The Stupidity of Identity Politics

This is worth passing on because it highlights why political correctness has lost the public and is destroying itself. Apparently a group of retards who attend a college in Oregon want a plaque containing the words of Martin Luther King’s “I Have A Dream” speech removed. Why? Because it’s not inclusive. LOLOLOLOLOLOL!

I’ve pointed this out dozens of times before, but the problem with structuring an ideology like the left has with their current ideology is that it lacks any sort of intellectual underpinnings. Instead, it substitutes the grievances of its recognized members. Consequently, there is no consistency because those grievances can change just as soon as the idiots who invented the grievance change their minds. In effect, it’s like basing a political ideology on the whinings of a six year old. Today, you are demanding that sandwiches be cut into squares. Tomorrow, it better be triangles. The day after, sandwiches themselves are the root of all evil. The day after that, sandwiches have returned to vogue, but that dog who stole your donut must be purged. And so on.

The issue surrounding MLK’s speech is just the latest example of this, but it is an excellent example. MLK’s key words were this:

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

What does MLK mean? He means that he hopes that one day, America will move beyond race and it will be entirely irrelevant as a basis for judging another human being. What can possibly be more inclusive than that? King is hoping that everyone can live in a future where everyone stops judging people on the basis of race. No one is excluded from this dream. It is not limited in its application. It is not limited in its scope. It is not limited in its ambition. Who could possibly go all whiny bitch about this not being inclusive?

Feminists.

Indeed, said Sophomore Mia Ashley, who is clearly a dipshit, “diversity is so much more than race. Obviously race still plays a big role, but there are people who identify differently in gender and all sorts of things like that.”

Think about that. Assley is saying that the fact that MLK spoke only about race makes his dream non-inclusive. In other words, he didn’t make reference to my personal grievance, so his thought is not worthy of being considered inclusive. Idiotic.

Interestingly, this makes it impossible for anyone to ever state a truly inclusive thought about diversity because it is impossible to list all of the possible weirdoes looking for validation at one time. Indeed, MLK could have said:

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, their gender, their gender identity, how big their schlongs or anti-schlongs are, their religion or anti-religion, their ethnicity, their weight, their age, their economic circumstances, their disability, their lack of height, the color of their eyes, their desire to be animals, their intelligence, their mental health, or their emotional stability, but by the content of their character.”

And yet, the first person who wants to see themselves as a vampire or who can’t grow enough hair makes this non-inclusive. "He didn't include me! Waaaaaaah!"

Think about that. This dumb beatch is claiming that the greatest statement of inclusion after “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal” is not inclusive because MLK didn’t bother to mention her particular defect. That is the worthlessness of leftism in a nutshell. That is why the left has nothing to offer and why anything the left tries devolves into hate and acrimony.

Honestly, it’s too late to save the left, but don’t let these people infect the right too.

Debate Open Thread and Thoughts:

By Kit

Important: Andrew is back in the hospital. He should be ok but Bev and I will be try to continue the posts as scheduled. I will be writing a Monday post if he is not feeling up to it by then.

Well, it is the last debate before the first votes are cast and it seems that Trump, who said three years ago that skipping debates is “cowardly”, is skipping the because he claimed Megyn kelly was “Biased” and his campaign manager (in an extraordinary act of projection) said she was “obsessed” with Donald Trump and you are probably already sick of it by now so there is no reason for me to go through it all so let’s cut to the current news:

As Fox News hosts the debate, Trump will host a rally for wounded veterans and it seems Huckabee and Santorum will show up for the rally. However, already there are problems as the president of the veterans advocacy group Iraq and Afghanistan War Veterans has already announced it will not take any proceeds from the rally saying “We need strong policies from candidates, not to be used for political stunts”, and there is a story going slightly viral about Trump trying to have a group of veterans removed from 5th Avenue where they were working as licensed vendors by the city because he felt they hurt his business.

Now, as for those on the stage. Cruz is lagging behind Trump by some points but Rubio is rising in Iowa, 18 in one recent poll, as well as northern midwest states (states the GOP would love to win), particularly in Minnesota and Wisconsin. He also does well in head-to-head contests against Hillary there and he does the best nationally. But he is struggling in NH and SC due to a barrage of attack ads by the pro-Jeb super pac Right to Rise, run by Mike Murphy.

Trump, meanwhile, who is only now facing a barrage of attack ads (such as this one on immigration) has consistently lost against Hillary. Choose wisely, GOP.

Pro-Trump folks such as Ann Coulter and sites such as Breitbart.com (split between Cruz and Trump) are starting to hit Rubio. If Rubio does well tonight one could expect some attacks from the big dog himself.

Some short thoughts on Iowa by National Review editor Rich Lowry: LINK

Anyway, I have to go do Latin homework and other homework so I’ll write up some brief thoughts tonight or tomorrow afternoon.

Bend Over America: The Candidate Edition

I think one of the problems with debates is that moderators always assume the politicians want to do things to help us. I think a different approach would be more enlightening. I think we should cut to the chase and ask them how they plan to f*** us? Let’s put our candidates on the truth-o-teller and see what happens, shall we?

Moderator Price: Tell us the nastiest things you plan to do to the American people. //flips on truth-o-teller

Hillary: I don’t really have any big ideas except self-preservation, so mainly I plan to throw away the lives of US servicemen whenever my poll numbers are low. I plan to look the other way as enemies of our state, other than Republicans (//painfully fake smirk), kill and destroy civilian populations everywhere. I’m planning to shift large amounts of money from the Treasury to my friends and my secret accounts, but that’s not wrong... everybody does it. Oh, and I may have my husband ‘accidentally shot’ by the Secret Service. Yeah, a couple other people too I guess. I have a list but you’ll have to elect me to see who’s on it! (painfully fake laugh)

//pauses
//taps foot against ground nervously

I guess the biggest thing is that as my poll numbers keep falling and it becomes clear that the public really doesn’t like me because they’ve been poisoned against me, I’m going to get really Godd*mn f*cking p*ssed. Why won’t you people like me? I’m lovable! I really am! I baked cookies once. How many cookies do I need to bake? Seriously, why won’t you besotted f*cking peasants like me?! //starts crying You know what?! Damn you! Damn you all! I don’t need your love!! I’ll show you f*cking peasants! I’ll grind you under my heel. I’ll take away everything you love. I’ll ban television and email and tax sweets. I’ll make you all drive Priuses. I’ll urinate on everything in your precious White House and smash the f*cking china. You don’t want to love me? Fine! I’m going to break your spirits until you realize that you need to love me! You WILL love me and despair!

Trump: That b*tch is crazy! Look, I don’t really understand right from wrong, so this one is hard for me. Does doing blow off the belly of a dead hooker in the oval office count? If so, sign me up for that one. What else? Well, let’s just say the White House is about to get a Big Pimpin’-style makeover. Oh, and I’m planning to shift large amounts of money from the Treasury to my friends, but that’s not wrong... everybody does that. That’s about it, I guess. I don’t know, I don’t think more than a few hours ahead. There could be more.

Sanders: I like to think of myself as most likely to randomly start a war with some country that disagrees with my policies. I mean, I love to talk about pacifism, but butchery is just part of the socialist ideology. I can see me lighting up Tehran or Tel Aviv. No promises though.

Other than that, there are only a couple more things I can think of that might be considered bad by some. I want to make thoughtcrimes punishable by life in prison. I want to end free speech in favor of goodspeak. I’m planning to tax the rich until they are poor, then I’ll give them welfare. I’ll bankrupt the nation, seeing as how I’ve proposed several times our current budget in new spending. I plan to ban several key forms of economic activity which might wipe out coal producing states, car producing states, and states with power plants. I plan to ban coal and nuclear energy and tax gas until it’s unaffordable. I’ll raise the minimum wage to $50 an hour to fix poverty and lower white collar salaries in the name of fairness. I’m going to ban profit. One word: famine. Then I’ll probably legalize marijuana because you’re going to need it. I plan to unionize every job in America. I’m going to demobilize the Air Force and our nuclear weapons. I will require every home builder to build one unit of public housing for each sellable house they make. I plan to triple social security payments, and then take it all back in the form of taxes. I’m going to give free college to anyone who wants it, except whites to eliminate white privilege. I’m going to nationalize the insurance carriers to turn Obamacare into a single payer system. That will require rationing, so we’ll need to let the feeble die. But don’t worry, I’ll make sure transgenders can get any surgeries they want. I’m going to force hairdressers to charge the same for men and women. I’m going to let all black people out of prison because they’re all innocent. I’m going to make allegations of rape enough to require life in prison without trial. I’m going to start a new government agency to hand out basics to people like milk, cell phones and small-ish cars. I’m going to ban cars. I’m going to build windmills all across the country and then jail the operators of those for killing birds. I’m going to ban airplanes because of contrails. I’m going to ban drones; if we’re going to kill someone, they have the right to a fair chance to kill our pilot! I’m going to open the borders, but only for poor brown people who want welfare and won’t take American jobs. I’m going to impose a tax on Atlanta to pay the budget deficit in Detroit. Is that enough? I’ve got like ten thousand more things if you want to hear them.

Cruz: The American people? I don’t care about them. I just want to be President. Whatever happens after that happens. Most likely, I’ll just shift large amounts of money from the Treasury to my secret accounts, but everybody does that. I’m mainly going to try to destroy the Republicans because they p*ssed me off. After that, I don’t really have any views that interest me.

Rubio: I’m feeling kind of left out here, but there’s really only one thing I can think of. I’m planning to shift large amounts of money from the Treasury to my friends. I know that’s wrong, but everybody does it. Can I have some candy now?

Bloomberg: I have no plans to do anything evil or nasty. I really don’t. I just want to help everyone become a better person, so I will ban anything the media says is unhealthy, like seven ounce or greater portions of meat and anything with transfat or other fat. I’m going to require everyone to wear a fitbit and do two hours of exercise each day. I’m going to ban wrong habits, like sitting, sleeping in late, television watching, NASCAR, masturbation, any sport that can lead to injury or concussion, and reading books with the wrong ideas. To give people an incentive to stay healthy, I’m going to criminalize the getting of cancer or having a body mass index above my own. I’m going to ban guns too and eventually cars; Americans from coast to coast should learn to use the subways. Seriously though, who could object to any of that?

Christie: Honestly, I’m too useless to be evil. I’m just going to go to ballgames, bask in the glow of privilege, occasionally say something nasty to excite the rubes, and let my assistants handle the job. I’m like Michelle Obama, I guess.

Bush: Beats me. I don’t even know why I’m running.

Enlightening, isn’t it?

Thoughts?

Random Thoughts on Snowmaggedon 2016

I had a lot of time stuck inside this weekend during the recent blizzard to think about the anatomy of a pending weather event and how different regions handle these kind of crises. So far since Christmas I have been in two major weather events: The tornadoes that struck the Dallas area on Dec. 26 that killed 11 people and destroyed 400 homes and businesses, and the "Blizzard of The Century Except For The One In 2006 That Was Actually Bigger" this weekend.

Now, I know tornadoes and blizzards are two distinctly different kinds of weather events. Tornadoes can come up quickly and furiously, and are famously unpredictable while with blizzard there is plenty of advanced warning with fairly accurate predictability. Of the two, I prefer to be in a tornado in Texas over a blizzard in New York City. Why? Because of the "whine" factor. God, how New Yorkers can whine. I haven't really heard any whining and complaining from Texans before, during or after a big weather event like I do from New Yorkers. Texans and most other people in other parts of the country deal with what's coming and the aftermath. They pick up the pieces and move on.

(Okay, it is not lost on me the irony that I am whining about their whining...)

Just for a point of reference, anyone remember the devastating tornadoes that hit in the South that preceded the one in Dallas...42 people were killed and thousands of homes and business were destroyed. Have you heard anything about that since it happened? I don't even remember that President Obama did any kind of fly-over to survey the damage. But here in New York City, the whining started from the beginning and continues. It ranges from not doing enough to clear the snow to being too heavy-handed in closing down the streets to non-emergency vehicles. And in DC, it was reported that federal employees got a "snow day" today.

On the lighter side: See the photo above? Those are not zombies walking down my street like I first thought. I have it on really good authority (my learned brother Joel) that zombies do not attack during the cold weather months because they don't like snow and can't wear coats. The weight of the heavy materials causes their limbs to fall off and the hats that their victims wear impede their brain-eating abilities. Phew! Good to know.

And finally I leave you with this bit of trivia which seems to be fitting this political season: Banging your head against a wall uses 150 calories an hour.

The floor is open...

Trump will be an electoral apocalypse for Republicans

By Kit

I would love to sit in the cocoon that a number of Republican politicians and donors have ensconced themselves within. The place must be very nice and cosy along with being safer than the bunker under the White House. Consider the recent opinion of Representative Mike Rogers of Michigan that Trump was picking up “as many Democrats as Republicans”.

True, he wins among blue-collar whites, specifically white males, and loses among just about everybody else: college-educated whites, hispanics (10%!), and his numbers among women are a complete flip of Hillary's.

And if he is the nominee, Hillary will BURY him in ads about that widow he tried to force out of he home, the illegals he hired for Trump tower, and all the other myriad of scandals. You see, Trump has yet to have been actually tested in terms of negative ads. Yes, he has had lots of unpleasant coverage regarding certain comments he has made but he has never faced the withering non-stop barrage of ads and negative coverage of things like Vera Coking that he will endure in the general.

Oh, and Bob Dole, you say that Cruz will lead to “down the ballot losses” for the Republicans. And Trump won’t?

One of the greatest, and most unbelievable, ironies of this race is that usually it’s the establishment pushing the guy who, usually, has the best shot at winning (Romney, McCain). This time, they are pushing the one guy who is destined to be crushed by the Democrats —and cause a “down-the-ballot apocalypse”. It will be a bloodbath. The general electorate doesn’t like him. It’s pretty easy to coast to the GOP nomination when Fox News loves you and the media is being quiet, hoping you coast to the nomination. There is a reason Rubio has, since New Year's, gotten more negative coverage than Trump.

A Donald Trump nomination could nearly wipe out 6 years of electoral progress that captured a slew of state legislatures and governorships and gave us the Senate and House of Representatives back. Yes, we might keep the House, but the Senate?

You really want to gamble some of those brand new 2010 first-termers on Trump?

A Bloomberg run might even grab up a number of Republicans. I know, because I would seriously consider pulling the lever for Bloomberg simply on the grounds that he does not have Hillary’s issues with classified documents and has a better temperament than Donald Trump.

If we nominate Trump we might as well just declare Hillary Clinton President for Life.

Nominating Trump would be the equivalent of the GOP putting a gun to its own head and blowing its brains out. Of course, we all know what will happen afterwards. In a year, maybe two, Trump will be pals with the Democrats again. And Jeanine Pirro, Andrea Tantaros, Bolling, Sean Hannity, and the rest will scratch their heads “How?”

Because he’s a con artist and we are his mark.

National Review Special Issue: Against Trump

By Kit

Homework has forced me to delay my mega-pre-Iowa Caucus post on Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Donald Trump. So, in lieu of that, here is National Review's new special issue on Donald Trump.

With writers ranging from populist Tea Partiers like Glenn Beck and Dana Loesch to intellectuals such as Thomas Sowell and William Kristol. I highly doubt it will much in the way of direct influence on most of the primary voters in places like Iowa and New Hampshire but I hope it might inspire other conservatives to also attack Trump directly.

The Editorial: "Against Trump"

It features this killer line: "Trump is a philosophically unmoored political opportunist who would trash the broad conservative ideological consensus within the GOP in favor of a free-floating populism with strong-man overtones."

The Symposium: "Conservatives against Trump"

Here are some highlights:

First, the best: Thomas Sowell: "What is even more remarkable is that, after seven years of repeated disasters, both domestically and internationally, under a glib egomaniac in the White House, so many potential voters are turning to another glib egomaniac to be his successor."

Brent Bozell III: "A real conservative walks with us. Ronald Reagan read National Review and Human Events for intellectual sustenance; spoke annually to the Conservative Political Action Conference, Young Americans for Freedom, and other organizations to rally the troops; supported Barry Goldwater when the GOP mainstream turned its back on him; raised money for countless conservative groups; wrote hundreds of op-eds; and delivered even more speeches, everywhere championing our cause. Until he decided to run for the GOP nomination a few months ago, Trump had done none of these things, perhaps because he was too distracted publicly raising money for liberals such as the Clintons; championing Planned Parenthood, tax increases, and single-payer health coverage; and demonstrating his allegiance to the Democratic party"

Mona Charen:"We can talk about whether he is a boor (“My fingers are long and beautiful, as, it has been well documented, are various other parts of my body”), a creep (“If Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps I’d be dating her”), or a louse (he tried to bully an elderly woman, Vera Coking, out of her house in Atlantic City because it stood on a spot he wanted to use as a garage). But one thing about which there can be no debate is that Trump is no conservative—he’s simply playing one in the primaries. Call it unreality TV." (Emphasis mine)

The whole thing is worth a read.

Ted Cruz v. NY Values

No doubt by now you have heard over and over how Ted Cruz called Donald Trump out for his "New York values" as a Republican. Cruz' statement was pretty vague as to exactly what he meant by "New York values", but that didn't stop New Yorkers from using their imaginations.

Almost immediately after his vague statement, he was admonished by Trump, Clinton, Gov. Cuomo and NYC Mayor de Blasio to apologize at once for some vaguely veiled insult (mostly not recognizing our great triumph of humanity following the 9/11 attacks) and so he issued one of the best "non-apologies" I have ever heard. It was almost as if he set them up to get the free publicity:

Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton and Andrew Cuomo and Bill de Blasio have all demanded an apology and I'm happy to apologize. I apologize to the millions of New Yorkers who have been let down by liberal politicians in that state. I apologize to the hard working men and women of the state of New York who have been denied jobs because Gov Cuomo won't allow fracking. Even though there had been many high-paying jobs just south in Pennsylvania, New Yorkers are denied the ability to provide for their families. I apologize to all of the pro-life and pro-marriage and pro-Second Amendment New Yorkers who are told by Governor Cuomo that they have no place in New York because that's not who New Yorkers are. I apologize to all of the small businesses who have been driven out of New York City by crushing taxes and regulations.

I apologize to all of the African-American children who Mayor de Blasio tried to throw out of their charter schools that were providing a lifeline to the American dream. And I apologize to all of the cops and the firefighters and 9/11 heroes who had no choice but to stand turn their backs on Mayor de Blasio, because Mayor de Blasio over and over again stands with the looters and criminals rather than the brave men and women of the law.

For the record, I immediately knew exactly what Cruz meant the first time he used the phrase. I have lived in NYC for 27 years and, as I have stated over and over to my conservative friends who live in more conservative parts of the country, being a "Republican" in New York is much different than being a "Republican" in, say, Oklahoma. In any other place, New York Republicans would be considered at best centrists or even just plain liberals. We are pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, fiscal conservatives.
Well, here's just an example of the Daily News who took great insult to Cruz's value judgment:

And that wasn't even the best (or worst) they could do. What I find really entertaining is how really thin-skinned NY'ers have been about this. Even to go so far as to invoke the horrible days following the 9/11 attacks over 14 years ago to prove how much better we are than the rest of the country. Funny, that they are constantly forgetting that there are actually people who live happily within the oft-forgotten fly-over states between NYC and LA. If you want a taste, just read what Mike Lupica wrote in the NY Daily News today. For some reason ol' Mike (former sportswriter-turned-political analyst). Phony Ted Cruz is the great pretender to the presidency If you read this article, about half way down you will understand exactly why New Yorkers are perceived the way they are with this choice phrase "...trying to make political hay with hayseeds and with New Yorkers..." Yeah, that's the NY I know...

Just as a side note: Just a warning to Trump, Cuomo, Clinton and De Blasio, don't ever get in a debate with a Texan about which state is the greatest. As a Texan myself, we have been fully indoctrinated from early childhood to call it "The Great State Of Texas" for a reason.

MLK'S Dream Is Coming True

With Martin Luther King day here, it’s interesting to note once more just how little race seems to matter anymore. Actually, let me rephrase that. It’s interesting how much the charge of racism no longer matters. Consider this:

Michael Moore is in Michigan falsely accusing the Governor of letting the city of Flint send dirty water through its pipes to its citizens because they’re black. The national response has been to yawn and ignore him.

The whole “police hunting black men” thing seems to have faded with no real changes outside of a few blame-game actions in Chicago. So much for national outrage. So much for restarting a Civil Rights Movement. So much for changing the way the police do their job.

What’s more, Quentin Tarantino’s decision to demagogue on that issue has caused his latest film to fall flat with projections of a $100 million box office in the US falling to $40 million despite critical praise and a high audience rating. Whoops.

The Oscars have again become an all white affair... silly ‘non-racist’ liberals! The President of the Academy has claimed to be saddened by this, but no one has been punished. A few journalists have asked if people will be upset by this, but essentially are giving it a pass. A few black actors, like Jada Pinkett Smith are wondering if they should boycott, but not seriously. Even host Chris Rock has turned this into a comic affair, referring to the Oscars as “the white BET awards,” which is actually a double-edged joke as it points out that blacks have racially separate awards.

So what is going on?

As I’ve maintained for some time, the public has stopped caring about this as an issue. They do care about genuine outrages, but they no longer care or pay attention to made-up outrages like not getting nominated for a widely-voted upon award, and they don’t care if you can’t provide real proof of racist intent. What’s more, the public seems willing to punish those like Tarantino for muck racking and for inventing claims of racism.

This is a good thing. By making the accuser bring actual proof and show a genuine injury, and by punishing those who would try to use these types of claims to aggrandize themselves, what you are seeing is the issue of racism losing its place in our society as a “societal issue” and instead becoming like any other dispute between individuals. That in turn means that we are getting ever closer to judging the men and women in our world according to their merits rather than the color of their skin.

Maybe Martin Luther King’s dream is coming true after all?

Post-Powerball Mania Open Thread

By the time you read this, I will have won the Powerball lottery and planning what I am going to with all that money after Fed, State, and local tax guys take their hefty cut.

Let's face it, for all of the dreamers who played this lottery, we all have fantasies about what we would do if we suddenly came into so much money that we would never have to worry about paying the bills again. I know what I would do. I would start an employment agency that places people over 50 in meaningful employment, after I went to Disney World. Oh, yeah, and WORLD PEACE! But for the sake of another topic, What would you do?

And if that doesn't interest you...

A lawsuit was filed in NY County yesterday In NY County that caught my eye. A woman has filed a lawsuit against The Feminist Press published by City University of NY claiming "employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Defendants fired plaintiff, the last female employee who identified as lesbian at the Feminist Press, after its executive director said the publication was "too lesbian" and was in need "a change of direction." It is actually reassuring that liberal grievance groups are now beginning to feed on each other.

As always, feel free to change the subject at will.

Democrats: The Shell Party

I’ve seen several interesting articles of late which highlight just how badly off the Democrats are right now. Consider this...

● “A Shell Party”: 70% of state legislatures, 60% of governorships, 55% of attorney’s general and secretaries of state are under Republican control. Single-party Republican control exists in 25 states; Democrats control only seven states. Add the Congress, the Senate and the Supreme Court and the Democrats have a serious problem. Indeed, all told, the Democrats control almost nothing in this country. Said Gil Troy, a presidential historian and professor of history, of this situation:

“There’s this illusion because these days so much of the press is nationalized—there’s an illusion of Democratic strength. ... [A] Democratic Party that both loses nationally and two-thirds of state houses and governorships is very much a shell party.”

Yep. Having such a small power base and little chance to change this, the Democrats are essentially a regional party. What's worse for them, even though they may control a few states and may be able to obstruct in a few others, because of their own prior efforts, the states no longer have much power to control their own destinies. That's all done at the national level, where the Democrats have no power. So their seven state control is truly meaningless. Further, even though they currently hold the White House, that's a dead end for power. The White House can’t make law or spend money without permission and the courts have been preventing any expansion of that. Hence, the Democrats have almost no ability to shape America at this point.

● Why This Election Matters: Things are going poorly for the Democrats, but this election is still vital for one reason: the Supreme Court. Right now, the court has four liberals, four conservatives and one mostly-conservative swing vote. Two conservatives are 79 and one liberal is 82. A GOP victory could protect the conservative majority for our lifetimes and extend it by a justice or two. That would be the end of any power the liberals could claim through the court for a generation at least. On the other hand, a liberal victory could shift the court to the left for several years, and could be a disaster if Scalia and Kennedy both retire and maybe another conservative dies or retires.

That is the real gem over which this election is being fought, and its outcome will be crucial for all the social issues like gays, abortion and religious tolerance, as well as voting rights issues, affirmative action, campaign finance, gun rights, environmental rules and abuses of regulatory power.

● Guess Who’s Missing: An article I read pointed out the lack of power the Democrats have and it concluded: “Public employees, pro-choice activists, organized labor, the gun control movement and environmentalists should be terrified.”

Do you notice what’s missing from that list? Gays. I’m telling you, this is significant. The gays ran away after getting what they wanted and the left has turned on them... just as they are turning on Jews.

The sentence above doesn’t include race baiters either, but they were discussed elsewhere in that particular article. And in that regard, the article talked about the Democratic National Committee being “confident” that Trump will alienate Latinos and Muslims and “will smear a Republican Party already bleeding nonwhites and younger voters.” But here’s the problem with this. First, Romney got only 29% of Hispanics and 7% of blacks. It’s hard to see those numbers falling much further. Indeed, squeezing those numbers much lower is a long shot. Even worse for the Democrats, you’re only talking about six million Hispanics who aren’t voting Democratic and 1.4 million blacks who aren’t voting Democratic. That's only 7.4 million voters they could possibly add if they could do the impossible and get 100% support. At the same time, however, the left is driving away Jews (3-4 million) and has lost gays (10 million). That's upto to 14 million voters they need to replace. They just don't have the numbers to do that. Even worse, everyone of those who shifts to the GOP needs two voters to replace them. This math is ugly for the let.

Further, what this quote about "bleeding nonwhites" misses is that the Democrats are bleeding whites. Every one percent of whites who changes sides represents about a million lost votes for the left and a million gained votes for the right. A four percent shift would mean an eight million swing, which is more than the Democrats could get if they grabbed 100% of all blacks and Hispanics. Again, that's ugly math.


Right now, the Democratic strategy seems to be (1) to hope that Obama’s legacy keeps blacks voting at record numbers, (2) that Bernie Sanders’ appeal to Millennials brings them out for the party, (3) that whites stop fleeing the Democratic party, and (4) that the GOP picks a noxious nominee who turns off the public and brings them out to support the Democrats. The problem with this is that, frankly, blacks turned out in large numbers for Obama because he’s black... Hillary is not. Sander’s appeal is identical to Ron Paul’s, and Paul’s supporters stopped caring the moment Paul left the race. The process of whites fleeing the Democrats will not stop so long as the Democrats sell themselves as a minority party and taut their “demographic destiny.” And the truly noxious GOP candidates, like Santorum, are nonplayers. The only noxious ones left are Bush, who brings fatigue - just like Clinton, and Trump, who alienates specific Democratic groups mainly. So basically, not a single one of the Democrats’ strategies is a valid one.

If I were a Democrat, I would rethink all of this.

Random Stuff...

Just a couple random issues to discuss.

The first this from New York City:

It's hard to believe that it could get any more absurd in NYC, but thank goodness we have our Commission On Human Rights to help. While we were all basking in holiday cheer and not paying attention apparently, the NYC Commission On Human Rights issued new set of guidelines on gender expression.

According to the new guidelines, it is now an actionable offense to address a person by "Miss", "Mr." or by using inappropriate pronouns like "he" or "she" etc. And employers are no longer allowed to require employees to dress within in any gender-normative clothing that goes against the employee's chosen gender "expression". This just in from them under the heading of "GENDER IDENTITY/GENDER EXPRESSION: LEGAL ENFORCEMENT GUIDE" New York City Commission on Human Rights Legal Enforcement Guidance on Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Expression: Local Law No. 3 (2002); N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102

According tot the new guidelines, if your employer requires that women to dress in skirts and men dress in suit and tie...well, you can't do that anymore apparently. All dress codes must be equal. If a person is "transitioning" then they must be allowed to dress the way they want or you will face the wrath of the court system. Each infraction will cost the employer up to $250,000 if a complaint is valid.

Under the heading of Failing To Use an Individual’s Preferred Name or Pronoun:

Examples of Violations

a. Intentional or repeated refusal to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun or title. For example, repeatedly calling a transgender woman “him” or “Mr.” after she has made clear which pronouns and title she uses.

b. Refusal to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun, or title because they do not conform to gender stereotypes. For example, calling a woman “Mr.” because her appearance is aligned with traditional gender-based stereotypes of masculinity.

c. Conditioning an individual’s use of their preferred name on obtaining a court ordered name change or providing identification in that name. For example, a covered entity may not refuse to call a transgender woman her preferred name, Jane, because her identification says that her first name is John.

d. Requiring an individual to provide information about their medical history or proof of having undergone particular medical procedures in order to use their preferred name, pronoun, or title.

So basically, if an potential employer requires proof of your identity and it does not conform to your expression of gender thereby confusing your potential employer, they are no longer allowed to require additional identification. So let's say your government issued ID identifies you as a man, but you are wearing a dress and stiletto heels, your employer or potential employer can no longer require additional ID that would conform with your chosen gender expression. And we wonder as we wander the streets of NYC why there are so many empty storefronts. Oy...

As a gender-normal person (oops, that could cost me $250K), I am now to be known as "cisgendered". When did this get to be a thing? Oh, and just for the record and the law, the title that I shall be forthwith referred by shall be the title of "Her Royal Highness". And if you don't, it will cost you...

And on the national front totally unrelated:

Many Dems are calling for DNC Chairperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz' head. It couldn't possibly be because under her direction, Dems have managed to lose the majority in the US House, Senate, and the majority of state governments too. No, it is apparently because she is too committed to protecting Hillary Clinton from public scutiny by limited the number and timing of presidential debates. All of the debates have been scheduled at inconveniently timed and so far have been sparsely watched by design. The next being this Sunday night on NBC.

As always, please feel free to discuss this or any other topic...

Trump v. Hillary

I’m back from the dead with a new robotic heart... smash humans!! Anyways, here’s an article for you, puny humans! This article is about an article at Politico, which lists the five problems Trump is causing Hillary. It’s an interesting read. It’s actually a strong psychological takedown of Hillary. Here are the points the article makes and my thoughts thereupon.

1. He’s going there on Bill Clinton.

The article first notes that Hillary has been shocked by Trump’s reaction to her husband. Around New Year, Hillary decided to send in Bill to counter Trump and was shocked when Trump counter-attacked by digging up all of Bill’s old sex scandals.

This made me laugh. For one thing, what in the world made Hillary think that Trump wouldn’t go there? Trump has no boundaries, so expecting a boundary is stupid. What’s more, Trump’s playbook has been to go down the list of talk radio grievances and talking points. Clinton’s sex scandals remains a regular part of that agenda. So what could make Hillary think that Trump would somehow omit those?

The real problem is that Hillary didn’t think that Trump’s rapes and affairs would harm her with women voters. It never dawned on her that claiming the status of “champion of silenced rape victims” would appear hypocritical when her own husband was a rapist who silenced and smeared his victims.

2. He’s beating the same media that’s beating her up.

Hillary views herself as the victim of a media conspiracy and she’s been struggling to free herself from the email scandal in particular. Nothing she has done has worked, and she sees much of this nastiness as being personally directed at her. Indeed, she has licked a lot of media ass, and yet the coverage remains hostile and she doesn’t understand why.

Then along comes Trump. Trump abuses the media and mocks them and he seems to suffer no negative consequences from this. At the same time, Trump is apparently good at schmoozing these same reporters he attacks and they seem to have fallen for him. This upsets Hillary.

The article doesn’t put the final point on this, but essentially, the article’s point is that Hillary is jealous. That’s pathetic. Show me a Republican who has ever been treated fairly or even civilly by the media. They didn’t whine about it, nor did they take it personally because that’s part of the territory. Hillary’s real problem is that she’s so utterly unlikable as a human being that a leftist sycophantic media can’t even swallow their personal distaste for her to stop attacking their ally. This issue alone calls into question whether or not she should even be a candidate. It also suggests that she’s blind to how to deal with others.

3. He’s fun.

The article tries to get away with saying that Hillary’s not as “fun” as Trump while denying the necessary conclusion that accompanies this: that Hillary can’t connect with the public. In fact, the article goes out of its way to say the opposite, like where it says that while Hillary’s support is “deeper and (probably) more durable” than Trump’s, the bigger size and greater energy of Trump’s crowd “speaks to her vulnerabilities” without identifying her vulnerabilities.

The obvious conclusion here is that Trump’s support is much more passionate and he connects with the public better. Said conversely, Hillary struggles to connect even with the portion of the public who want to connect with her. So what you have between Point Two and this point is that Hillary rubs her allies so wrong that they want to undermine her and she is so incapable of connecting with the public that she can’t even excite her fans. And that means that she has an electability problem.

4. He’s dumbing everything down.

This is a good one. Hillary apparently runs a brilliant, intellectual campaign in which “her passion is policy.” Trump is an idiot who doesn’t know policy. But idiot Trump is somehow changing the expectations and making people prefer bombast to wonky brilliance and dignity.

Wrong. The idea that voters want substance died a long time ago, and her own husband was part of that. Bill offered saxophone play, interviews asking if he wore boxers or briefs, and a Hollywood-created campaign that was purely about fluff and image. Hell, he even hired someone to make his jeans look worn. There was no substance. And the fact that Hillary doesn’t understand this suggests that she simply doesn’t understand the public or what they want.

What’s more, the things she’s offered as substance are all well-settled opinions on the left by the time she offers them. That means she’s not some brilliant intellectual, she’s a bandwagoner.

5. He’s a huge distraction.

Finally, according to the article, Hillary doesn’t want to respond to Trump because the best way to deal with Trump is to ignore him... as you always do with trolls. Unfortunately, she’s “paranoid” and she “browbeats her staff when they don’t rush to defend her from attacks.” So every time Trump says anything, the Clinton machine jumps into action and fights back, thereby helping Trump and making him more and more relevant.

The key point here is that Hillary is apparently so insecure that she freaks out when her own people don’t defend her. This reeks of a bunker mentality and it suggests that Hillary doesn’t have the thick skin she needs to succeed in politics.

You know, this article actually offered a devastating assessment of Hillary the candidate, even if the article never quite realized what it was saying. It tells us that she’s paranoid, so thin-skinned she can’t let any insult go unchallenged, undisciplined, takes everything personally, can’t relate to staff, allies or even her fans, and has no clue what they public really wants. Is it any wonder she’s perhaps the worst front-runner ever?

Weekend Thoughts: 2016 January 8: Cologne

The story broke around January 3: a large group of “Arab and Middle Eastern men” had sexually assaulted the women participating in the New Year’s Eve celebrations in Cologne, Germany. Then it got bigger, over a hundred complaints filed to police, with half of them alleging sexual assault, and police looking into 1,000 suspects. It also appeared that this was in someways pre-planned with one group setting off fireworks to distract police while others carried out the assaults.

At first, the German government and the officials in Cologne specifically stated there was no evidence that any of them were refugees. Then Der Spiegel (Germany’s major paper of record) ran a story about the their behavior and the way they taunted the police in Cologne, with one tearing up his residential papers in front of a police officer stating, “I’ll get another one tomorrow” and another telling officers, “You have to treat me kindly. Mrs. Merkel invited me”. Given the huge welcoming mat the German government, Mrs. Merkel especially, put out for the refugees, you can see how such comments might be a problem.

Amidst accusations of a cover-up by the city officials in Cologne they proceeded to dig themselves even deeper. The pro-refugee mayor of Cologne, Henriette Reker, proceeded to make things worse by giving some advice —to Cologne’s women. Such advice consisted of a few reasonable ideas such as go to the police immediately but also had such ideas as women should keep an “arm’s length” away from male strangers and “Women would also be smart not to go and embrace everyone that you meet and who seems to be nice. Such offers could be misunderstood, and that is something every woman and every girl should protect herself from” and how Germany had “to explain to people from other cultures that the jolly and frisky attitude during our Carnival is not a sign of sexual openness.”

The people were not amused. One fellow on twitter wrote (I’m reciting from memory), “That awkward moment when you have to explain to migrants your cultural values include not gang-raping a woman in the town square.” The thoughts in Germany, I am told, were less charitable.

And it only got bigger. Allegations of a cover-up by the city officials in Cologne, reports (in the Der Spiegel story) that it is unlikely that most, or even all, of the perpetrators will be arrested since it happened in night and in a huge crowd, and reports of similar events occurring in other cities as well. You can feel the nationalist politicians picking up votes.

Meanwhile, those of us who warned about the dangers of bringing in large numbers of refugees due to concerns about assimilation, the ability to properly vet them, and whether or not they could be adequately managed and were called evil, racist bigots as a result are shaking our heads. I recall one Christian magazine* even responding to such concerns by asking “Does God want us to be safe?” An easy thing to say when you are not being shot at during a Christmas party or dodging rapists at a New Year’s Eve celebration in the town square.

Maybe, instead of dismissing our concerns as simply merely “stupid bigotry” the next time a debate like this comes up liberals could try listening to our concerns on the grounds that we may actually have a point once in a while.


*I was sure it was Christianity Today but I cant find it there. When I do, I'll post which one.

The Donald v. Bill Clinton

If you have been following Hillary Clinton's campaign in the last few months, she is clearly working the "I have a vagina so vote for me" angle. This a statement that she made in Iowa in September and has continued to reiterate since:

"Today I want to send a message to every survivor of sexual assault. Don't let anyone silence your voice. You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed and we're with you."

"There is a big divide between survivors who do not want to seek the criminal justice system for different reasons and those who want to but are not sure that it would be responsive. So we need to do a much better job on the fairness of the response so that people feel like whichever route they go on campus or off they're going to be taken seriously, that doesn't mean that, you know, that there's no process. There has to be one."

It is a breathtakingly strong statement coming from Bill Clinton's wife.

Over Christmas, it got heated between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton when she accused The Donald of being a sexist. Trump warned her not to go there, because he surely would not hold back and Bill CLinton's record on women would be "fair game". So, in a fit of what I can only describe as demented insanity, Clinton campaign gurus decided this would be a good time to send her husband, Bill Clinton out to stump for her.

Now, I don't agree with Donald Trump much. But on this one issue, I agree with him 100%. Unlike any other candidate's spouse in my lifetime where they have been in the background and untouchable, Bill Clinton and his serial sexual predatory proclivities are fair game. As a former sitting President who was impeached for lying under oath in a case in which he was accused of sexually harassing (and some would "assaulting") a woman in which he paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to shut up, is a fair game. And if Hillary Clinton the candidate who has spent decades making sure that Bill's victims were silenced by any means possible, is going to be pursuing her "if you don't vote for me, it is because I am woman" campaign strategy, then Bill Clinton's record should certainly be fair game. At least 14 women who have accused him of sexual harassment, assault, and unwanted dropping of pants would agree.

Any questions?

Oh, and then there's this - North Korea announced that they have successfully tested a hydrogen bomb. President Obama stated emphatically that "the US would not accept North Korea as a nuclear state". Well, that's telling 'em!

Obama v. Guns: Round 412

"First graders in [Sandy Hook Elementary]. First graders," Obama said, pausing to collect himself. "Every time I think about those kids, it gets me mad."

But apparently, he’s not mad enough to actually try to solve the problem. Instead, he seems happy to just use his anger to push a worthless, politicized agenda that will have absolutely no effect on the problem he claims to be angry about. Does that make him a liar or just stupid? Who knows? In any event, Obama's back on guns. Once again, he has turned his lazy, brainless efforts to gun control because he somehow believes that imposing more laws on those who would obey them will somehow prevent crazy people and lawless thugs from misusing guns.

Unfortunately for Obama, (1) life doesn’t work that way, (2) his opponents aren’t going to sit still and let him do something to eliminate their rights in the name of not fixing a problem for which his people are to blame (i.e. news media, Hollywood, the thugs the left coddles and excuses).

Obama was also dishonest in his salesmanship. For example, Obama lumped suicides, domestic violence, gang shootings and accidents together to claim that every year more than 30,000 Americans die from gun shot wounds. That’s hardly an accurate assessment however, as suicide accounts for around 22,000 of those... or 74%. Those people did not hurt anyone else in their actions, and for people who advocate euthanasia, it’s rather hypocritical to count them. About a thousand more are shot by police. That leaves 7,000 people as victims of domestic violence, gang shootings and accidents. Seeing as how there are 2.6 million deaths a year, that means guns account for about 0.2% of unwanted deaths.

He also claimed that mass shootings have taken place as people “tried to exercise other rights, such as attending worship services or watching a movie” (which I didn’t know what a right), and he argued that “the right to bear firearms is not more important than the right to worship freely or peaceably assemble.” This is an intentionally misleading statement. First, these killers are not exercising their “right to bear firearms,” they are completely in violation of the law and they are not making any sort of political statement about guns. This is the equivalent of saying that lynchings are people exercising “their right to free assembly.”

Secondly, all the rights are co-equal. And what he’s suggesting is actually that certain rights have the right to eliminate other rights. This is like saying that it’s acceptable to eliminate the right to religious freedom to ensure that people of certain beliefs can exercise the right without having to hear opposing views. Are we to ban atheists’ first amendment rights to make sure that fundamentalist Christians can meet in peace?

Anyways, having started with two misleading dollops of horse poop, here is what Obama plans. His plan supposedly includes ten provisions, but I only found seven:

(1) Online gun sellers and gun show sellers must be licensed and will need to conduct background checks.

(2) Manufacturers who lose guns in transit must now report those to federal authorities.

(3) Obama plans to send $500 million to treat mental illness.

(4) Obama will hire 230 more people at the FBI to process background checks.

(5) ATFe will establish a new investigation center to track illegal gun trafficking online. This apparently including hiring 200 new ATF agents.

(6) Obama will send $4 million to enhance the National Integrated Ballistics Information Network.

(7) Obama plans to get unnamed people to explore promoting magical new technologies that don't exist yet to prevent guns from going off accidentally. Maybe something like a cell phone app.

Interestingly, Obama admits that they have no idea how many people are actually buying guns without background checks, so number one is a shot in the dark. Moreover, not a single weapon used in any mass killing has come from such a sale, so it’s a bit like banning the sale of camels in the event someone decides to start using them as getaway vehicles.

Number two is not something that I’m aware of ever happening before. Why would a manufacturer ignore the loss when they can report it to get their insurer to cover the cost and can get the cops to find the guns for them? Number 3 is so unfocused as to be meaningless. “I will cure ill health to prevent NFL concussions!” Hiring more people is a standard response by government types. If it ain’t workin’, get more people to do the same thing! Yeah, that works. Number six sounds like something the police have probably been demanding for some time. And number seven is wishful thinking... “wouldn’t it be great if we had a perfect world? We should make that happen!”

All told, I am not impressed and I can’t imagine anyone left, right, or center will be. Are you?

Fresh Idiocy For The New Year!

Here are some thoughts about some of the idiocy of last week.

● Ape the Ape: This week, a video came out from some conservation group using Koko the gorilla. In the video, Koko appears to say:

“I am gorilla. I am flowers, animals. I am nature. Koko love man. Earth Koko love. But man stupid... stupid! Koko sorry. Koko cry. Time hurry. Fix Earth! Help Earth! Protect Earth. Nature watches you. Thank you.”

It’s not entirely clear if this was scripted and Koko just mindlessly “read” this or if this was supposed to be Koko’s answer. Either way, it’s clear that these were not organic thoughts from a gorilla. How can I say that? Well, for one thing, it requires a greater awareness than animals are generally capable of. Indeed, I can assure you that no gorilla is aware of the concept of “the Earth.” No gorilla has a concept of time and deadlines. I doubt a gorilla would understand that man has done anything to earth beyond what they’ve seen personally or that this can be “fixed” or that man can fix it.

So what is this? This is liberalism and we’ve seen it many time before. We’ve seen it every time some child suddenly whips out a poster attacking some liberal bogeyman or espousing some liberal ideological point. They have been programmed by overzealous parents who see them as useful tools to push their ideology, just as the trainers here saw Koko. It is mental exploitation... brainwashing. Shameful.

● Hypocritical 8: Speaking of shameful, Quentin Tarantino is on a role. Having just slandered the police with false claims of police brutality mixed with hateful hyperbole, Taranitno is now “bravely” attacking the Confederate flag as “the American swastika.” Putting his ignorance aside, I am amazed at his hypocrisy. Keep in mind that this is a man who uses the word “nigger” as a way to give his movies controversy. This is a man who has spent a lifetime selling gun violence, torture and sadistic murder as the key to being cool. How many people do you think have died because his films inspired little monsters to prove how cool they are through violence? I’ll bet it’s a lot more than have died for the Confederate flag lately... or even than have died at the hands of the police. A~~hole.

● Yawnovich: Comrade Putin this week declared the United States to be a danger to the Soviet Union Russia. Yawn. What this is, is an attempt to sell the idea to a Russian public that is suffering through a massive recession as the price of oil (their only export) crashes to a third of its former value, that Putin has achieved something on the world stage. He’s made them important again. Unfortunately for him, that’s not true. His army, apart from some decent special forces units, remains conscript, ill-equipped and poorly trained. His navy is barely seas worthy and can’t operate away from his own shores or friendly bases. His air force is proving to be second rate. And his economy is sclerotic and lacks the legal protections needed to allow long term growth. Add in that his only allies are Syria, Iran and American Talk Radio and that do not a world power make.

● Energized Uselessness: Obama has returned from Hawaii and claims to be energized to do ____ during his last year in office. He seems to say this every year, but he hasn’t yet figured out the problem. Despite talk of the Imperial Presidency, there is no such thing. A President simply cannot make law. Indeed, as Obama should have learned, the courts have struck done every single thing he’s tried to do without the Congress. Nothing he does the rest of this year will end any differently.

In any event, his first order of business will be to attack guns. Indeed, as we speak, he’s planning to sit down with his Attorney General and come up with a list of things they can do to take away guns. Call me crazy, but I’m betting this is where Obama wished he’d appointed someone smarter.

Thoughts?