Sunday, December 9, 2018

More Twitter Hypocrisy

Last month I mentioned I had been suspended from Twitter for using the hate-speech word "bimbo". As an experiment I reported a racialist bigot, "Bishop" Talbert Swan who called white women that voted for Republicans "pure trash". The tweet remained up and I checked again today and sure enough it is still there. Then came news that the newest Heisman Trophy winner, Kyler Murphy of the Oklahoma Sooners, had used "homophobic" language on Twitter. When he was 15. When I was 15, almost every guy called other guys queers or faggots on a regular basis because we weren't a bunch of snowflakes that were raised on political correctness and we also recognized in our own primitive way that homosexual behavior is inherently disordered and gross. Calling another guy a queer was an insult because being queer is a bad thing. Still is, even if we aren't allowed to say it. Good thing we didn't have twitter back in the 80's, none of us would be able to get a job now. So the homo-mafia gets another scalp and increases the reign of terror where a tiny group of effeminate homosexuals and angry lesbians controls what anyone is allowed to say.

Meanwhile, on Twitter. Arch-leftist "comedienne" Sarah Silverman, who was last seen being funny in Greg The Bunny (one of the most underappreciated TV shows ever), posted back in 2010, the year she turned 40, the following tweet (I took the screenshot myself from this tweet) :


So for fun I reported her tweet as it pretty clearly seemed to violate all sorts of twitter rules and just a few hours later Twitter reviewed my report....and did nothing. She wasn't a 15 year old kid, she was a middle-aged adult. The tweet is still up. Her account is not suspended.

Again if you are keeping track at home:

- A right-wing white guy without a blue checkmark calls a liberal blue checkmark woman a bimbo and gets suspended and has to delete his tweet to get access back.

- A left-wing woman with a blue checkmark refers to someone on a TV show as a faggot and Twitter doesn't do anything about it. Blue checkmark intact, twitter account still fine, still tweeting away.

It would seem that using "homophobic" or "racist" or "misogynistic" language isn't really the issue after all, it is just an excuse to censor people on the right and create a chilling effect on free speech.

I assume that doesn't surprise anyone that has been paying any attention.

The Riots In Paris: Coming Soon To An America City Near You!


Saturday there were mass demonstrations in France yet again as a whole host of resentments continues to cause the people of France to boil over in anger. Widely reported by the U.S. mainstream "media" as protests against a new gas tax, the reality on the ground is much different. This quote from a BBC report, France fuel protests: Tear gas fired in clashes in Paris, struck me as especially important:

The numbers were small, just a few thousand. But across the country the cause is extremely popular. They say - quite proudly - that they are the "sans-dents", the great unwashed, the forgotten majority from the sticks. And they've had enough.

The unwashed is a term I have used in jest to describe how our overlords view the mass of the American people, those who sneer at regular Americans in Oklahoma and Alabama that shop at Wal-Mart and watch football on Sunday instead of the political talk shows. But the language also sounds a little like another term used recently in politics: deplorables. Here is the actual quote from Hillary Clinton:

"You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people, now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets offensive, hateful, mean-spirited rhetoric. Now some of those folks, they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.

It was a typically arrogant, ugly comment from a woman who is herself grossly arrogant and ugly as a person can be. Even at the time many liberals were worried about her comment backfiring. NPR's Domenico Montanaro writing in September of 2016 said this:

Clinton's remarks, like Obama's in 2008, smacked of liberal elitism — liberals talking to liberals about a group of people they don't really know or hang out with, but feel free to opine about when talking to each other.

Exactly. Trump tweeted out about it right afterward saying: Wow, Hillary Clinton was SO INSULTING to my supporters, millions of amazing, hard working people. I think it will cost her at the Polls!

Most people probably laughed that off at the time, assuming Hillary would win in a landslide but I think her comment likely helped cost her the election. The states that cost her the election, Michigan and Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, are full of regular people that people like Hillary Clinton despise and they knew it. Obama made a similar comment with his "bitter clingers" comment but it didn't hurt him as badly. When Hillary rolled around and started in on the same theme, it woke people up. Many people voted for Trump because they genuinely were enthusiastic about him but many more voted for him to give the middle finger to people like Hillary Clinton that live lives of opulent luxury off the backs of the same people she called deplorables. The rest is history as the white working and middle class embraced the name deplorable, made it a badge of honor and sent Hillary Clinton into the trash-heap of history along with other Presidential losers.

I see some of the same language in the Paris protests. People are just trying to live their lives but dealing with the endless interference from an arrogant ruling class, raising taxes, importing migrants by the millions, all while telling the unwashed "sans-dents" that it is for their own good. They finally get fed up and all of the anger and resentment they have been bottling up for years breaks free. What happens when that occurs here in the United States?

France is a largely disarmed nation of 67 million people. America is a nation of over 330 million people and much of that population is heavily armed. Not just with hunting rifles or shotguns but semi-automatic rifles with 30 round magazines and handguns. Tens of millions of them. Gun control is such a hot button issue for the Left not because of gun crime, which is overwhelmingly concentrated in minority communities, but because the same "deplorables" that they hate and don't understand also own a crap-ton of guns and ammo. For right now the American middle and working class is under the illusion that they still live in a Constitutional Republic and their votes still count but that illusion might be shattered soon. As elections that are won at the ballot box are overturned by elections officials and courts and potentially the lawfully elected President of the United States getting impeached by the crowd of dolts and bartenders newly elected as Democrats in the House, the notion that most Americans are free, self-governing people will disappear. Then what will happen?

There was an interesting juxtaposition in the media this week for me. The local news channel ran a story about a sheriff in Lake County, Indiana pushing to buy an armored vehicle for his local police department. The sheriff claims he needs it to "protect" the people:

Lake County Sheriff Oscar Martinez Jr. says the Bearcat would protect people during mass shootings, terrorist attacks and natural disasters. He says the sheriff's department and county communities "face a number of significant threats."

I am not sure what sort of "natural disaster" would require an armored vehicle to deal with, and there has never been a terrorist attack in Lake County that I am aware of. However the militarization of American police departments has been an ongoing issue. It was only a few years ago that the riots in Ferguson, Missouri were met with police dressed up in military garb and riding around in armored vehicles, pointing guns at protesters and rioters alike. While the "hands up, don't shoot" narrative was shown to be a lie, the police response was still deeply troubling and images like these filled the news.




Ferguson helped to start a national conversation about the militarized police. For example this post from generally pro-police Fox News, Tanks? Grenade launchers? Police stocking up on military's gear giveaway. From the article:

From California to Connecticut and several states in between, local police departments have been steadily arming themselves over the years with billions of dollars' worth of military-grade equipment -- including grenade launchers, helicopters and machine guns.

The materiel comes from a U.S. military program that, until this week, received little public attention. But after St. Louis police used heavy-duty equipment in putting down riots and protests following the shooting death of an unarmed teen, new questions have been raised about where this gear is coming from.

The flood of equipment being funneled from the Department of Defense to local police departments traces back to a program created in the 1990s. The excess property program, known as 1033, was initially created to help state and local authorities in the war against drugs, and help unused military equipment find a home -- as opposed to being needlessly destroyed.

Local police with armored vehicles, grenade launchers and other military gear. Cops ditching the standard blue uniform for military style garb. Not to fight "terrorism" or help people in a natural disaster but to threaten and cow the American people. Long gone are the days of Sheriff Andy in Mayberry. These armed vehicles are not "protecting the people", they are used to intimidate the people and to protect the oligarchy.

Fast forward to 2018 and the streets of Paris. You see something similar going on.


Not nearly as many guns are shown but then again the French people don't have many guns either but still lots of armored cars, militarized police (and actual military police), tear gas and water cannons. Weird that when the globalist regime of Macron uses tear gas against French people in France, no one seems to care but when Hondurans rush the U.S. border and try to enter illegally while throwing rocks, the use of tear gas is considered on par with a violation of the chemical weapons treaty violation.

Back to my original point. I think we are much closer to mass unrest than most people realize. What will happen when a heavily armed civilian population runs into a militarized police force? I don't think we want to find out but that time is probably coming. We are running headlong toward a conflict. There are few if any voices of moderation and reason on the left and using inflammatory and violent rhetoric is now not only excused but encouraged. A sitting Congressman, Eric Swalwell, openly suggested that resistance to the government is futile because after all any conflict would be short as the government has all the nuclear weapons. Yes, a member of Congress seemed perfectly OK with nuclear strikes on Americans that fail to get on board with gun confiscation. Not to be outdone, soon to be Congress-Chick Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, fresh off six years of serving drinks and flirting with men for tips, threatened the son of the President with a subpoena because she was mad that he was trolling her with socialism memes. She might be the first person to be investigated for an ethics violation before she is even sworn in. The incoming Democrats are a clown car of Muslim women that married their brothers to swindle the immigration system to dimwit bimbos like Ocasio-Corttez but they are uniformly unhinged and about to take power. I almost pity decrepit old Nancy Pelosi who will try to keep herding these cats until the 2020 election so she can be speaker for more than two years.

As people on the right continue to get deplatformed, the rhetoric is also getting more ominous. Not just from the "alt-right" but even at mainstream publications like Townhall where Kurt Schlichter wonders How Much Blood Would Leftists Be Willing To Shed To Disarm Patriotic Americans? Collaborator publications like The Weekly Standard are shutting down, leaving America's Marshal Pétain, Bill Kristol, with only Twitter to vent his rage against the peasantry. Even the grand-daddy of all controlled opposition publications, National Review, is starting to have some second thoughts about all of this. Waving a copy of the Constitution around and shouting about "muh principles!" while your country disintegrates is no longer terribly appealing. Beltway "conservatism" has long been acting as a buffer between the majority of the population and actual radicalism. Listening to Rush Limbaugh and watching Fox News gave frustrated Americans a way to channel their outrage without actually doing anything to stop it. It just isn't enough anymore. Listening to Limbaugh used to seem subversive when there were no other outlets but now his shtick is just tired and outdated. People are tearing down the barriers erected by the Respectable-Right to keep them penned up and away from any significant action.

Watch carefully what is happening in Paris. The backlash from the unwashed and the deplorables and whatever other names they go by is just getting warmed up.

Wednesday, December 5, 2018

Why Are We Sending Foreign Aid To Other Nations? Especially Wealthy Nations?

The United States is a debtor nation, and making matters worse much of our government and our economy depends on debt based spending. Our current total national debt is well over $20 trillion dollars and when you add in the looming insolvency of Social Security, Medicare and many state pension plans, we are in very dangerous fiscal shape. Every year we spend close to a trillion dollars more than we bring in and I suspect the real number is probably higher. We are a nation that is looking more and more like the person strung out on credit card debt that ignores the phone calls and warning letters from debt collectors, using cash advances from one credit card to pay the minimum due for another credit card. Of course one big difference is that in the case of the U.S. our currency is the lifeblood of international commerce and we have thousands of nuclear weapons.

In light of our own bleak, debt-based fiscal mess, why would the U.S. be sending foreign aid to other nations? Or for that matter paying a wildly disproportionate amount of the budget of the UN?

News came out recently that the U.S. is cutting aid to the Palstinians by $200 billion. Then shortly afterward the news was that we were reducing our aid by $300 million to some random UN refugee agency.

The Trump administration announced Friday that it is cutting nearly $300 million in planned funding for a United Nations agency that aids Palestinian refugees after finding the operation “irredeemably flawed.”

The State Department said in a statement that after contributing $60 million to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East in January, “the United States was no longer willing to shoulder the very disproportionate share."

The U.S. gives some $364 million each year to the agency which provides health care, loans and other social services to Palestinian refugees in in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. The U.S., which supplies nearly 30 percent of the total budget, is the largest contributor to the organization.

Neocons cheered because the Palestinians are the enemy of Israel, "God's chosen people™". The people who live in the various Palestinian territories and zones are generally speaking pretty poor, thanks to a combination of the incompetence and greed of their own leaders and the policies of the state of Israel. Then news came out that the U.S. was "suspending" $300 million in military aid to Pakistan. That is starting to add up, just think of how many miles of wall we could build with that!

"Conservatives" love to denounce foreign aid, just not 100% of the time. Just recently there was some news, although it is kind of hard to find, that the U.S. Senate approved a new bill, Senate Bill 2497, sponsored by Senator Marco Rubio, called the "United States-Israel Security Assistance Authorization Act of 2018". It can be kind of hard to dig out the actual amounts involved but there are little things like amending the agreement to provide money to Israel by "(A) by striking “equal to—” and inserting “not less than $3,300,000,000.”;" which in essence means that $3.3 billion annually is the absolute minimum we can send to Israel. According to USAID, Israel has pretty consistently received between $2.4 and $3.7 billion in aid from the U.S. since at least 2001, even though Israel is considered a "high income" nation, in the top of four possible categories. Just for some perspective, there are around 9 million people in Israel so $3.8 billion works out to around $400 for every man, woman and child in Israel paid for by the citizens of the United States to the tune of around $11 from every citizen of the U.S. Or another way of looking at it is that this amounts to around $23,000 per Jewish family in Israel. $23,000 per family being sent to an already wealthy nation, paid for by current and future tax-payers in America.

But that begs the question. Why are we sending aid, and not a small amount of aid, to Israel, a nation that has a gross domestic product around $350 billion with a population of only around 9 million people which gives it a per capita GDP higher than France, Japan and the U.K.? Israel is a highly developed nation, with a strong economy and a powerful military that has nuclear weapons. We even have a permanent military base in Israel to serve as a "trip-wire" in case some other nation attacks Israel. How does it make sense for a nation $21 trillion in debt to send $3 billion to Israel, a sum which is less than 1% of their GDP?

We can cheer about cutting aid to Pakistan and the Palestinians, and I am all in favor of that. In fact I am strongly in favor of cutting all aid to every nation by 100%, including Israel. But not only do we not cut aid to Israel, we are actually increasing our aid. You will have to look pretty hard to find a "fiscal conservative" that would even suggest reducing our aid to Israel. Criticism of Israel is verboten among "conservatives". Any questioning of our support for Israel automatically gets one labeled an "anti-Semite". Of all of the sacred cows of American conservatism, none is so secure as unquestioning support for our Greatest Friend™ and Closest Ally™ Israel. Recently Senator Rand Paul has held up the bill formalizing the "aid" package to Israel, not because he is "anti-Israel" but because he objects rightly to foreign aid in general. Needless to say some people are very angry about it and the various Israeli lobbying groups are trying to get him to back down. I have it on good authority that ads are running on the radio in Kentucky attacking Paul for this.

There are a lot of reasons for this, some which border on conspiracy theories, but a lot of it has to do with confused eschatology among American evangelicals and the very powerful Israeli lobbying machine. Many Christians are saturated in stuff like this:


You might wonder what Malachi 3:10 has to do with U.S. foreign aid to Israel in 2018. Well it doesn't have anything to do with it but that doesn't matter because in the pop culture eschatology that dominates American generic evangelicalism, there is no distinction between the Old Covenant theocracy of Israel and the reconstituted secular Jewish ethnostate called Israel. Therefore foreign aid paid for by the tax-payers of America is the same thing as ancient Jews bringing their tithe to the storehouse. See how that works? If you are a Christian you can pay your "tithe" in a sense by voting to use the secular government of the United States to forcibly collect taxes/tithes and send them to Israel, even though virtually everyone in Israel vehemently rejects Jesus Christ. Social media is full of websites proclaiming Christian-Jewish solidarity while the reality is far different. However that is rarely challenged thanks to the dominance of dispensational theology and the fears of seeming anti-Semitic. This is what happens when your get your theology from the Left Behind series instead of the New Testament.  For more on the reasoning behind why American Christians are not theologically obligated to side in every dispute with the national of Israel, start with this post on my old blog: Repost: Israel, Gaza and the Gospel

The other reason that Israel, a highly developed nation with one of the finest and most technologically advanced armed forces in the world, receives enormous amounts of "aid" annually is the power of the Israeli lobbying army. It strains credulity to suggest otherwise. If you are running for office as a Republican, you better appear before AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. You had better talk the talk about Israel as our greatest ally and friend. It is not a coincidence that Marco Rubio, who has obvious Presidential aspirations, is the Senator sponsoring a bill to codify into law a bare minimum donation to Israel. AIPAC is widely considered to be one of the most powerful interest groups in America, and unlike the NRA or industry groups it represents the interests of a foreign government. The New Yorker ran a piece about AIPAC, Friends of Israel, and this quote is pretty powerful (emphasis mine):

AIPAC is prideful about its influence. Its promotional literature points out that a reception during its annual policy conference, in Washington, “will be attended by more members of Congress than almost any other event, except for a joint session of Congress or a State of the Union address.” A former AIPAC executive, Steven Rosen, was fond of telling people that he could take out a napkin at any Senate hangout and get signatures of support for one issue or another from scores of senators. AIPAC has more than a hundred thousand members, a network of seventeen regional offices, and a vast pool of donors. The lobby does not raise funds directly. Its members do, and the amount of money they channel to political candidates is difficult to track. But everybody in Congress recognizes its influence in elections, and the effect is evident. In 2011, when the Palestinians announced that they would petition the U.N. for statehood, AIPAC helped persuade four hundred and forty-six members of Congress to co-sponsor resolutions opposing the idea.

By any measure, the lobbying forces representing Israel's interest before the U.S. government are incredibly powerful especially when you consider what a small percentage of Americans are Jewish and the Jewish-Americans that we do have vote overwhelmingly Democrat. What is just as telling is that the Israel lobby is considered by most to be above reproach. The media and Congress can rail all day about the influence of Russia or Saudi Arabia but no one utters a peep about Israel. Two men, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, wrote a paper that became a book on the Israel Lobby and the response was borderline hysterical.

What makes criticism of Israel so fraught with peril is that any criticism of the state of Israel is automatically conflated with antisemitism. You can be critical of Russia without being accused of being anti-Russian, you can be critical of China without being accused of being anti-Asian. But any criticism of Israel is automatically met with accusations of being anti-semitic. Maybe I am uniquely flexible mentally but I can question the wisdom of giving of $3 billion a year in aid to a secular nation without also hating the people that make up that nation because of their ethnicity and religion.

The bottom line is that the United States, a debtor nation drowning in debt and soon to be dealing with a fiscal crisis in our programs for seniors, has no business giving money to any nation, and that includes Israel. Americans are under no obligation, geopolitically, theologically or historically, to continue to fund any nation and certainly not a prosperous, independent and stable nation like Israel. Yes, Israel is surrounded by enemies and yes some of that is the result of how Israel was created. The United States can and does guarantee Israel's security. If Iran, which is incapable of doing so, or some other nation were to attack Israel, America would respond with overwhelming force. I understand that in the grand scheme of the trillions of dollars U.S. "budget", a mere $3 billion isn't a big deal but a $21 trillion debt is made up of hundreds of thousands of little spending line items that by themselves are not all that big of a deal. Israel doesn't need our money and we can't afford to keep paying them $3 billion a year. Good for Rand Paul for standing up against the slings and arrows of the Israel lobby to seek an end to the practice of a nation drowning in debt giving money to other nations.

Tuesday, December 4, 2018

Corporate Church Ladies

One of the repeated themes I keep coming back to is the idea that what we call "liberalism", which isn't terribly liberal these days, or "progressivism" or just garden variety leftism is less of a political philosophy and really more of a secular religion. In the religion of leftist, there is a clear priestly caste among the people: entertainers, academics and increasingly global corporate leaders. One of those CEO-priestesses is Apple CEO Tim Cook. Apple is the ultimate leftist virtue signaling brand. Apple is as much about the image as it is about the products. Having a phone with the Apple logo means that you are just a better person than someone running an Android phone. It also means you spent more on a phone than any reasonable person would.

So this High Priest Tim has come out with a little chat where he talks about the morality and values of Apple and corporate America in general, which is kind of jarring because Tim is an open homosexual. I couldn't find the video to embed but you can watch it at this Twitter link.



That certainly smacks of Biblical language about shunning the sinner from the assembly. Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians about this: God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.” (1 Corinthians 5:13 ESV). In place of purging the sexually immoral from the Christian church, Tim Cook proposes purging the social media church of "white supremacy" and "hate". Not just because he doesn't like what these "white supremacists" are saying but because failing to purge them would be a sin. Yes, now the left is using the language of sin to describe speech they find politically incorrect. So if you are keeping track at home, according to the Right Reverend Tim Cook:

A man sodomizing another man: Not a sin

Speech that triggers leftists: A sin.

Of course this is the same Tim Cook that described his homosexual lifestyle as a "gift" from God: "I'm proud to be gay, and I consider being gay among the greatest gifts God has given me"

After all the yammering about how awful those moralistic Christians are with their talk about sin and judgment, now the Left is adopting very similar language. In place of Moses coming down from Mt. Sinai with the Ten Commandments graven on tablets of stone, we now have the Prophet Tim Cook swishing down from Mt. Sodomy with a list of commandments, only these are written on dry erase boards so our progressive priesthood can modify them as they see fit.

The Left is getting very close to victory in their effort to replace the Western tradition of values and morals with a new set of "morals", replacing Christendom, flawed as it was, with a new secular religion. This is also your daily reminder that corporate America, especially the largest global companies, are not and never have been the ally of the conservative base in America. They only care about the white working class insofar as those people keep their mouths shut, vote as they are told to promote policies that enrich the corporate class and above all keep buying crap they don't need. While beltway Republicans keep kowtowing to the corporate class, the rest of us are waking up.

People like Tim Cook are religious fundamentalists that are only distinguished from KJV-Only Primitive Baptists by having more money and being respectable in our society. Instead of a moral code based on thousands of years old precepts, it is being replaced not with "science" and "reason" as we were told but instead by a new "moral" code dictated by the least moral people in our society and a code that is malleable and amorphous, changing from day to day as the cultural winds shift. While "conservatives" have been fighting little tactical squabbles on one front, political whack-a-mole, the Left has been taking over the government bureaucracy, the entertainment world, the education establishment and the corporate boardrooms. I fear we are past the point of being able to find a political solution to this madness.

Sunday, December 2, 2018

Bush 41 And An Opportunity Missed

As everyone paying attention knows, the senior President Bush, George Herbert Walker, aka Bush 41, passed away Friday, November 30th 2018. He was 94 and the oldest living President at the time. The elder Bush has been a constant presence since I have been politically aware, running unsuccessfully for the GOP nomination in 1980 before being chosen as Ronald Reagan's running mate. Then he was President for a single term before losing to Bill Clinton and of course his son succeeded Bill. He was the first man I ever voted for in a Presidential election. His family was a political dynasty and more importantly his family seemed to mean the world to him. He also loved his dog Millie and that carries a lot of weight in my family.


The McCain-ing of Bush 41 started almost immediately across the political spectrum from NeverTrumpers lamenting this "great man" to the crocodile tears of liberals that hated and reviled Bush when he was President. A man scorned by the Left has been miraculously rehabilitated in death because in his old age he occasionally railed against Trump. If you could find a section of Jeffrey Dahmer's diary where he insulted Trump, the Left would raise Dahmer to sainthood and demand an end to bigotry against cannibals. 

Bush lived in the shadow of Reagan. There is not really any other way to see it. Bush failed to defeat Reagan in 1980 and I don't think he liked him much. I imagine Bush disliked Reagan and Trump for the same reason, they both seemed rather vulgar to his New England WASPish tastes. He was the Vice-president but the 80's were all about Reagan. Bush won in 1988 on the coattails of Reagan and he wasn't much of a President. As I wrote a few weeks ago, A Parade Of Small Men In The Highest Office, Bush seemed over his head in office:

Bush came across as completely removed from the lives of regular Americans and his signature screw-up was his screechy pledge, intended to sound tough, to "Read my lips, no new taxes", a pledge which he then of course famously broke. The economy was going south and he seemed baffled and conflicted.

Bush was an America patrician and it showed. Trump is a billionaire but tens of millions of working class people feel like he understands them. No one felt like Bush 41 understood them. Unlike a lot of other people, I can hold two thoughts at the same time: Bush seemed from a distance to be a genuinely nice man, perhaps to a fault, that cared about his family and also he was an awful President.

What kind of bugs me is that Bush won mostly because he was Reagan's VP. His next closest competitor in 1988 was Bob Dole and a more boring politician has never been born. He lucked out in his Democrat rival, because as boring as Dole was, Dukakis was even more ridiculous. While many racialists and SJW types blame the Willie Horton ad as a dog whistle and blame Dukakis losing on that ad, his sitting in a tank looking like a little boy playing with a toy did more to sink him. Also as a side note about Willie Horton, what is often forgotten by almost everyone is that Horton was a vicious criminal in prison for life without parole for murder that was given "weekend" furlough where he assaulted, robbed and raped people. Shocking! Why would someone with no chance of parole be expected to show back up to prison after his furlough and why would someone like Horton be given furlough anyway? The judge that sentenced him after he was recaptured would not return him to Massachusetts for fear of Horton being let loose on society again.

When Bush won the Presidency, America was at her apex. Within a short time the Berlin Wall would fall and the Soviet Union would disintegrate. Our only foreign competitor would be dead. The Reagan strategy had worked and what was unthinkable to me as a high school kid happened and the great Red Menace was no more. Saddam Hussein decided to invade Kuwait and the U.S. led coalition destroyed the Iraqi military in a matter of days. That victory was for many of us very significant. It was the first war we saw televised in real time and it helped to erase the lingering shame of Vietnam. Unfortunately it also aroused the neocons in Washington, that cowardly cabal of chickenhawks that found something better than pornography: live coverage of war piped via cable right into their living rooms. America would adopt a new, more militaristic and interventionist foreign policy to "spread democracy". Daniel McCarthy wrote a pretty unflattering eulogy of Bush 41, Mourn Bush Sr, but don’t celebrate him for what he did to America and the world, and included this  regarding the first Iraq War:

Bush’s success, in one sense, had been as dangerous as his failure. The swift victory of US force in the Persian Gulf War restored American confidence after the Vietnam War. But that confidence was translated by politicians following Bush’s example into hubris. Bush had never succeeded in remaking the Middle East or inaugurating the pro-democratic ‘New World Order’ he liked to talk about. He had the good luck to be president when the Berlin Wall came down and the Soviet Union imploded. America had the bad luck to have him as president just when a post-Cold War grand strategy was needed.

But at the time, the victory over the badly outmatched Iraqi forces was a huge boost to the Bush presidency and Bush was immensely popular after the swift and decisive victory. But his missteps hurt him, especially breaking his "Read my lips, no new taxes" pledge and his apparent cluelessness about the stumbling economy.

While he was President, Bush had a lot of goodwill to work with. He benefited from the popularity of Reagan. He oversaw the crushing of Iraq and was the President when the Soviet Union died and the Berlin Wall fell. In his presidency we had one of the last opportunities to roll back the Deep State but instead Bush doubled down, most notably with the disastrous NAFTA trade agreement. It makes some sense. Bush was the epitome of the Deep State and the first openly globalist President. He was an Ambassador to the UN and the Director of the CIA. He deposed and seized Manuel Noriega of Panama, he sent American troops into Somalia which would lead to the fiasco recounted in Black Hawk Down. Born in Massachussets, Bush went to all the best schools, including Yale where he was part of the secretive Skull and Bones society. He was an elite of the elite and made no attempt to soften it. The language Bush used about the "New World Order" is pretty ominous in retrospect and the neocons wasted no time declaring that, with the fall of the Soviet Union, America would now be free mold the world as we saw fit. The late neocon writer Charles Krauthammer declared a Pax Americana in the pages of the Washington Post stating:

Now that, with the fall of the Soviet empire, the bipolar world has become unipolar, the one remaining superpower should unashamedly and confidently play the part, acting unilaterally, if necessary, to defend its friends, its interests and its values abroad.

That idea, that America should act unilaterally to force our values, which we can't even agree on as a people, onto other nations has been the unofficial foreign policy of the United States since Bush 41. Like most other neocons, Krauthammer would never have to go to war himself to carry out this vision as he was paralyzed as a young man. Krauthammer said something else in that article that probably didn't attract much attention at the time:

The tired, the poor, the huddled masses of the world who cannot gain admittance to Pax Americana through immigration hope that we might have some of it for export. We should say to them: Where our interests demand it and our values permit, we will.

That is very interesting. As the doctrine of spreading "democracy" has largely failed in war after war, in Iraq and Afghanistan and the "Arab Spring", it seems many of Krauthammer's neocon buddies are focusing more on the "invite the world" half of the dogma of "Invade the world, invite the world". Neocons today, most notably Bill Kristol, are in the vanguard calling for mass immigration.

Bush had an opportunity to use the political capital he had to do some really conservative things. He could have turned the attention of the U.S. inward to our own struggling middle class. He could have tackled the national debt which at the time he took office was a more manageable amount of less than $3 trillion dollars. By the time he left office it was over $4 trillion and headed inexorably upward. Had Bush adopted a more "America First" policy, we would certainly be having different conversations today. Closing the border in the early 1990's and clamping down on illegal aliens might have been enough to stem the demographic tide that has already swallowed California and is threatening to do the same in places like Texas. Recall that Pete Wilson, a Republican, was governor of California at the end of the Bush presidency and would hold office for 8 years. In 1990 California was 57% white and 25% Hispanic. In 2010 it was 40% white and 37% Hispanic and in the interim Hispanics have become the largest minority group in a state which has no majority race or ethnicity. It is not coincidental that no Republican will ever win state-wide office in California again. In the most recent Senate election in California last month, two Democrats faced off thanks to California's "jungle primary". The top Republican in the primary received a whopping 8.3% of the vote.

If Bush had been less concerned about the New World Order and more concerned about the United States, he might have won re-election in 1992. Instead he lost to a bumbling, horny buffoon, Bill Clinton, thanks in large part to the third party candidacy of Ross Perot. Perot was a sort of proto-Trump, a billionaire populist that at one point was leading the polls and might have actually won if he had not dropped out before re-entering the race. Perot ended up drawing almost 19% of the total vote while Clinton won with only 43% and Bush came in with a humiliating 37%, the lowest percentage received by a sitting President since 1912. Perot captured what would later be the winning Trump coalition of working and middle class voters sick of being an afterthought for politicians.

Of course that was not Bush. He was not a populist. He wasn't especially conservative. He wasn't inspiring. As I said previously, he was an American patrician, one of the elites that rule America. His father was a U.S. Senator and his son would become President and another the governor of Florida. Unlike their rivals, the Clinton family, the Bush family was wealthy and powerful all the way back to the 19th century and in spite of living in Texas, George H.W. Bush governed like a New England aristocrat. He was who he was, and notwithstanding the praise heaped on him by his one time rivals and enemies, he was at best a mediocre, forgettable President.

Bush was President at the hinge of American history, as we moved out of the Cold War that dominated America from the end of World War II until the fall of the Berlin Wall, and into a new era where America stood astride the world as the only superpower. Instead of using that power to strengthen America, Bush embarked us on the path we find ourselves on now, a path that ironically leads directly to November 2016 and the current resident of the White House.

Thursday, November 29, 2018

Getting Tough On Crime D.C. Style

It is almost universally recognized, although often obfuscated, that some minority groups commit crimes at a higher rate than the general population. This is particularly true for black Americans. You can question the reasons for this but in general it is understood this is a simple fact.

But our imperial overlords in the District of Columbia have figured out how to reduce crime among blacks.

D.C. Council votes to decriminalize Metro fare evasion

The D.C. Council voted Tuesday to decriminalize Metro fare evasion in the District, citing concerns over soaring enforcement levels and disproportionate enforcement against African Americans.

Apparently instead of a criminal offense and a $300 fine you will be assessed a $50 non-criminal fine. Like magic the crime rate will go down!


This captures the D.C. mindset perfectly. There is a serious uptick in fare jumping arrests/warnings, from 4,000 in 2013 to 15,000 in 2017, and a disproportionate number of those arrests and warnings are for blacks so clearly the solution is to stop making this criminal act criminal in the first place. By this logic you could eliminate arrests for grand theft auto by making it no longer a crime to steal a car. I am not equating car theft with fare jumping of course, just making a point. The problem is not people evading paying the Metro fare like everyone else, the problem is that too many black people are getting busted for it.

This is not an insignificant issue. According to the report from the Washington Post, the cost of fare evasion is up to $25,000,000. That means that those that do pay to ride the Metro have to pay more to offset those that essentially are stealing the service. Jack Evans, the Chairman of the Metro Board, voted against the measure because, as any rational person knows, reducing the penalty for fare evasion will encourage more people to evade paying.

“By decriminalizing fare evasion we are only encouraging people to not pay their fare,” he said. “Because there is absolutely no mechanism to collect from a civil infraction.”

That is simple common sense. People respond to incentives and disincentives. If you reduce the disincentive to avoid paying the fare, you will encourage more people to do it. Then again, common sense is pretty uncommon today. Case in point, one of the supporters of the bill, D.C. Councilwoman Brianne Nadeau is quoted as saying:

But Council member Brianne K. Nadeau (D-Ward 1) called the bill “one attempt to remedy” the issue, one that “creates some justice in a place where it doesn’t currently exist.”

Um, how is it "justice" to make it easier for people to avoid paying the fare that keeps the Metro running for everyone that relies on it, many of whom are poor and black and don't have jobs where they get a parking spot? I have been on the Metro a number of times and a significant number of riders are elderly, students and minorities. They all have to pay more to offset the $25 million lost to fare jumpers. What about "justice" for them? The lobbyist on K street isn't impacted by paying more for his Metro ticket but a janitor in his building certainly is.

This is the real problem with the use of the word "justice" by social justice warriors. They aren't talking about actual justice, they are talking about identity politics dressed up in the language of justice. My wife made a very good point about this whole thing: What it really comes down to is leftist racism, the soft bigotry of low expectations. To the leftist, people that are black can't be expected to pay the fare like everyone else because they have no moral agency, thanks to "white supremacy". To liberals blacks are incapable of exercising the sort of maturity and responsibility that we expect of everyone else, so they decriminalize the offense because the poor dears just help but break the law. No group of people in this country are more racist than do-gooder white leftist SJWs.

Nonsense like this is why we should never, ever give the residents of D.C. representation in Congress.

Saturday, November 24, 2018

A Little Twitter Experiment

I mentioned last week that I was suspended from Twitter for a day or so for calling Kirsten Powers a bimbo on Twitter. While I stand by that characterization, I did have to delete the post to get my account access back. I decided to do a little experiment to prove my contention that Twitter, and using guilt by association virtually all social media, is heavily slanted toward suppressing speech from the Right while ignoring similar or worse speech from the Left. I ran across a nice example that hit a couple of the points I was looking for, this tweet from "Bishop" Talbert Swan. Mr. Swan is apparently a "minister" of some sort.


According to the good "Bishop", white women voted as a majority for a couple of candidates he didn't like, including pretty overwhelmingly for Brian Kemp in Georgia which was even worse because his opponent was a black socialist woman, because they support "white supremacy", perhaps his favorite term. For their crime of making an independent decision on who to vote for, "Bishop" Swan called white women:

Pure trash...

Pure trash. Three quarters of white women voters in Georgia are "pure trash" because they didn't vote for a socialist. Six out of ten white women voters in Texas are "pure trash" because they voted for Ted Cruz over a silly little boy that rode a skateboard onto the stage at a rally.

So comparing my comment about Kirsten Powers being a bimbo, calling millions of women "pure trash" because they are white and voted in a way that this "Bishop" doesn't like seems a lot more egregious. I went ahead and reported this tweet for hateful content, which is the same "offense" that I was suspended for.

I checked this morning and the tweet was still up and Twitter sent me a notification that they had reviewed my report.


I checked again a few minutes ago and 24 hours after I reported this tweet and at least 21 hours since Twitter support "reviewed" my report, his tweet is still up and his account is still active and tweeting nonsense in a steady stream.

Apparently calling an individual woman a bimbo is some sort of hate crime. Calling millions of women racist white trash is perfectly acceptable.

Now, I recognize that there are some critical differences here. Some important distinctions:

1. "Bishop" Talbert Swan is a blue check-mark, so he has the Twitter stamp of approval. I don't have a blue check-mark. Sad face.

2. The "Bishop" is black. I am white, although that is not obvious from my profile picture, it isn't a secret to anyone reading my posts.

3. The "Bishop" is a flaming race-baiting liberal. I am a right-wing general purpose agitator.

Add those together and what you get is "Bishop" Swan being given a pass for calling white women voters "pure trash" for no reason other than using their own discretion in voting while I get suspended and have to delete a tweet for calling a woman a bimbo. I am not up to date on my insult hierarchy but it seems to me that bimbo is less offensive than white trash. In fact "white trash", which is essentially what the "Bishop" is saying is somewhat similar to calling black people niggers. I get there are some historic differences here but white trash is an insult that has been thrown at lower class whites as a group for my entire life. Oh and later in a subsequent tweet he sneers at liberal white women that didn't like his characterization, calling them "Beckys", another derogatory racially based term. Quite the character that "Bishop"!

Mr. Swan, the "Bishop" of "Spring Of Hope" church has penned quite a glowing opinion of himself on his webpage. It would make a lesser man blush but then again he is a "Bishop". Here is a sample:

Bishop Swan has a shepherd’s heart and is committed to serving God’s people. He is passionate about preaching the Gospel and proclaims God’s word with power and conviction during worship services, teaching sessions and through the television, radio and internet. His relevant message is in high demand and he is sought after to preach across the nation.

Nothing says "shepherd's heart" and "serving God's people" quite like calling white woman "pure trash" because they voted in a way he didn't like. The website for Spring Of Hope has a truly impressive array of pictures of the "Bishop", links to his talks, information about him and his wife, the "First Lady" of Spring of Hope. You would be forgiven for wondering just who was being worshiped at this gathering. But to be fair, there is a small link about 2/3 of the way down the page nestled among the links with pictures of the Bishop, ways to donate and various political advertisements where you can click to learn about Jesus.


Wait, did you think that Jesus was born to a Jewish mother and was a Middle Eastern Jewish man, not a sub-Saharan African with corn-rolls? Well that just shows how little you know about the Bible and what a racist white supremacist you are! Shame on you!

Like I have pointed out before, most recently in my post Welcome To The Party Ladies!, white women are quickly losing their oppressed status as a class (unless they are lesbians, for now) because they stubbornly refuse to vote for who they are told to vote for. How can white women be properly appreciated for their oppression if they won't monolithically vote for the party that elevates the infanticide of their children into an unholy sacrament? Come on! Black women show how strong and independent they are by voting nearly unanimously for whoever the Democrat is, white women that make their own decisions on who they should vote for are pure trash. By the way, my wife voted for Trump and if the "Bishop" should ever call her "pure trash" in my hearing, he had better be prepared to turn the other cheek.

Pretty clearly Twitter has two standards. If you are anywhere on the Right and you say anything that upsets anyone for any reason, no matter how mild, you get suspended and threatened with permanent banning. If you are on the Left, you can say the most outrageous things you like about anyone, even calling millions of white women "pure trash" because they chose to vote their own conscience and you don't get banned and get a blue check-mark of approval.

Really, I don't want "Bishop" Talbert Swan suspended. I want him to keep on tweeting his nonsense, calling everything that he doesn't like white supremacy. I want him to keep calling white women "pure trash" and liberal white women desperate for approval "Beckys". He does more to promote what I am talking about than I could if I blogged day and night. Keep it up "Bishop"! Like I said in the prior post about being suspended:

The Left demands that opinions and positions they disagree with be silenced entirely. I don't want the Left silenced, when twits like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez go on a rambling screed about the "three chambers" of our government, it makes my case far better than I ever could but for the Left it is clear that they cannot win a battle of wits, logic and facts so they seek to silence their opponents.

So please, by all means keep tweeting!

FYI, even if I am not allowed to say it on Twitter, Kirsten Powers is still a bimbo.