the rules, you obey them, and we don’t want or have national sovereignties obstructing our wishes for having lots of fun for ourselves while we talk about doing lots of good for you others.

If your correspondent wants to help, ask him or her to preach the reality of USA national sovereignty and all it implies in whatever is their orbit. These elegant globalists wield great power, as is known, but their foundation remains a cloud, a dream. Their power derives from their generation of deluding fictions. Ask your correspondent to make that point in his or her circle of contacts, to say again and again what is true, that national sovereignty is here to stay and will not be swept away.

Related: Glenn Reynolds quotes, approvingly, a jerk at Walter Russell Mead’s American Interest moaning that Hungary’s new emergency laws, to address invasion of that country by the Middle Eastern horde, trample on several basic liberal values.  Reynolds concurred in this language: I’m afraid so.  Against which I commented, Tut.  To the jerk at American Interest I commented:

… laws that trample on several basic liberal values ….

No, you smug, fat, safely-padded, hand-wringing jackwagon, it’s not about liberal values, it’s about national and cultural sovereignty. Trying to make a sovereignty issue a values issue is classic fasco-commie subversion by misdirection. I knew American-Interest is sanctimonious fasco-commie, but this really self-exposes these muckers of weaponized empathy.

Update 3: Colin Woodward: Eleven American nations. Woodward’s purpose is to justify national gun confiscation, but along the way his analysis of American regions — he calls them nations in order to divide the country to ease confiscation — is accurate and useful. Has a fine map supporting.

Update 4: Jonah Goldberg: The Rise Of House Clinton

Update 5: Spengler: Balance Of Power – The Board Game

Update 6: Jonah Goldberg: The Wisdom And Folly In Albert Jay Nock’s Anti-Statism

Update 7: Ronald Reagan left liberalism when Communists infiltrated it

Update 8: How To Defeat Weaponized Empathy

Update 9: More Examples Of Weaponized Empathy



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *