President Michelle

The Obama Theory

Here's a question:  Why has Obama not called on Biden's cabinet to invoke the 25th Amendment and remove Biden?

Answer:  Because it would automatically make Kamala Harris President and therefore the presumptive nominee for the 2024 election.  And Obama does not want her to be the nominee.

Is there any other possible answer?

But this begs a second question:  Who then does Obama want?

Answer:  Himself.

But okay, since he is constitutionally ineligible, he'll settle for...Michelle.

Of course.

Of course this is the explanation for everything we are currently seeing with Biden.  This explains why they (all of them) have been hiding Biden's true condition.  To keep Kamala out and leave the slot open for Michelle.

Plus this:  As Vice President, Kamala may very well make a big stink if she is not chosen as Biden's replacement.  Of course she will.  She will cry racism!  And sexism!  And this would absolutely work, if the Democrats were considering Gavin Newsom.  And choosing Newsom over Harris will definitely lose the Democrats even more black voters.  But none of this is a problem if Michelle is the replacement.

But there is another reason as well.  Michelle will make a terrible candidate.  As popular as she may be on the left, she's just not very likable.  I think the Obama's are perfectly well aware of this.  So their goal is to limit the amount of time that she has to be a candidate.

And as far as I am aware, the latest they can leave the slot open is until the Democratic Convention.  Which will conveniently provide the opportunity to slip her in over Harris.  Harris will not be happy, but she will be unable to cry racism or sexism.

Obviously both Obamas will vehemently declare that Michelle does not want the job.  But at the last minute, for the sake of the party and for the sake of the country, she will relent, and grudgingly accept the nomination.  They might even extend the convention a day or two for dramatic effect.  I can imagine an intervention by Oprah.  The press will eat it up.

And there are a number of reasons Michelle is a good choice.  The Democrat base absolutely loves her.  She provides a palatable defenestration of Harris, without losing black voters.  And further, Michelle will reverse the black voter exodus to Trump.  But most importantly it is to insure that Barack Obama gets to remain SPOTUS.

Shadow President of the United States

But there is one other little thing.  Consider the Democratic alternatives.  Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Gavin Newsom, the loathsome Gretchen Whitmer, the long shot J.B. Pritzker; maybe there are others.  Hillary?  None of these guys can beat Donald Trump.  Even from a jail cell, Trump beats these clowns.  No, Michelle is the only viable candidate who can hold the Democratic coalition together and beat Trump.  And this is before we even consider whether the election will be fair.

So my prediction is that Michelle will be the nominee and she will be the next president.  Say it with me:

President Michelle.

𓐵

Feudalism 2030, Part Two

More on the coming Neo-Feudalism

Back in April, I wrote about what I see coming and described it as Neo-Feudalism.  Well someone else has seen it.

It's a fascinating conversation from beginning to end.  Oliver first uses the term feudalism at 58:30.  He goes on to use neo-feudalism as well.  He calls feudalism a natural state, and I do not disagree.

But afterwards he is more positive that I am on our ability to fend off the powers pushing for feudalism.  He feels duty bound to be optimistic about our fight.  But you know, people prefer a positive message, and maybe he is simply giving it to them.  In any case, it is impossible for me to share his optimism.

I believe neo-feudalism will be feudalism dressed up as some kind of progressive, technological utopia, with the trappings but not the substance of democracy.  That is, sure there will be elections.  But they will not mean anything other than providing the populace with the illusion that they are participating in a democratic system.  And most people today do not have enough capacity for critical thought to see through it.

𓐵

Schumer's Photo

The real problem with Chuck Schumer's Father's Day photo

My question is:  If the man will lie about something this simple and innocent and commonplace, can you just imagine what else he would (and does) lie about?  The answer can only be:  Just about everything.

And of course, he's bad enough.  But for the life of me, I just cannot imagine the type of person who would vote for someone like this.  Repeatedly.  As bad as he is, Schumer's not the real problem.  You are.

You absolutely have the government you deserve.  And I can only take solace in the fact that it is going to get worse...for you.  As the Instapundits like to say (quoting H.L. Mencken):  Gooder and harder.  You deserve it all.

𓐵

Three Questions

Three questions we should all ask ourselves about Israel

As an American, is it better for our country to have a Jewish state in the Middle East than it would be without it?

As a Christian, is it better for us to have a Jewish state in the Holy Land than it would be without it?

Is the world a better place with a Jewish state in the Levant than it would be without it?

Now, why these questions?  Because without American assistance the state of Israel, which is surrounded by its enemies, would cease to exist.  The surrounding Arab states are too rich, too powerful, and too fanatical for Israel to survive without American support.  We are about two trillion petrodollars away from the Six-Day War.

When people argue that we should not help Israel, what they are really saying is that the state of Israel should not exist.  They may truly believe this, and it may in fact be a legitimate political, anti-Zionist argument (we will come back to this below).  But let's be honest about this existential question.

I think when you put it in the form of these three questions, to ask the questions, is the answer them.  Nevertheless, let's take them in turn:

As an American, is it better for our country to have a Jewish state in the Middle East than it would be without it?

What is the alternative?  The resulting Palestinian state would resemble every other Middle Eastern state.  That is, it would be either ruled by a strongman, like its next door neighbors Jordan and Syria, it would be a theocracy like Iran, or it would be a combination of these two, like Saudi Arabia.  Those are the only possible results.  So we can kiss a western-style democracy goodbye.  Meaning there will be no western-style democracy in the region.

As a Christian, is it better for us to have a Jewish state in the Holy Land than it would be without it?

The state of Israel protects the holy places of Christianity.  And welcomes tourists and pilgrims of all religions.  Without Israel, these places will simply be destroyed.  And how much Christianity would an Islamic Palestinian state allow?  How many Christian churches would they tolerate?  Tell me again how many churches you can find in Iran or Saudi Arabia?

Is the world a better place with a Jewish state in the Levant than it would be without it?

Again, what is the alternative?  Another Arab/Islamic country.  This question is really a summation of the first two.  You must decide:  Is the world a better place with or without Israel?

Now this is not simply a left-of-center dilemma.  There is a branch of the right that believes that Israel's problems are, and should remain, solely Israel's problems.  But they should all ask themselves the above three questions.  When they say, I don't believe in sending American money to other countries, any other countries, when we have so many problems here at home, that's fine.  I actually agree with this sentiment, with the one exception of Israel.  Why?  Again, ask these questions.  There's your answer.

Also, ask these questions regarding any other country, say Ukraine.  I think you will find completely different answers.  No, we do not have to treat Ukraine the same way we treat Israel.  The idea is preposterous.  

Now let's come back to the question of whether or not the state of Israel should exist?  Is this a legitimate political question?  Or is it anti-semitic?  Well, if you honestly believe that the state of Israel should not exist, I think you have a duty to explain what happens to all the Jews currently living there?  If you say:  They should go back to Poland; or, they should live under an Islamic regime; these are not serious answers.  And believe me, many Muslims have much more uninviting ideas.

Don't look to me for an answer to this question; I believe entirely that Israel has a right to exist.  This is a problem for those of you who say it does not have a right to exist.  So give us a reasonable answer to this question.

Or yes, you are simply just another garden-variety anti-semite.

Finally, what about those who say:  Yes absolutely, Israel has a right to exist...but that does not mean America should be supporting them with money and arms.  This is the Tucker Carlson position.  I completely agree with almost every other position he holds.  So I assume his heart is in the right place, and I absolutely give him the benefit of doubt on this.

But I do not see a difference in the result of this position and in the result of the they do not have a right to exist position.  Your motivations may be different, but we will end up with the same result.

𓐵

Truth versus Hope

How to counter Islam:  Truth or Christianity

Richard Dawkins is skeptical of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's conversion to Christianity.  I was also skeptical when I wrote about her conversion last year.  But today (this was recorded a month ago), she does seem to accept, and claims to believe, at least some of the tenets of the Christian faith.

But listening to her, I am still led to believe that her newly professed faith is mostly a political, anti-Islam mission.  Her position seems to be that enlightenment values do not offer an adequate alternative to Islam, so she's going to try Christianity.  Her newfound faith seems to be based on the hope that Christianity offers a viable alternative.

As I see it, the problem with Hirsi Ali's argument is that she is setting aside truth for the sake of winning the hearts and minds of the masses as a counter to Islam.  She believes that Christianity is necessary to halt the expansion of Islamic tyranny.  Dawkin's position is that we should counter Islam the same way we counter all religions, with truth and rationality.  But here Hirsi Ali's point reigns supreme:  We must offer something rather than nothing.

I'm still not sure that she is a sincere Christian.  But she is so invested in offering an alternative to Islam, that she will call herself a Christian if that's what it takes.

I think the real difference between the two is that Dawkins believes the masses must respond to rationality.  Ultimately there is no other choice.  And Hirsi Ali believes that it is going to take more than that to appeal to the masses.  She believes that the masses need a better story than Islam.  Who cares if it's true or not.  It is a cynical and patronizing position.  Surely people will see that.

Besides, can we really rely on the beliefs of the masses in our existential fight with Islam?  The masses will always believe some nonsense.  That is a huge part of what makes them masses.  Just look how the masses accepted government propaganda on Covid.  Look at their social media addictions.  Look at how they vote in the United States and Great Britain and Western Europe.  Even if we continue to believe in democracy, I think we should be extremely cautious of the masses.

And regarding western masses' perspective on Islam, most people seem to believe that it is just another religion, and therefore, while they may have little knowledge of its teachings, they view it as a positive:  It is a religion, therefore it must instruct its adherents to behave righteously.

So while I agree that something must be done to counter Islam, it will not be a mass Christian movement that stops it.  It will not be the malleable hearts and minds of the western masses.  They are too soft and too unthinking.  And eventually the Muslims will kill them.  It is convert, submit, or die.

No, it will take sterner stuff.  Which will start with...truth.

We might start with the truth of what exactly do Muslims believe?  Forget a new story, or a better story.  Just tell the awful truth about their story.  Let's tell Queers for Palestine what happens to them when they get to, you know, Palestine.  Let's tell women the truth about life in Iran.  Let's be honest about Muslim apostasy and blasphemy and honor killings and anti-semitism and sharia.  And tolerance; let's talk about Muslim tolerance.  Not in the West, but in Saudi Arabia.  Let's tell the story of the history of Islam and its maniacal, murderous prophet.

Let us explain the difference between Muslim behavior when they are less than five percent of a population and when they are more than twenty percent.  This is very difficult for most western people to understand.  And it will quite literally be the death of them.  Here the United States has an advantage.  They can simply watch what happens in Europe.  But will they learn?

Let us be so busy telling the truth about Islam that we don't have time or need to preach an alternative.

𓐵