RAMANAM
In the Name of The Father, and of The Son and of The Holy Spirit, Amen.
Countrymen
I think it all gets down to delegate count. Hillary’s strategy, as long remarked in the public prints, including oped some time ago by Dick Morris, is to ensure an inconclusive vote on the first ballot and then, with all delegates uncommitted, offer herself as centrist candidate, and I estimate that if she can accomplish the inconclusive first vote there will be a stampede for her, driven by numerous existential and even numinous factors. Overall, I believe she cannot afford to let this election cycle go by. She will be older in 08 and facing Condi Rice, which cannot be a happy prospect for her.
Hillary’s negative is her sexual orientation. Liberman, in my opinion, is the only reliable Democratic candidate with gravitas but I’m near certain his window of opportunity is closed and won’t reopen. He doesn’t have cachet, but he is the only genuinely good candidate who has been in the Democratic race so far. Conclusion, baring a surprise, the Democrats likely are facing another McGovern-Mondale-Dukakkis situation.
This saddens me very much. By history and inner impulse I have always had affinity with Democratic party principles. I deplore and reprobate the cynical dehumanity or greed of so-called “businessmen” (whose, by the way, is a zero-sum game that destroys its own base) that goes by such names as free markets, market economics and free trade. As did General MacArthur, I support unions as a necessary antidote, along with government regulation, to tyrannical private interests excused as “natural selection” and justified as “survival of the fittest.” Private interests are legitimate and necessary, but there is no excuse or justification for making them tyrannical. And there never will be. Nor will they ever stop trying, so far as we know. Thus the need for Democratic party principles in effect in society is permanent.
But the Democratic party itself has not had strength to mount a strong Presidential candidate since the first JFK. Reason: the colleges and universities, which are the party’s engine, decided to foster partisanship under the guise of academic freedom and so have eschewed the academic, moral, economic, legal, political and spiritual impartiality — and thoroughgoingness — which alone command respect among men and nations.
Specifically, the party adopted an adapted socialist babble which contemplates submission of our national sovereignty to the UN or some unspecified structure, race-based determination of national, state and local parameters for decision-making and an implied gradual removal of our armed forces from the national budget. The party doesn’t have an engine for generating strong ( = electable because respectable = impartial) candidates. Since Kennedy, the strong Presidents have come from engines other than colleges and universities.
The best John Edwards can do is be positive. Being positive is being partisan. If he could be impartial, he truly would be electable. But he is not trained to be impartial or even to think that impartiality is a virtue, much less that virtue is a phenomenon that creates reality. So if he headed a ticket he would be a partisan and would be met by partisan articulation that would seek to expose his partialities, which are all, definitionally, weaknesses.
My hunch is Hillary as the party nominee. Hillary has not so far at least presented herself as a partisan, though of course she is nothing but that! 🙂 Hillary has the power her husband had, the power of illusion. This power can turn anyone, including the greatest sage, on their head in an instant without their knowing what happened.
Republicans, true to their history, are far better at inclusion than Democrats, doing it rather than talking about it. Republicans, not Democrats, rid our nation of slavery. A Republican Chief Justice of the Supreme Court desegregated our public schools. A Republican President instituted affirmative action. These are reasons General MacArthur remained a Republican and why President Roosevelt valued his views as “the conscience of our nation.”
Update 1: On 27 January 2015, Marine GEN (Ret.) James N. Mattis addressed the United States Senate Armed Services Committee on the subject A New American Grand Strategy. At Hoover Institution, who published an adapted version of General Mattis’ address, I commented — with edits here — as follows:
Not that it matters, but, I both appreciate and despond over General Mattis’ address here. Appreciate because (1) as a genuine warrior he says what he sees and eloquently and (2) his heart is unalloyed courage and compassion. Despond because (1) his address reflects lack of situational awareness — half his auditors at least regard the nation state, including USA, as obsolete and perishing — and (2) his address, although latterly specifying or implying serious tactical weaknesses of current operations, transits the periphery of his title: grand national strategy.
It is rare for a military leader to grasp and execute the several strands — principally diplomatic, economic and military, but others as well — of grand national strategy sufficiently to create a rational grand national strategic *goal* that is also inspirational. It is rare for anyone to be able to do that. General David Petraeus has that ability, which is why the Anti-American, Globalist-partisan US Justice [so-called] Department is persecuting/prosecuting him. Asking Congress or a bureaucracy to develop that ability and execute with it compares with asking a herd of cats to organize an expedition to summit Annapurna. Distilling and serving a happy grand national strategic *goal* is a personal, leadership thing few can do, but some definitely can and do accomplish. Their thoughts merit discovery and attendance.
The cynosure of a nation is not her grand national strategy. It is her grand national strategic *goal.* Given what we see now, project and anticipate — always expecting the unexpected, as General Mattis mentions, thankfully, in his address — where and what do we want to be as a nation three, five, ten, etc. years hence? What is our goal? What do we really, truly — as a nation — want for and of ourself to be, to do, to think? What is our inner necessity as a nation? What are we on this earth to accomplish as a national presence? And why do members of Congress not live in the states from which they were selected for office?
Related: On 04 March 2015 Marine GEN (Ret.) James N. Mattis wrote for Hoover Institution under title Using Military Force Against ISIS. I commented:
I am content that GEN (Ret.) Mattis’ thinking, clear and compelling, be expressed in public. Thank you, General! Our countrymen are working their way towards how they will think and what they will do when they are quit of the hag riding their back. And they will be that. This exercise in preparation for the restoration of national sovereignty and wealth flowing from national moral and intellectual strength is what should be happening and what is happening. I am content.
Update 2: 15 March 2015: Bill Jacobson at Legal Insurrection notes Valerie Jarrett shoving the knife in Hillary and twisting it. I commented:
That this email, etc. business came from the White House was clear from the start. MSM do not run negative Democrat stories without orders from a Democrat White House. This NY Post story is more of same: Jarrett twisting the knife she already shoved inside Hillary. [Today is the ides of March.]
The purpose of this drama is, clear the decks for Michelle to occupy Oval Office.
Valerie said, of late, she will leave the White House when the lights go out. A curious expression until one considers that she means when she closes it. Meaning, she, Barry and Michelle plan to continue their “rule” — as consiglieri-”elect” Valerie put it in 2008 — but on an expanded scale, and from a different mansion, one they/cronies build over the next 10 years, while Michelle holds the White House, one appropriate for their global rule.
Val, Barry and Michelle have millions or at least hundreds of thousands of backers for that aim. They will turn out the lights in the White House when they have its globe-girdling successor built, because the White House represents a mere nation state, which they transcend and soon shall make all the rest. So they think. So they plan.
Update 3: Hillary Destroys Evidence [Updated], and here, and here
Update 4: 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 community. Get 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 the muckers.
Update 5: Bill tried to cheer up Hillary this morning by reminding her that Nelson Mandela wasn’t elected president until after he had served 27 years in prison.
Update 6: Hillary Clinton’s Moslem Brotherhood Connections Date From 1990s and include Grover Norquist.
Update 7: Enough With The Hillary Cult
Update 8: Stitched up by ValJar
Update 9: J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI Wouldn’t Have Punted EmailGate
Update 10: You Owe Them Nothing — Not Respect, Not Loyalty, Not Obedience
AUM NAMAH SHIVAYA
