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.

Wednesday, November 21, 2018

The Smallest Man To Ever Hold The Office Reminds Us How Much He Hates Americans

Behold Barack Obama holding forth on how awful Americans are while imagining His rambling rhetoric to be incredibly clever (spoiler alert, he is not)

He could just fix everything but Americans don't listen to Him because we are "confused" and "blind" due to our racism, hatred and "mommy issues". Obama has a lot of nerve accusing others of "mommy issues" but let's set that aside for a moment. Who knew that being a community organizer and President qualified one to psychoanalyze tens of millions of people?

Obama thinks and has always thought that he is just too good for America. We are undeserving of His greatness and wisdom and in failing to line up to kneel at His feet, we just show how ignorant and hateful we are. His smugness turned quickly into rage as He realized that an awful lot of Americans simply didn't find His pontifications to be all that compelling. That is when we started to get the daily scolding and hectoring, often accompanied by finger wagging, delivered in that nasally, arrogant voice. Of course the only reason anyone wouldn't blindly accept and embrace His every spoken word is that we are just a bunch of hateful redneck racists, clinging as we do to our guns and religion.

It is my contention that no man has ever been President of the United States that was as small a man as Obama. He was unaccomplished and inconsequential and His entire campaign and Presidency was political CGI, a creation of the media and entertainment world that still fawns over him and his wife. Obama accomplished nothing of consequence in His life until He suddenly was elevated to the highest office in the world and once He took office He showed how out of His depth and over His head he was. Now that He is out of office, He of course has chosen a different path than all of his predecessors who were content to step out of the public eye for a while and enjoy life as a private citizen. Instead Obama has been nearly as omnipresent after leaving office as He was in office, and has actually become even more insufferable as He and has wife parlay their artificial fame into a billion dollar brand.

No President has ever, as far as I can tell, sought the Presidency because he hated the American people until Obama. I use the word hate carefully and intentionally. Of course Obama doesn't hate all Americans, just those that fail to worship Him. But hate is the right word for how Obama sees the rest of America. He really believes that He was a prophetic voice, a near demigod, that could have ushered in an era of paradise on earth if only those awful white gunclingers would have gotten in line and let Him fix everything. His birthright was to rule over the world as a benevolent deity and having it spoiled, His wrath is indeed fierce to behold.

Tuesday, November 20, 2018

The Brave New World Of Social Media Censorship

To my everlasting shame I have somehow been on social media for many years and never received a stint in Facebook jail or a Twitter suspension. Until now. I got the sternly worded email yesterday declaring that I had engaged in "hateful conduct" and would now be punished until making sufficient oblation to the social media demigods. What awful thing did I do? Did I use the "c" word in describing a woman? Suggest Mohammad was a pedophile? Use the word nigger in any context? Nope. I referred to a woman as a "bimbo". My mistake, she is a liberal blue checkmark so therefore she is a protected class. Here is the email from Twitter:
I was replying to a tweet from Kirsten Powers defending herself after she claimed on CNN that white women vote in ways that prove they are just as guilty of "white privilege" as those evil white men.

Here are the comments from her appearance on CNN which led to some heated pushback and prompted her tweet:

I think we have to recognize that white men are doing it as well, but sometimes I think that we would hope that we would get better behavior from white women because white women are themselves are oppressed and that they would be able to align themselves with other oppressed people.

I think we have to remember that the white patriarchal system actually benefits white women in a lot of ways, and they are attached to white men who are benefiting from the system that was created by them, for them. And their fathers and their husbands and their brothers are benefiting from the system, and so they are also benefiting.

Weird, why would anyone take offense at that? Of course white women are tools of the "white patriarchy"! This gets back to what I have been talking about regarding white women and the Left recently (see: Welcome To The Party Ladies!). White women have come full circle, from demanding the right to vote to have their voices heard to now being told they are only permitted to vote for one political party, thus no longer being allowed to have an independent voice. White women are the contemporary version of the Three-Fifths Compromise. White women are technically counted in the voting tallies but must vote for Democrats, taking away their voices and their agency. Democrats get the benefit of the votes of white women without the hassle of having to actually convince them to vote Democrat. Congrats ladies! 

Back to Twitter. The comment I made was one of many, many replies to Ms. Powers that called her out for being so ignorant. When your tweet gets 17,000 replies, you know people are irate. But in my case I called her a bimbo which I stand by, given that she used to date Anthony Weiner, aka Carlos Danger. Now bimbo is certainly a derogatory term. That is why I used it. But peruse Twitter and even a cursory glance will show you people using far more inflammatory language directed at others, language that makes "bimbo" seem pretty tame. So why the suspension?

Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, etc. all operate under an apartheid system. There is one set of rules for liberals, especially blue checkmark liberals, and another set of rules for conservatives. Peter Fonda can talk about having a pedophile rape the minor son of the President of the United States or Louis Farrakhan can call Jews all sort of derogatory names or Tariq Nasheed can publish his racialist fantasies about police death squads hunting down innocent black men and no one bats an eye at Twitter. In fact they give them the blue checkmark imprimatur of respectability. I don't care if Twitter decides that calling people names like "bimbo" is off-limits. Their site, their rules. What I do care about is the way that they selectively enforce their rules. Granted, someone certainly reported my tweet for "hate speech" and it was of course a liberal and conversely conservatives generally don't do that. I report tweets that call for violence but that is it. Someone can call me every name in the book and while I will likely reply with sarcasm and perhaps some vitriol, I don't report them for that. Thus the difference between the left and right. I demand the right to refute opinions and positions I disagree with. 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.

As part of the Twitter system of penance, they want my cell number to send a tweet with a verification code. They already have my email, so why not send it there? After all, they notified me of my suspension via email. I refuse to give my cell number to social media companies and given how eager Facebook and Twitter seem to be to get my cell number, it indicates to me that not giving it to them is sensible. We will see what Twitter does, if I have to I will get a burner phone and let them text to that.

Social media is the best place to get news and commentary but it also is tightly controlled and getting more so by the day. Moreover it is very unevenly policed with almost exclusively people on the Right being censored while people on the Left can accuse every white person in America of being complicit with "white supremacy" and not only not get suspended but instead being protected from mildly offensive names. If Twitter restores my account, then great! I will keep saying what I have been saying. If they do not? I will create a new account using a bogus email account. What I won't be is silenced. 

Thursday, November 15, 2018

Disenfranchisement Part Deux

I suggested a few months ago that what was really going on in the Kavanaugh hearings was just an extension of a broader effort to undo the results of the 2016 election in my post What Happens When You Disenfranchise Tens Of Millions Of People?. It has now been more than two years since that election day and we still have what appears to be an endless "investigation" into Russian interference into our election. As of now we still have no evidence of any collusion with Trump or his campaign. That hasn't stopped the "investigation" which seems to have turned into a zombie of sort, mindlessly shuffling around the halls of power in D.C. murmuring "Russsiiiaaannnsss". It seems quite likely that this farce will keep on until the 2020 elections, when perhaps it can be repurposed into a new investigation.

Meanwhile, more than a week has passed since the midterm elections, and still we have races undecided and being flipped. In Arizona the Democrat won the Senate race as apparently 150,000 people voted for the Republican candidate for governor but not for the U.S. Senate, which doesn't seem sketchy at all. The socialist running for Georgia governor is refusing to concede and keeps suing to force more and more rejected ballots be counted in the hopes of magically coming up with 17,000 votes to force a runoff. I saw from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that there is already talk of declaring a win by Republican Brian Kemp illegitimate:

That line of attack — questioning the legitimacy of Kemp’s possible victory — has quickly spread nationally among other prominent Democrats. Hillary Clinton and U.S. Sen. Cory Booker have both said Abrams is being victimized by an unfair process.

And U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio told a group in Washington, “if Stacey Abrams doesn’t win in Georgia, they stole it.”

The narrative is clear. When Republicans win, they are illegitimate and "stole" the election (by only counting actual legal ballots). Meanwhile in Florida, the already proven corrupt elections supervisor of Broward County seems to keep finding new ballots under every couch cushion. The GOP and Trump need to pull out all of the stops and fight this.

Strangely enough, whenever there are questionable ballots, provisional ballots and newly discovered ballots, they seem to overwhelmingly favor Democrats. Either Democrat voters are too dumb to fill out a ballot or Democrats are cheating. Or more likely both are true.

I am of the opinion that if you are unable to follow simple directions to fill out your ballot, then your ballot shouldn't count and maybe you shouldn't be voting in the first place. Trying to have elections decided by dueling lawsuits and partisan judges is a sure recipe for shenanigans. Voting involves people: people campaigning, people voting, people counting those votes. There is always going to be some error involved. But in our deeply divided nation, razor thin margins of victory are becoming the norm and that opens us up to having people other than voters decided who wins elections. As the saying attributed to Stalin goes:

“Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything.”

Stalin's modern progeny have embraced this philosophy.

As I said in my previous post...

What happens when tens of millions of people are told: oh so sorry, I know we had an election but the results were just not what we can permit so your votes no longer count. What happens when you tell half of the country that they are supposed to be content to be wage-slaves and tax-cattle to fund the machinations of the elite, but that they simply can't be trusted to make any meaningful decisions? When people realize that they have no say in their own government, that a small cabal of technocrats and managerial elites rule over us and use progressive religious jihadis like the antifa, to attack and cow anyone that steps out of line, what are they going to do? I don't think they are going to stand for it and I don't mean writing an angry letter to their Congressman. We stand on the precipice of something really dangerous in this country. People that just want to live their lives, work their job, raise their kids, worship or not as they see fit, and vote every fall to determine who runs the government are finding out that they will not be permitted to do that. The people that have formed the bedrock of this country are looking around and seeing that the country that they love and the world envies is on the verge of disappearing. What will these quiet, unassuming people do then?

I think we might be about to find out.

Americans are by and large a quiet, peaceful people in their normal lives. Push them too far and you will find just how quickly that can change.

Tuesday, November 13, 2018

Welcome To The Party Ladies!

A few weeks ago I wrote a piece titled White Women As Oppressors following the Kavanaugh hearings. Many on the Left were outraged that so many white women, looking at their own husbands, brothers and sons and realizing this could happen to them, chose to support the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. That was bad enough. Then the midterm elections happened and boy howdy, things went from bad to worse! Those dastardly white women didn't vote 100% for Democrats! The audacity! The white supremacy!

Here are a sampling of tweets right after the election. Mmmm, I love the smell of ideological totalitarianism in the morning!

The Guardian decided that a British leftist tabloid needed to weigh in on the issue:

Voted Republican? Well something is clearly wrong with you! Cheers! Here is a sample of the overwrought PC-word salad excuse for "journalism" from the Guardian piece:

In her book Right Wing Women, the feminist Andrea Dworkin wrote that conservative women often conform to the dominant ideologies of the men around them as part of a subconscious survival strategy, hoping that their conservatism will spare them from male hatred and violence. It doesn’t work, she says. They suffer sexist oppression anyway. But the strategy continues. “Most women cannot afford, either materially or psychologically, to recognize that whatever burnt offerings of obedience they bring to beg protection will not appease the angry little gods around them.” Participating in racism does not exempt white women from sexism, as much as they might hope that it will. It merely corrodes their souls in the process.

That is flat out hilarious. I guess my wife and I sitting together and talking about the issues and working them out together as we have been doing since the 1980's is really just my wife hoping to placate her angry husband in the vain hope that I will stop beating her at every opportunity. Remember:

Liberal women vote for liberals because they are strong, independent, empowered women. Conservative women vote for conservatives to avoid being beaten.

It is also worth pointing out that when black women vote 95% for a cucked little pansy, "Beto" O'Rourke, that is empowering but when white women give Ted Cruz a slight edge over "Beto" in their votes, it is a sign of Stockholm Syndrome.

The message is that white women are not permitted any sort of agency. Instead of men "controlling" them, progressive activist will control them. Their votes are pre-ordained to belong to a small cult of feminists and far left activists that alone get to decide what is best for "all women". The language of "accountability" and the lumping of modern "feminist" ideals into a single set of policies that are deemed to be the only policies that are acceptable for women to support is pretty ominous. The deeper message is that white women can't be trusted to make their own decisions because they are complicit in "white supremacy". After all, white women give birth to and raise white boys and by and large they marry white men. To the Left, an untamed white woman is simply a walking white supremacy incubator. If a white woman won't do the decent thing and either abort her children or submit to sterilization, the least they can be expected to do is vote for Democrats.

I can truly understand the frustration of the Left. They completely own almost every institution that can be used for propaganda: the education system, the media, the entertainment world, big business and the government bureaucracy, and there are still people that refuse to vote as their betters tell them to. The only significant institution they don't own outright is the church and they are doing their best to destroy the church from within (Episcopalians/Methodist/ELCA Lutherans) or to subvert the church (the SJW movement in the Southern Baptist Convention, homosexual priests in the Catholic Church). The stubborn insistence of the American people to form and hold their own opinions is the bane of the progressive experiment.

While white men pretty consistently vote Republican, white women remain perhaps the one true swing vote in our electorate. Blacks vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, and have for decades and are unlikely to change anytime soon. Hispanics vote around 2 to 1 for Democrats, and also are unlikely to change. Asians and Jews, somewhat inexplicably, are about the same as Hispanics as far as voting goes. Where both parties can change an election is white women. The Kavanaugh fiasco was as much about trying to frighten/anger white women into voting for Democrats as it was keeping Kavanaugh off the Supreme Court but it seems to have backfired a bit. We won't know for sure until 2020 but either way this sort of rhetoric simply inflames the identity politics arms race. Until the Democrat plan to pack America with non-white voters comes to fruition as younger Hispanics and other non-whites reach adulthood, elections will be determined by which is more successful: Republican efforts to get white voters to show up and vote or Democrat efforts to convince them not to. That means that white women are going to be the hottest electoral commodity around for a little while longer until progressives don't need them anymore and then they will be tossed aside like Christine Blaisy Ford after the Kavanugh hearings. What is clear in the aftermath of the 2016 and 2018 elections is that the progressive strategy for getting the vote of white women has shifted away from persuasion to bullying.

White women don't deserve a scolding because they voted their own consciences in the last few elections. They deserve gratitude from those who benefit from the struggles and triumphs these women have faced for centuries and for the hard fought victories they won.

The ancestors of today's American white women were the women who fought for the right to vote. They toiled alongside their husbands while raising their children as Europeans settled North America, spread west, conquering a continent of over 3.5 million square miles. These women faced disease and starvation, and attacks from often hostile Indians, while carving out a new nation from a vast wilderness. When war called their men away in the Revolution, the War of 1812, the Civil War and both World Wars, these women stayed home and held the country together. White women don't need the approval of anyone else and they don't need to be told who they may or may not vote for.

While I am sure many white women will feel cowed and be bullied into voting for Democrats to preserve the "right" to kill their unborn children, dutifully voting for the same policies and politics that have devastated their families, I am hoping many more will reject being slandered and insulted, and even threatened, and vote for the party and candidates that they believe are best for them and their families. I trust white women to form their own opinions. It is ironic that the party that unilaterally has deemed itself to be the sole arbiter for what is good for them doesn't trust them to think for themselves.

Monday, November 12, 2018

Book Review: The Strange Death Of Europe

I wrote this review over a year ago but given the general state of Western Europe I felt it needed to be posted again. I can't recommend this book enough if you want to understand why the European people refuse to reproduce and prefer to import people from other regions.


Nothing is more telling regarding the state of affairs in Europe that author Douglas Murray, an open homosexual, laments the loss of Christendom in his new book The Strange Death Of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam. This is one of the most powerful books on the topic of mass immigration and cultural cohesion and perhaps Murray's status as a member of one protected class gives him some cover to criticize Islam and Europe's suicidal immigration policy, although that didn't save the life of Pim Fortuyn, an early sacrificial victim on the altar of cultural enrichment. Or perhaps he is like so many others and just no longer cares. Either way The Strange Death of Europe is a piercing clarion call for the slumbering and apathetic people of Europe to wake up and at least start asking the hard questions.

The question Murray himself ponders repeatedly is this: can you continue to flood Europe with people that do not share European liberal values and don't seem interested in adopting them and expect Europe to remain the same? The answer is obvious except to the Angela Merkel's of this world.

Murray spends a great deal of time examining the mindset of Europe in the century since the end of World War II and describe what I saw as a broken, exhausted people that are tired of fighting and just waiting to die a death they think they somehow deserve because of past sins of dead people, real and imagined. There is some truth to the evils that have occurred in Europe but it is not true that these were unique to or especially worse in Europe. Other cultures may not have been as efficient as Europeans but their relative lack of "success" is not for the absence of trying. Europe's basic problem is that too many European elites see nothing in Europe worth preserving so why not hand the keys over to new people? As I mentioned, the big problem with that mindset is that there is absolutely no reason to think that the features of Europe that make it so enticing will continue on in perpetuity when Europeans are a minority or extinct. If you look at a list of nations dominated by Islam you would be hard pressed to find even one you would want to live in thanks to oppressive laws and cultural norms. When Islam replaces Christendom why would you expect a different result simply because of a change in address?

One of the most troubling and infuriating aspects of the book are those places where Murray ponders why so many "leaders" insist on a suicidal policy of mass immigration in spite of the widespread disapproval of the people and the evidence that it is proving to be a disaster. Murray posits two possible initial explanations. One that it is a complete surprise to people that had no idea what would happen because they lacked any foresight. The other is that it is a calculated effort to replace Europeans. I am not sure which is more troubling, but I tend to lean toward the latter as closer to the truth. The question of why no one wants to do anything about it raises the notion that political leaders know it is a disaster but that it is too late to do anything about it so they just seek to maximize the political benefits to themselves for as long as they can.

Murray is a masterful story teller, even in places like late in the book where he discusses the sorry state of European art and culture by referencing stuff I haven't a clue about and where he tends to get a little esoteric. He weaves together the story from the end of the Second World War to today and puts a lot of the pieces together than I was unaware of. Along with lengthy expositions he also has a ton of quotable tidbits including these two exactly 300 pages apart at the beginning and near the end of the book.

Europe today has little desire to reproduce itself, fight for itself or even take its own side in an argument. Pg. 2

A continent which imports the world's people will also import the world's problems. Pg 302

Those two quotes pretty well sum up the issue. Europe has no sense of self-preservation even to the simplest degree of reproducing themselves and yet is engaged in a course which is importing the world's problems without a thought for what that will mean for the continent.

Douglas Murray has created an important work with The Strange Death of Europe. I just hope it is read by enough people in time to save Europe from herself. While Murray proposes a few possible scenarios for the future, I think there are only two. One that he suggests is that future Europe looks like a massive United Nations meeting and native Europeans retreat to enclaves and rural areas that immigrants shun. The other is something far worse rising up in response to mass immigration. Sooner or later I am afraid something really major is going to happen and terrorists in Europe will get their own "home run" like 9/11. The slow, almost daily, trickle of terror is easier to shrug off but what happens if the death toll is not in the dozens but the thousands? What will happen then? One way or the other Europe is going to be very different in the next ten years. Hopefully voices of reason like Murray will lead the way. The Strange Death of Europe by Douglas Murray is one of those rare absolute must-read books, especially for those concerned about the big questions of culture and civilization.

Thursday, November 8, 2018

Antifa Is A Terror Group

While mainstream news outlets were hyperventilating because a partisan hack who was grandstanding at a press conference lost his press credentials, in the real world a mob of antifa thugs went to the home of Fox News pundit Tucker Carlson. Carlson wasn't home but his wife was. The crowd surrounded the home, banged on the door to the point of cracking it, and shouted slogans like:

“Tucker Carlson, we will fight. We know where you sleep at night.”

I am not sure how that can be interpreted as anything other than a threat of violence. His wife was terrified and called police while locking herself, in her own home, in the pantry. Since he lives in D.C. his wife was not even able to arm herself. Fortunately his four children were not home but his wife was no doubt traumatized by this crowd. These are the people that are fighting the patriarchy and all that by terrorizing women alone in their homes.

Vox write Matthew Yglesias, a corpulent soyboy and leftist, seems to be among the many that are at least tacitly excusing the terrorist attack on Carlson's home. Matt has over 400,000 followers on Twitter so he has significant influence.

Read that again.

Terrorizing a woman alone in her home is just a matter of tactics and strategy.

This is the sort of reasoning that goes into the thought process of terrorists. It may be bad tactically but it advances our cause so a little terror is OK.

It doesn't matter that basic human decency would demand that any man be outraged when a defenseless woman is forced to lock herself in the pantry of her own home in terror. Her door was slammed into and it cracked. What would have happened if the door had broken and some of these lunatics had gotten in? Don't underestimate the power of a mob frenzy. Would they have hurt her? Quite possibly. What if she tried to physically bar their entrance or grabbed a kitchen knife to protect herself? It is not hyperbole in any sense to say that her life was in genuine danger.

Now, if CNN's Don Lemon was on the air and his white boyfriend was home alone and a bunch of those awful white male terrorists that Lemon is so terrified of had shown up at Lemon's home, screaming anti-homosexual epithets and threatening violence, beating on his door and damaging it, what do you suppose the media reaction would be? It would be wall to wall coverage and every law enforcement agency known to man would be on the case. In fairness many media personalities on the Left have decried this but it is getting nowhere near the same play as the Acosta kerfuffle.

Banging on the door of Tucker Carlson's home, spray painting anarchy symbols on his driveway, screaming threats at his house, is no different from burning a cross on the lawn of a black family.

That raises the question. Why hasn't antifa as a whole been declared a terrorist group and had the law enforcement apparatus of the United States jumping on them with both feet?

The full force of the U.S. legal system has been used in the past against groups from the Mob to the Klan. The Mob is a shadow of what it once was and the Klan is numerically nearly non-existent and riddled with informants. Why isn't the government infiltrating these groups, making arrests, tracking down their funding and shutting it off. Why are groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center not front and center fighting against this terrorist hate groups? The answer is obvious. Antifa are the shock troops of the Left, the jihadi of progressivism. There is no way that the SPLC or ADL is going to take an active role in exposing them. Likewise most the law enforcement apparatus is deeply tied into the Deep State and opposed to Trump. Therefore anitfa get a free pass more or less. If you are a white guy with right wing view and show up at a rally, there is a decent chance of you getting arrested and prosecuted. If you are antifa, you probably won't be arrested and if you do you won't be prosecuted.

Law enforcement is not going to do what needs to be done about antifa, meaning that they will continue to run wild among the public square, terrorizing people that can't defend themselves. But sooner or later they are going to terrorize the wrong person and that person will be armed and won't back down and that means an antifa dead on a front porch somewhere. Or just as likely some antifa terrorist is going to get overzealous in their quest for "justice" and kill some innocent person with the "wrong" political beliefs. Either way, the violence is going to escalate in this country. The only way this doesn't turn into a bloody civil war is for political leaders to have the vision and courage to divide this nation up before it tears itself apart.

Wednesday, November 7, 2018

The Day After

Last night went about as expected. The GOP lost control of the House so Nancy Pelosi or some other liberal loon will become the Speaker and be second in the line of succession to the Presidency. Scary thought. On the other hand the Republicans gained seats in the Senate, and if I am researching this correctly the sitting President's party losing seats in the House but gaining them in the Senate hasn't happened since 1982. Interesting times.

Here are some take-aways.

The Big Take-Away

Like it or not, the Republican Party is Trump's party now. His influence mitigated the potential losses and pushed candidates like Mike Braun in my home state of Indiana and Hawley in Missouri to wins and pick-ups for the GOP in the Senate. He is already on record pointing out that those that weren't aligned with him lost last night. It is hard to see how a Republican wins the Presidency or national offices in competitive states without the Trump coalition. I expect to see a Republican party that is a lot more populist and nationalist over the next 2 years. I see that as a positive thing.

Liberals Discover That U.S. Stands For "United States" And Are Furious

It was amazing to see liberals suddenly discover how Senate seats are apportioned and freak out about it, sort of like the Electoral College. How someone can be an opinion maker and "respected" journalist or public figure and not understand how the government was designed is baffling.

The 2020 Presidential Race Starts Today

Trump is already taking subtle shots at Nancy Pelosi and it isn't even 9 AM yet. I would be surprised if we don't get at least one semi-serious announcement from a Democrat that they are running before the end of the month. If Pelosi is the Speaker, expect the next two years to be a giant proxy fight no matter who the Democratic nominee is. Turnout was high yesterday, I expect record numbers in 2020. I also think Trump is both more likely to run and also to win after yesterday.

Nothing Happens On Immigration

Democrats know that their electoral future depends on accelerating the "browning of America". They abandoned the white working class, and are in the process of jettisoning garden variety white feminists. There is no way they agree to any sort of immigration restriction and Trump is not dumb enough to fall for the "amnesty now for enforcement later" trick that Republicans traditionally fall for.

More Executive Orders

Obama pioneered the "phone and pen" style of executive branch governance and I expect to see Trump do the same. It isn't healthy but it is the expectation now. I see a lot of executive orders that immediately are overturned by a circuit court and end up at the SCOTUS. Trump is going to do everything he can to circumvent the Congress.

The Influence Of RINO Senators Like Susan Collins Is Diminished

Now that Republicans have a more solid margin in the Senate, we won't be required to kowtow to Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski as much. In fact Susan Collins is up for re-election in 2020 so it will be interesting to see if she embraces Trump or tries to run away from him. Regardless, they lose influence as a larger margin made up of Trump supporters makes them less necessary.

Demographics Is Destiny

The close Texas win for Ted Cruz is pretty ominous. Republicans can't win without Texas and Texas can't stay Republican for long if the demographic trends continue this way. What Democrats fail to win by winning the war of ideas they can still win by replacing the heritage population with a new non-white electorate. I agree more and more with Ann Coulter every day, including this quote from her book Adios, America

What happens with immigration will determine whether America continues to exist or becomes a Third World republic that will never elect another Republican—in other words, “California.” It’s more important than gun rights, right to life, taxes, or Iran’s nuclear program—or whatever other issue you care to cite, because immigration will decide all issues, once and for all, in favor of the Democrats.


NeverTrumpers Might Start Slinking Back

I am seeing a little buyers regret from some NeverTrumpers. It is apparent now that the GOP is Trump's party and there is no home for anti-Trump "conservatives". In order to retain some influence and to sell some books, some NeverTrumpers will probably have a "change of heart".

The Ruth Bader Ginsburg Death Watch

With a larger majority in the Senate, this would be an opportune time fro RBG to retire, voluntarily or involuntarily. The universe might explode. I am not wishing her ill. Probably. But you can be sure that liberals everywhere are offering prayers to their goddess Choice to prolong her life because if she dies, Roe v Wade dies with her.

Lots more to come. The frenzy and fury over the 2020 election is going to surpass anything we have ever seen in American politics. Let the chaos begin!

Tuesday, November 6, 2018

Election Day

Unless you live under a rock, you know today is election day in the U.S. Even those choosing to not vote are aware of it. For someone like me that grew up steeped in politics, majored in Political Science in college and that writes an awful lot about politics, today is like the Super Bowl. Who wins and who loses? What trends do we see? What does this mean for the future? How do the results tonight change what will happen in 2020?

While many people understandably take advantage of early voting, for me there is nothing quite like going to your polling place and actually casting your vote on election day. I don't want to make too much of it but it borders on a sacred act. For over two centuries Americans like me have gathered on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November to vote for their representatives in our Republic. Again, not to be too hokey, but I get a little chill when I think about it. I know politics is often banal and dirty and dishonest but our system of government has long been the envy of the world. It is even better that my wife and I can take our adult sons with us to the polls to cast their vote.

At this point I don't know what tonight will bring but I will certainly jot down some thoughts later tonight or tomorrow. I do know this, I feel a little bit melancholy today. As important as this day in November is to me, I can't help but feeling like our run is coming to an end one way or the other. I worry that we are on the edge of unrest and violence and that a multicultural nation of over 300 million people simply cannot be sustained. We will see but I see little reason for hope on that question.

It is also a day to wonder about the franchise. Does it make sense to have a nearly universal franchise where people who are not stakeholders in the sense of paying taxes and owning property have the same voting rights as those that do? I know that is a sacred cow but it is a valid and important question. Is our republic made stronger or weaker by having everyone vote?

Lots of question swirling around. I am more nervous today than I was in 2016. I assumed two years ago that Hillary would win because the media and polls were telling us that uniformly and I was as shocked as everyone else. Tonight no one knows what to expect. It should be an interesting evening!

Monday, November 5, 2018

A Parade Of Small Men In The Highest Office

At 46 years of age and being a lifelong political observer, I have seen a lot of Presidents come and go. As I look back over the men who have held the highest elected office in the world, something struck me about them. For the most part they were pretty mediocre men and far from inspiring. Since Reagan this has really become more apparent. Here is a look at the men who have occupied the Oval Office, been in possession of the nuclear codes and held the title of Leader of the Free World in my lifetime:

Richard M. Nixon

Well you don't need to say much about Dick Nixon. A man forced to resign in disgrace. He might have ended up being a decent President but we will never know because history will only remember how he was forced to leave office. On the other hand he was also Vice President and served in the House and Senate so he had some significant experience before being elected.

Gerald Ford

Ford seemed like a nice guy, someone you wouldn't mind having as a neighbor. Ford also served in the Navy during World War II and was both a Vice President and a Congressman. Like his predecessor, Ford came across as deeply uninspiring and was unfortunately also mocked for being clumsy after a tripping incident, although as a young man Ford might have been the best athlete to ever be President, at least in my lifetime. Have him over for brats and beer? Sure. Follow him into battle? Uh, maybe not.

Jimmy Carter

Yikes. Carter was a bumbling idiot. He would still hold the title as Worst American President if Obama hadn't been elected. He seemed over his head at every turn, from the Iran hostage situation to the energy crisis. Like many past American Presidents he served in the military and was governor of Georgia but in the end no one was inspired by him. He lost in an electoral landslide to Reagan in 1980, 489-49, a humiliating defeat. When you are generally thought of as a better past President than you were a sitting President, it is a sign you were a poor leader.

Ronald Reagan

Reagan was until recently the only real leader we have had as President in my lifetime. When I say he was a leader, I don't mean in the sense that he held a leadership position. That doesn't make you a leader. Reagan inspired people, both his supporters and his detractors. When Reagan spoke he commanded the room and captured the attention of the audience. He used inspiring language about morning in America again and America as a shining city on a hill. He didn't apologize for American greatness, he embraced and celebrated it. He wasn't a perfect President by any means but he was a leader. In fact his leadership was so rare that even today, 30 years after his presidency, Republican candidates still sqauabble about who is the "heir to Reagan" and try to one-up each other on how is more Reagan-esque. It can be borderline cultic but it speaks to just how rare it has been to have real leadership in the office declared the leader of the free world.

George H.W. Bush

Bush the First won on the coattails of Reagan. He actually had a fairly distinguished life, honorably serving with distinction in combat in World War II, being a Congressman, ambassador to the UN, director of the CIA and Vice President. He had one of the most solid resumes of any recent President. Unfortunately he was also another uninspiring leader, easy to mock for Dana Carvey on Saturday Night Live because of his goofy mannerisms. 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. In his re-election, no longer able to simply campaign as the continuation of the Reagan administration, he was crushed, winning only 37.5% of the popular vote and losing to Bill Clinton. According to Wikipedia: "President Bush's 37.5% was the lowest percentage total for a sitting president seeking re-election since William Howard Taft in 1912." .

What is largely forgotten is that Ross Perot, at one time leading both Bush and Clinton in polls, ended up pulling almost 19% as a third party candidate, almost 20 million votes. Perot would run again in 1996 and receive over 8% of the vote, or essentially the margin of difference between Clinton and Dole. Perot was the proto-Trump, pulling voters from both parties with a populist message.

Bill Clinton

Ah, Clinton. Clinton was a new breed of President. He was young (my age, 46). He was not a former military man, instead being a dope smoking draft dodger in his youth. He had a very undistinguished political career as Attorney General of Arkansas and then governor of Arkansas before leapfrogging to become President. He seemed simultaneously intimidated by and terrified of his wife Hillary who famously declared that she was not some "stand by your man", baking cookies wife. Unlike past First Ladies that realized that their husband had been elected, not them, Hillary was often a lightning rod for her husband. In spite of being impeached, although not removed from office, for lying under oath to a grand jury about Monica Lewinsky, the Clinton era is generally well thought of. It was relatively peaceful, other than some flashpoints, and was in general a time of a lot of banality. Clinton was the perfect 1990's President. He was unserious and goofy, eating fast food and having sex with interns. It was like a giant frat party and the country sort of cruised along. A leader? Not hardly. He talked about which style of underwear he preferred and played the saxophone on talk shows. The only place Bill Clinton could be trusted to lead you into is a brothel.

George W. Bush

Bush the Second, or Bush the Lesser, was in my opinion destined to be a one term President. He eked out a win over the risible Al Gore, one of the dumbest men to ever run for President, but he seemed to be so conflicted over what he wanted to be that I don't think he would have been re-elected. Then September 11th happened and suddenly the rudderless Bush Presidency had a raison d'être: the war on terror. For a few incredible days in September of 2001, Bush was a leader. His appearance at Ground Zero, his speech at the national cathedral, all seemed to energize Bush while bringing the country together. It may be awful to say but 9/11 probably saved the Bush Presidency. Then as he started invading countries and the wars dragged on, he became less popular and more confused.

Bush the Lesser often looked like a little boy trying to pretend to be his daddy, who was not exactly a great role model to emulate as President. What he never seemed, other than a few moments after 9/11, was someone that inspired people.

Barack Obama

The current champion for worst President in living memory. Obama fancied himself a powerful, inspiring leader but he was the ideal President for the 2000s: basically a CGI President, a man who could deliver a pretty decent speech from a teleprompter but little else. He was the least distinguished man to hold the office of President perhaps ever. Like Bush 2 and Clinton, he had not served in the military (Bush sort of served). He was an admitted drug user in college. He was a "community organizer" and a law professor, served a few unremarkable terms in the Illinois State Senate and then served less than half a term as a U.S. Senator where he was pretty much a non-entity before resigning to run for President. Arguably Obama was the least qualified man to hold the Presidency in modern history and for his eight years I would qualify him as a man far too small for such an important position. He was and is petty, vindictive and narcissistic. His speeches are all about himself, no matter the topic at hand. Being the first non-white President and being of mixed race ancestry, he had a real opportunity to bring the races together. Instead his tenure was marked by increased racial strife. He was a decent speech maker but his speeches were vacuous and forgettable. As a President he was a disaster, virtually every decision he made was the exact opposite of the right decision. He bowed and scraped and apologized to world leaders that live under the protection of America. He gleefully oversaw the dismantling of marriage and introduced the tranny-tyranny we deal with today. He spent like a drunken sailor and exploded the national debt. He scolded and hectored people that didn't fall in line and mocked them for clinging to their guns and religion. He lied about Obamacare. He "won" a Peace Prize and then spent his tenure ordering drone strike assassinations and destabilizing the Middle East. Barack Obama was and still is a small man, a media creation. Obama was not a leader, he was more of a celebrity, equal parts a liberal rock star and a progressive religious icon.

Donald Trump

Well. Trump is less than two years into his Presidency and whatever you say about him, he is a leader. He inspires passion from his base and frothing at the mouth hatred from his opponents. His rallies are loud, raucous affairs. The crowds feed off his energy and he does the same in return. He loves the adoration of the crowd. His leadership style is brash and sometimes crude but no one doubts that he is the leader of the Republican party. It is a mistake to assume that someone that only appeals to his side is a leader. Appealing to both sides in this political climate is impossible. The Left is virulently, violently opposed to anyone that is not 100% on board with them. Trump doesn't try to appeal to them and in fact often mocks and insults his political opponents. They hate it and his base loves it. Trump has singlehandedly remade the Republican party in his own populist and nationalist image, tapping into the coalition that Perot first awakened. With the midterms tomorrow, it was assumed by many that Republicans would hide from Trump but the opposite is true. Trump is criss-crossing the country holding huge rallies, including one in nearby Fort Wayne today that had people in line at 7 AM and promises to be way over capacity. If the GOP holds the House and increases their lead in the Senate, it will be because of Trump stumping hard for Republican candidates. Love him or hate him, there is little middle ground, Trump is a leader.

So 9 Presidents in my lifetime and maybe 2 were leaders of any sort, 3 if you count Obama which I do not.

And it is not just the winners. Look at the long line of uninspiring people that ran against the eventual winners. Walter Mondale? Mike Dukakis? Mitt Romney? Al "Lockbox" Gore? Hillary Clinton?! Bob Dole? Dole was a war hero but he put people to sleep when he talked. Dukakis was a joke with that tank stunt. Mondale was the even less competent half of the Carter-Mondale ticket. Mitt Romney says whatever he has been trained to say after sticking his finger in the wind to see where the political winds were blowing. He is the epitome of an empty suit. Hillary was one of the most polarizing figures to ever run, the worst possible choice to be the first woman President.

It seems odd, does it not, that the most powerful office in the world seems to mostly attract such mediocre leaders? I think many decent men and leaders just simply are not willing to do what it takes to become President. The endless holding out of your hand for money, sucking up to people you probably don't like, the endless scrutiny and criticism. Why would someone put themselves through all of that for any motivation other than narcissism?

Perhaps if the Presidency wasn't quite so significant, wasn't such an endless fishbowl of attention, better men would choose to run. As our government has grown more and more ubiquitous and powerful, so too has the importance placed on the President. In a more sane world, who the President is wouldn't matter so much to the average person on a daily, or now minute by minute, basis and we could see some real leaders and statesmen run for the office. Until that happens we can expect to see an endless succession of narcissistic political chameleons. 

Thursday, November 1, 2018

So Don, What Exactly Do You Propose To Do About White Men?

Speaking of cognitive dissonance and/or willful hypocrisy. Don Lemon, the CNN clown that is on air not just for his racist rants against uppity Negroes that escape the plantation but also because of his two intersectional oppression points, black and homosexual, made what can only be construed as a thinly veiled threat on air recently. He said (emphasis mine):

“I keep trying to point out to people and not to demonize any one group or any one ethnicity. But we keep thinking that the biggest terror threat is something else, some people who are marching towards the border,” he said, dismissing the migrant caravan heading for the southern U.S. border as not a real threat to security.

We have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right,” he said. “And we have to start doing something about them. There is no travel ban on them. There is no ban on — they had the Muslim ban. There is no white guy ban. So, what do we do about that?”

So twice he says that we shouldn't demonize any group or ethnicity and then....demonizes an entire race and gender. White men, it should be pointed out, started Lemon's employer CNN (Ted Turner) . He has become very wealthy by appearing on television, which was also invented by various white men, in a nation founded by white men. As usual the sheer ingratitude of people like Don Lemon is amazing. Black people in America are better off in almost every possible way than blacks in significant majority black countries. They have more freedom, more economic opportunity, better health care, unmatched educational opportunities. That is why you don't see mass migration of blacks from majority white America or Europe and instead see the opposite, boats full of Africans paying thousands of dollars and risking their lives to get out of majority black Africa and into majority white Europe. I am sure Don could get a great job at Radio-Télévision nationale congolaise, the national broadcaster for the Democratic Republic of the Congo and he wouldn't have to worry about any of those awful white male terrorists. Why doesn't he move? Because he knows, although he won't say on air, that he has a great gig in majority white America working for a cable channel created by a white guy on a medium invented by white guys. Besides, he doesn't seem to hate and fear all white men....

Weird. I guess what he really means is that the wrong sort of white men are a threat to this country. The kind of white men that will have sex with another man are apparently OK.

Anyway, that is just garden variety ingratitude/race baiting/rank hypocrisy. I won't bother spending any time showing why, in real life as opposed to CNN, a black man is almost 100% more likely to be killed by another black man than a "white terrorist". What I found more interesting was this statement:

...we have to start doing something about them.

"We" have to start doing "something" about "them"? What ever could he mean? I doubt Don is planning on "doing something", he looks like a sissy. Walking around holding hands with your special fella will do that. So when he says "we" I assume he means "he" and others like him in the urban elite will send marching orders to their violent useful idiots in Antifa, the contemporary version of the Red Guard thugs Mao employed in the Communist Chinese "Cultural Revolution". Antifa is convinced that they are some sort of righteous enforcers of decency and "justice" but they are little more than a violent mob.

I know these sorts of thought experiments are tiresome but imagine someone on Fox News saying:

I don't want to demonize any group or ethnicity but while black men are less than 7% of the population they commit around half of all murders in this country. There is no travel ban on them. We have to start doing something about them.

Would any liberal person hear those words and not see menace? Would the media not be in full hysterical mode screeching about "dog whistles" and "inciting violence"? Of course they would. Still we are treated to CNN talking heads sniffily complaining about Trump calling them the enemy of the people. Guess what.

When someone directs that sort of language toward me they are my enemy. 

Casually signaling to the unstable and uneducated antifa loons that "something needs to be done" about white men is an overt threat toward me, toward my adult white male sons and most of my friends and neighbors.

Don't whine about being painted as partisan opposition while you are in the same breath saying stuff like that.

Let me be even less subtle. A nancy-boy like Don Lemon thinks he is insulated from what they are unleashing. He lives in New York surrounded by NYC cops that he probably assumes are racist and millions of people that monolithically think like he does. He probably supposes that if the crapstorm they are trying to unleash happens, it won't impact them. They can still go to cocktail parties and have brunch on Sunday while reading the New York Times or whatever it is homosexuals in big cities do when they are not....ugh, never mind. Anyway. When the food stops coming in, the gas stations run out of gas and the power goes out, what are they going to do? When you unleash the hounds and they run out of easy targets in the cities, do you think these maniacs are going to just go back to not having jobs? No, they will just expand the target selection. When the EBT cards don't refill and the welfare deposits don't happen, the civil unrest won't ask who you voted for. Some antifa types are actually ideologues but an awful lot of them are just people who like to break crap and watch other people bleed, especially when they can attack someone they outnumber 10-1. They are little kids that like to pull the wings off of flies.

This is all simply intended as fair warning. The 2016 election was just the shot across the bow from people that have been pushed and pushed for decades saying they were not going to keep taking it. There is no going back from here. There is no "unifier" that will come save the union. One hundred million people that hate and are hated in return by a different hundred million people cannot stay in a political union. A nation must be more than a collection of interchangeable economic units/consumers united by some propositions that no one even agrees on anymore.

So Donnie, if you want to work things out and do something about white men, you can start with me. We can have coffee some time and talk it over. If you aren't satisfied with that? Well, let's hear your suggestions for what you think "we" should do about this scourge of white men. I'm all ears.

The Case Against Lucy Brenton

L to R: Republican Mike Braun, Libertarian Lucy Brenton, Democrat incumbent Joe Donnelly
Unless you live in Indiana and are a fairly serious political observer or you live outside of Indiana and are a super engaged political geek, you might be asking: who is Lucy Brenton and why is there a case against her? Well she is the Libertarian candidate for the U.S. Senate in Indiana and as of now is polling at around 3% of the vote. That is significantly less than she was polling a short while ago as we get closer to election day. Lucy seems like a decent person. She has ten children so clearly family is important to her. She holds most standard libertarian positions, even invoking the old "personally opposed" language on abortion, believing that it is logical to be simultaneously against abortion but then offering this squishy language about it:

I believe that unless we protect the smallest and most helpless members of society, that we protect no one. It is my fervent desire that no baby ever be aborted and that no one ever finds it necessary to seek one. Regardless of my personal view, the government should not be involved in what is ultimately a medical decision controlled by the woman in whose body the baby is growing. Personally, I believe that those who want to reduce the number of abortions must continually step forward to offer help and alternatives to women and families by creating an accepting culture that offers hope, financial resources and support in a situation where many are scared, feeling that they have run out of options.

It is not the place of the Federal government to pay for abortions nor legislate this issue. The Constitution has no mention of abortion and doesn’t authorize the federal government to be involved in abortion. Therefore, as a Libertarian, I would vote no on any legislation at the federal level because it is not within the purview of the Constitution.

What kind of nonsensical double-speak is that? She describes unborn children as the smallest and most helpless members of society, a statement that seems to assert the unique person-hood of each child, but then claims that the decision to abort a child is simply a medical one. She later says in a different issue that: The one valid purpose of government is to protect its citizens from force and fraud. Well, what exactly is abortion other than the forceful removal of a child from the womb? Again, she describes unborn children as the smallest and most helpless members of society but somehow manages to take away their right to life as a citizen and the right to not have others use force upon them. I agree with her first statement: unless we protect the most vulnerable, we are not protecting anyone but the cognitive dissonance required to hold the idea that unborn children are vulnerable and helpless members of our society on the one hand and yet killing them in the womb is simply a "medical decision" is staggering.

She is correct that the Constitution makes no mention of abortion, but still the Federal government has mandated abortion on demand by judicial fiat. Somebody that truly believes in Federalism and a limited government would advocate for an overturn of Roe v Wade, returning the issue to the states at the very least. Her position unfortunately sounds like someone that is probably actually more pro-life than she is letting on but who is masking that under politically correct language so as not to offend any pro-abortion potential voters. Pretty sad.

But the real reason for not voting for Lucy Brenton is more simple than her confused statements about abortion. The reality, as I wrote previously, is that Libertarians are nothing other than spoilers at this point. There simply is not a sufficient natural constituency for Libertarianism and like it or not we live in a winner-takes-all system. The best a Libertarian has done for President was Gary Johnson in 2016 with 3.5% and that is not a testament to his strength as a candidate or an increase in Libertarians, it is that both major party candidates were deeply flawed and he still couldn't break 4% of the vote. Libertarians simply don't have the electoral support to even draw double digits with any consistency and so they simply sway the election for one of the major parties. At least here in Indiana that means pulling votes from Republicans. 

Don't believe me? Well we are receiving fliers praising Lucy Brenton and attacking Mike Braun but they are not being sent out by the Brenton campaign. Instead they seem to be coming from liberal groups that are trying to siphon off support for Braun to throw the election to Donnelly. We got this in the mail earlier this week (front and back of flier).

Notice that there is no name to indicate who or what organization is paying for this flier and that would, if I understand campaign finance rules correctly, be illegal if Lucy Brenton's campaign was paying for it. If a Libertarian group was running the flier you would think they would note it. The picture of Lucy is lifted right from her webpage. It is also interesting to note the mass mail stamp is from Milwaukee. So who is paying for this ad? It seems pretty clear it is coming from liberals knowing that knocking Braun on taxes and praising Brenton might convince some voters on the right to vote Libertarian even though she won't get more than 3-4% of the vote total. 

Based on the latest polls, Mike Braun leads Joe Donnelly 49%-46% with Brenton pulling in 3-4%. She isn't going to win or even place respectably. But she might be enough to make a difference for Donnelly. That is her only role in the election next week. People that want traditional libertarian ideas like smaller government and lower taxes are going to vote either Republican or Libertarian. They are obviously not going to vote Donnelly either way. Brenton's Quixotic campaign has the very real potential to help re-elect someone that opposes every traditional Libertarian ideal. How exactly does that help advance the cause of liberty?  Lucy Brenton is probably a nice person and we probably have a lot in common but she isn't a serious candidate, she is simply being a political pawn used by the Left to re-elect Senator Donnelly.

The better solution, one embraced by libertarian/libertarian-leaning candidates like Rand Paul, Justin Amash and Austin Petersen, is to seek to move the Republican party toward more pro-liberty positions. No third party is going to ever gain enough traction to win significantly at the national level. Ross Perot came close but that was many years ago and his message was more of a populist message more similar to Trump than anything Libertarian. People that want to advance liberty, defend freedom of speech and expression, protect the 2nd Amendment, see government smaller, need to work within the Republican party to move the party in that direction rather than playing spoiler. Helping to elect Democrats in order to make some "noble" point isn't principled when we are on the edge of serious crisis in our country. I used to reject the spoiler label but it is clear that Libertarians are going nowhere and given the lunacy coming out of the national party on issues like open borders, I don't see any future for the party. Vote libertarian, just not for Libertarian candidates.

If you live in Indiana and cherish liberty and freedom, your vote next week should go to Mike Braun. He is not an ideal candidate but he is the best choice we have in 2018.