The March to Our Demise

Danial Greenfield has a good post here on how the March for Our Lives is not really a youth movement.

He's right of course. As he explains, the March for Our Lives is actually a middle aged leftist attempt to recreate the pretense of an idealistic youth movement struggling against the injustice of the controlling adult establishment. These marchers are the prodigy of the hippies and beatniks of the sixties and seventies which led to the student rebellion.

I lived through those times and can assure you the student rebellion was anything but idealistic. On the surface it seemed a rejection of ideas and ideals as such.  Proclaiming their rejection of America's founding principle of individual rights, they carried signs saying "I'd rather be red (communist) than dead." Rejecting thinking is terms of principles, their signs unashamedly announced "If it feels good, do it" testifying to their new allegiance to hedonism and nihilism.

But that's the surface appearance. Principles were indeed involved, the political principle of collectivism known as communism and the moral principle of human sacrifice known as altruism were taught then and still being taught to students today.

It may seem ironic to see the Main Stream Media (MSM) championing the anti establishment protests in light of the fact that ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and MSNBC are the establishment media who have been promoting all the self defense-free school zones and other assorted government controls over citizens. But it's not ironic at all.

The MSM is safe for now. Theirs is not the establishment to be brought down by the protestors. The real target is the Constitutional establishment of individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Gun control/restriction/confiscation is the tool to do it. They know that if you don't have the right to defend your life, you don't have a right to life. That is the goal of gun control; your right to life in their hands not yours.

Washington D.C. is the Most Unequal City in America

He's right that the leftist Democrats actually hate the middle class. All dictatorships that aren't totalitarian are in the process of destroying what's left of their middle class just as Venezuela is now. "Inequality" is a cognitive corruption designed to replace the valid meaning of equality under the law with equality of outcomes. This in turn is designed to wipe out in the minds of the public the difference between the earned and the unearned just as it's been wiped out in theirs.

Washington D.C. is the Most Unequal City in America

Who Runs March for Our Lives?

As the saying goes, if you want to know the truth, follow the money.

Who Runs March for Our Lives?

What's not surprising (in politics) is...

The day after the Winter Olympics convened in South Korea the news media was all abuzz about North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un's sister Kim Yo Jong, who was in attendance. Videos showed Ms Kim Yo Jong seating just behind US vice-president Mike Pence.

The media complained that Pence made no attempt to reach out to or communicate with her. I for one was glad to see he didn't. I'm tired of watching our past leaders getting chummy with the world's bloodiest dictators.

But the biggest surprise to me was the reaction of the conservative media to the MSM's fawning over Ms Kim Yo Jong. Hannity and others at Fox expressed "shocking" and "stunning" as descriptors of the MSM's adoration. But it made perfect sense to me.

You see, Ms Kim Yo Jong is the propaganda minister for her brother's totalitarian dictatorship. Our MSM are propaganda ministers for the Democrat Party who wants to establish its own socialist dictatorship here. The MSM sees her as an ideological and political soulmate, as one of them.

They drool over her because she has what they all want: to have the ear of the emperor who will then force their view of reality on an entire nation. That they look at her longingly is not surprising at all.

More thoughts on 2018 SOTU

One of the things that surprised me about the Democrat's reaction to President Trumps SOTU speech was the complete lack of approval or respect for the fact that black unemployment was at an all time low. You would think they would applaud such news. They didn't.

 I saw two members of the Congressional Black Caucus mildly and briefly applaud while sitting. This tells me that most of the Caucus really does not care about the welfare of blacks as such. But only about loyalty to the Democrat Party line.

Another thing I saw was one Democrat Senator briefly stand to applaud one of Mr Trump's achievements only to quickly sit back down when he noticed Sen Schumer was looking at him stoically. This is seriously troubling.

Now I believe there are honest people in the Democrat Party who would be willing to recognize and support truth when they see it. But they are intimidated by the partisan hardliners in the Party leadership.

This reminds me of the behavior of totalitarian regimes like communist China and Soviet Russia as well as Nazi Germany. Whenever a party officer said anything to another citizen it was received as gospel. You did not question or depart in any way from the Party line.

 It is this lust for totalitarian control I saw on display by the Democrats during the SOTU. No Democrat was allowed to grant any respect or acknowledgement to anything Mr Trump said regardless of how much citizens benefited.

It was as if they were saying in unison "We don't care how much Donald Trump seems to be  benefiting Americans. He isn't. We know what is good for them and Trump is preventing us from bestowing that goodness on them. He has no business letting them keep more of their money. We need that money in order to care and provide for them."

I had the thought that the Democrats actually wanted the cameras focused on them in order to show their hatred for those who voted for Trump, as if to say "This is what we think of you voting for him."

It's obvious to me that the Democratic Party has allowed itself to be corrupted by the lust for power, the power of control. They thought they were about to get their socialist utopia with Hillary as their president.

The groundwork for that utopia has already been laid. President Obama had no problem forcing citizens to purchase his idea of health insurance and fining them for disobedience, which is exactly what dictators do. The Party leadership hailed it. Not one republican voted for it.

When you consider the disrespect for life in Hillary's "What difference at this point does it make?" and AG Loretta Lynch's meeting with Bill Clinton on the tarmac while Hillary was under investigation, and Comey's in-your-face dishonesty changing Hillary's crime from gross negligence to extreme carelessness, and the DNC's funding of the fake Dossier and on and on, there is no doubt that Americans will have hell to pay the next time Democrats regain all three branches of government.

The Party's contempt for the Constitution and the American people is on display for all to see. My biggest fear is that President Trump's inability to think and talk in terms of fundamental principles will give the Democrats and the MSM another chance at total control. America is not suffering from bad deals, but from bad philosophic premises.

The Kidnappings Americans Won't Do

 "According to the Center for Immigration Studies, 42.4 percent of federal kidnapping convictions are of non-citizens. Non-citizens also account for 31.5 percent of federal drug convictions. Even though they’re only 8.4% of the population. Obviously there aren’t enough Americans to commit these crimes. "



The Kidnappings Americans Won't Do

President Trump's first SOTU

I watched President Trump's SOTU Tuesday. Here are my initial impressions.

I thought Trump did a good job of appealing to his base and to most who voted for him in 2016.  There were lots of things to like. For example:

Cutting regulations on business.

Cutting taxes on everyone.

Restoring our military strength.

And I really liked his claim that weakness invites aggression. That is so true.

There were others but not to create a long list I'll defer for now.

I don't like his idea of tariffs as something good. They are not of course because they raise the price of goods to American consumers.

But Trump pretty much stayed loyal to his agenda of Making America Great Again (MAGA). He did make several invitations to the Democrats to join him in bipartisan efforts to MAGA but looking at the reaction of those Democrats to Trump's list of accomplishments it was obvious the Democrats wanted nothing to do with anything bipartisan.

The Dems sat through all of the ovations Trump received. One media pundit said the Dems all looked like their dog just died. Well it did die actually, on Nov 8th 2016 and they still haven't got over it.

But I'm becoming convinced that the Democrats have no intention of getting over it. They don't see anything to get over. They feel cheated and like little children who are frustrated that reality is not conforming to their world view, they want to pick up their ball and go home. No teamwork for them.

I also saw the Democrat response  by Joe Kennedy 111. I felt like I was watching an audition for a future presidential run. It was the standard Marxist talking points of class warfare, of victims and oppressors, of haves and have nots with Donald Trump as the symbol of the haves and oppressors.

But that's just it. Trump is just a symbol of their hatred, not the essence. That essence is the voters who voted for him. They are the real object of Democrat hatred.

I can't tell what the Dems will adopt as their strategy going forward. It looks right now like they will rely on the midterm elections and continue to try and get him out of office any way possible. They won't give up on their socialist utopia. More analyses to follow in next post.

A Year of Russian Collusion

Good post on the real colluders.

A Year of Russian Collusion

The real racists

Ever since President Trump was alleged to have said something like "Why are we letting in people from s***holes like Haiti and other African nations instead of nations like Norway?" the MSM has been going nuts with charges of racism. ( I say alleged because Trump denies saying it and two other senators in attendance said they heard no such thing.) But let's suppose he did.

I'm willing to bet that none of these MSM types can give a definition of racism. So here is one I'm using: To attach political, social or moral values to a person's race is racism. It is to say that his ideas and values are determined not by his own choices and ideas, but by a long line of ancestors over which he had no control. But Trump never mentioned anyone's race or skin color. The media and Democrats couldn't wait to scream it. To them, race is important. That is racism.

If you look at those--I will call them crap hole--countries compared to Norway you'll see major differences in economic status and political ideology and even industrial and technological advancement. Many of these African countries are in fact economic, political and social hell holes. Some still practice slavery. So in what context did Trump intend his descriptor? He didn't say.

And the news media didn't care to ask. Like Pavlov's dog their conditioned reflex was to shout "racist" regardless of any evidence.  Are we to ignore all the other contexts such as political, social and economic and focus only on racism? Evidently, yes. And here is why.

It's the only context the Democrats and media have any use for.  They can use it to attack Trump as a racist in hopes that it will evoke a feeling of condemnation in the populace which will then result in Trump being kicked out of office or at least Democrat victories in 2018 midterms.

But many of the ignorant unwashed masses aren't as ignorant and unwashed as before. They are beginning to see through the racist charges. They see that Trump won the Ellis Island award for outstanding philanthropy for immigrants and minorities on the same day as Rosa Parks and Mohamed Ali.

They see that Trump employed many minority workers in his empire. It was reported recently that Trump donated some money to Haiti following the earthquake. They are noticing that Trump was never called a racist while in the public view for over 30 years until he decided to run for office and beat a Democrat. That automatically made him a racist in the MSM's bird's eye-and brain-world view.

To me, disgusting is the spectacle  of a whole class of educated people in the MSM and academia who have been indoctrinated with the notion that if we don't call a crap hole a crap hole then it won't be a crap hole. Isn't that wonderful? Now we don't have to be concerned with questions like how did it become a crap hole. Nor do we need to ask where are all those houses the Clinton Foundation was supposed to have built and where did that money go?

What we are seeing in the media is the latest generation of cognitive children stamping their feet and screaming at the sky in a tantrum over a reality their professors told them is not supposed to exist.

They really don't hate Trump the man as such. They hate what he represents; the voters who have rejected their entire world view. This they see as intolerable. To destroy Trump would be to punch all those voters in the face. It's what they want, vehemently.

Judging by the high level of emotional hatred spewing from the mouths of the media and politicians daily, I fear for when the next Democrat takes office. He or she, will be tough even brutal towards all the voters who denied them their socialist utopia. Attempts to further restrict free speech will be made. They will no longer tolerate any dissent from that totalitarian world view.

It's sickening to hear Democrats and the media yell 'racist' when theirs is the party of slavery, the Klan and Jim Crow. They are the real racists.

Just doing his anti-tax cut job

My local Detroit suburban county newspaper the Macomb Daily carried an article by Bill Press writing for the Tribune Content Agency in the Daily's Dec 26th edition. According to the article Mr Press has his own radio show and is a CNN contributor.

His Marxist ideology is revealed in the title of his post: "A tax bill only millionaires could love." This is another version of the poor are poor because the rich are rich mantra. It was Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto that formulated the dogma of hatred of the rich to a modern, global movement.

But government promotion of hatred of the rich has been around in one form or another for centuries. In their book "Forty centuries of wage and price controls: how not to fight inflation"  authors Robert Schuettinger and Eamon Butler report on ancient Greece:

   "But Lysias was not the first and he was hardly the last politician to court popularity by promising the people lower prices in times of scarcity if only they put an occasional merchant to the sword. The Athenian government, in fact, went so far as to execute its own inspectors when their price-enforcing zeal flagged. Despite the high mortality rates for merchants and bureaucrats alike, the price of grain continued to rise when supplies were short and continued to fall when supply was plentiful." (page 16, book available online).

In fact the authors go back to 2000 BC showing how businessmen were routinely scapegoated for economic failures like wage and price controls. Nothing much has changed since.

In that misguided tradition Mr Press says about the GOP tax cuts:

"The GOP plan's based on two assumptions, both of which are demonstrably wrong.

First, that the more money you give the wealthiest Americans, the more money "trickles down" to the middle class.

Second myth: that cutting corporate taxes will result in new investment, more jobs and higher wages, which again, is pure hogwash."

Let's look at the first claim and please consider the implied meaning of the phrase "money you give the wealthiest Americans." This means that taking less in forced taxation from those who earned it is in fact, not taking less but rather is a gift from the government.

The premise here is that the money earned by the wealthy (and everyone else) actually belongs to the government. It's no different than a thug who robs you of $100 every week and decides to take only $80 dollars from now on. He declares that he is not taking less of your money but instead is making you a gift of his money.

The last part of that sentence "the more money "trickles down" to the middle class" is in my book  a smear word designed to downplay any and all benefits to the middle class that may come from more freedom or less taxes or less regulations i.e. from a freer market. We are supposed to believe that only the government can provide non-trickle down benefits.

The concept "trickle down" is meant to imply a benefit that is next to worthless or irrelevant or trivial. But I can assure you that those thousands of workers that just got $1000 Christmas bonuses do not see them as negligible. Nor is it likely a family of four who are now getting a $1000 deduction for each child will regard a $2000 deduction for each child as trivial.

As to Press's second point that lower taxes don't increase investment or create new jobs. Well that is real hogwash. Those increases happened when Kennedy cut taxes, again when Reagan did it and it will happen again with Trump's cuts. To believe Mr Press you'd have to believe that the rich hide their money under mattresses making that money unavailable to the market.

 If they just put their money in the bank, the bank then lends it out to promising prospects such as existing businesses wanting to expand or new startups with sound business plans. Even when the rich just invest in mutual funds, those funds buy stocks in companies that use that investment to expand or diversify or pay dividends to investors. Many middle class people invest in those funds. The notion that these activities don't benefit workers in any way is absurd on the face of it.

It's no secret that the MSM is in the back pocket of the Democrat Party and have been since FDR. It's the media's job to poo-poo everything republican, conservative, and individualist. Mr Press is just doing his anti-tax cut job.

Is there anything wrong with the bill? Yes. It's not accompanied by any serious spending cuts. That needs to be fixed.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/h_l_mencken_101109

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/h_l_mencken_101109

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/h_l_mencken_101109

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/h_l_mencken_101109

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/h_l_mencken_101109