Harsh Reality

Friday, December 28, 2018

Leftist Media So Twisted Up, It Would Be Easier to Just Say: "Whatever President Trump is Doing is Horrible!"

The poor major media had egg all over their face repeatedly this week in their hysterical hatefest on President Trump.

It began with the usual coordinated attacks from every major media outlet, all spewing the same message of how President Trump is a horrible human being today. This is all very lazy. There's no effort whatsoever required to write these storylines. Just look at whatever the President is doing, consult colleagues at all the other major news outfits (I'm sure they've got something set up like the Journo-List they had a few years ago, before somebody let that cat out of the bag), get the talking points they're supposed to push about how he's incompetent or dangerous or stupid or hated by everyone, etc. And then just have your talking head say the exact, identical things the talking heads are saying on all the other major media, feel smug and call it a day. Easy peezy.

Monday was Christmas Eve, so the media all decided to go into the holiday by bashing President Trump for not visiting U.S. troops stationed overseas. As if the media cared about troops. That began a dizzying back-and-forth where the media spent the next 72 hours chasing their tail trying to insult and criticize the President, but looking foolish over and over.

I'd like to credit President Trump for outmaneuvering the media - yet again, but I honestly think the egg on their face was more a result of their mindless hate of the man. It's as if they've been driven insane with jealousy and rage, to the point they can't even view their own crazy reporting through any kind of rational lens. Trump Derangement Syndrome is a very real phenomenon. And it doesn't help that, not only is it a very fashionable mental disorder to have, it's sufferers tend to cluster together and only work, live and socialize with others suffering from the same illness. Anytime they come in contact with someone not afflicted with TDS, they label such rational worldview as "hate speech" and make sure to ban that person from speaking. They also believe everyone outside their cocoon must also have TDS. This is how the entire American journalism and political establishment could say with such confidence as late as mid-evening on election night that Hillary Clinton would win the presidential election in a massive landslide. In the warped reality inhabited by these poor souls, that was true. It just wasn't true in the real world. Just like their reporting on everything since Donald Trump was elected.

It's this clash of the real world with the fantasy world where leftists live that drives them more insane than ever. When their smug disdain for those of us outside their privileged circle of special people smashes into reality and they're forced to face the fact they were wrong about something or they're not as smart as they pretended to be, they come completely unglued and lash out. This is the insanity they've lived in since June 2015 when the media began noticing they can't destroy Donald Trump the way they did all the cuck Republicans since Ronald Reagan. And their derangement went nuclear after Election Day in 2016.

Here's a list of the actual media narratives from this week, beginning on Monday, Christmas Eve:

Donald Trump is the first President to not visit troops overseas in 16 years
The troops don't support President Trump
President Trump only visited troops because he was shamed into doing so by the media;
What is the point of President Trump's visit to troops in Iraq?
Troops' enthusiasm for President Trump violates military rules on politics
President Trump's visit to Iraq was 'disturbingly political';
President Trump simply used troops as a prop to hide that he's a "quivering coward"

The allegations the President had politicized his visit to troops was completely false. Most disappointing are the former high-ranking military retirees who went on record suggesting the troops violated rules on political conduct. Speaking as someone with a professional background as a military attorney on this very topic, it is nowhere near prohibited conduct. Identical visits by George Bush, George W. Bush or Obama were never a problem. I don't recall Clinton ever being in a situation like this, but it wouldn't have been an issue there, either. While it's bad for a media member to put out patently false information, it's far worse for retired military officers to give quotes demonstrating they either have absolutely no idea what they're talking about or they're just so full of hate at this President they're willing to say things they know to be false just to help his political enemies score a point. I was pleased at the coordinated Department of Defense response from legal and public affairs channels to publicly quash the absurd storyline about troops violating the law by having a hat signed. Just one more example of how shameful left and their media is.

The worst example of these leftist media rodents this week was CNN's Jennifer Epstein. She seemed giddy at the prospect of getting American troops in trouble for being excited to see the President. She stalked around the bases visited by the President and photographed troops for her angle they were committing a crime.

Imagine being a U.S. service member overseas. The President of the United States comes to visit on Christmas Day. With him is a gaggle of media who hates him and they hate you for not hating him like they do. Instead of reporting on the visit for the folks back home, they spend their effort intentionally trying to catch a photo of you to use for their narrative you're a criminal and to get you in trouble.

Such is life with a media suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Thursday, December 27, 2018

NFL Owners, Contemptuous of Regular People, Forced the Choice: America or the NFL

I used to watch every NFL game every week. There might have been a stray game here or there that I missed. But, for the most part, I enjoyed them all. I like the game. Fantasy football was a fun way to make the games more interesting. The games were a built-in excuse to meet up with friends at your local watering hole or at someone's home. I had a local team that I followed for 32 years, through terrible seasons and incredible seasons. I watched the games, attended the games, bought licensed gear, sought out the games when I was traveling and high-fived complete strangers cheering on our shared team.

All that changed in 2016, though.

But, even before that, since at least the 1990s some of the luster had been wearing off the NFL due to their extortion of American cities year after year, demanding ransoms in the form of palatial stadiums few cities could afford. Suites, retractable roofs, every possible luxurious amenity...the owners demanded it all and the league stood behind them. Ready to enforce the nuclear option of moving the team to another city if the taxpayers didn't pony up the mountain of cash.

In one transaction of which I am personally familiar, the team owner extorted such a shameful cornucopia of financial goodies from taxpayers that my wife couldn't stand to watch our local team any longer after that. The owner's compensation package even included an exorbitant cut of every ticket for NON-NFL EVENTS held in the new stadium. A stadium he didn't even own. As a result, when people want to attend a marching band competition or tractor pull or convention in that stadium, the tickets to those events are absurdly expensive because the local NFL owner gets a massive cut of every single ticket. Again, for events having nothing to do with his team in a stadium he demanded the taxpayers build, finance and operate as part of the ransom to keep the team in the city.

Taxes ate away at people's paychecks, city budgets were either strained or constantly in the red...and money was forcibly taken by the government to give to billionaire sports team owners for a place for their multi-millionaire players to play a game.

Then, in 2016, it went to the next level. A certain player in San Fransisco began kneeling on the sideline during the National Anthem to protest America. Liberals like to argue about the motives of the protesting players. But it was aimed at America. That's why it was done while the American flag was unfurled on the field, the National Anthem was being played and people were standing with their hats removed and their hands over their hearts. It was an intentional thumb in the eye. It was a middle finger to Americans and at America. It was meant to be provocative. It was meant to tell Americans how much we are despised and how much our nation is hated. The fact the protesters doubled down on their insult proved as much.

They did all this in the very luxury stadiums that cities were being bankrupted to pay for.

The NFL let that infection spread like cancer around the league.

Ratings crashed and attendance suddenly dropped. The league and other liberals blamed the 2016 presidential election. In 2017, they said even lower numbers were because of Hurricane Irma. They've also used the excuse of "bad matchups", Peyton Manning retiring and too many games. Now that Monday Night Football - the crown jewel in weekly sports broadcasts - has hit new lows, they're blaming Christmas.

Anything but admit the obvious truth.

In the NFL's history there's been a presidential election every four years. There have been lots of hurricanes. Lots of players have retired. And the reason there are so many games is because demand used to be so high. Whether or not players are still kneeling (I don't even know, but it doesn't matter), the league let their players kick the fans in the gut. To my knowledge, no player has apologized and the league has never apologized. Which, after everything they took from taxpayers, is the biggest insult of all.

America-hating leftist NFL owners simply cannot admit they and their players did this to themselves. That people have tuned out and don't care anymore. They have nothing but contempt for the people in the cities where their teams are located. They know they're stupid because there was no ransom those poor suckers wouldn't pay to keep their billionaire from leaving town. There was no 30 year bond too massive or no tax increase so absurd that the locals wouldn't reach deeper into their pockets or their kids' college fund to pay for. And then they ponied up outrageous ticket prices and ridiculous parking fees for the privilege of paying an exorbitant amount for a beer. To sit in a stadium the taxpayers are paying for.

A stadium the players used as their stage to show how much they hate America.

I quit caring altogether during the 2016 preseason when several players on my team showed their contempt for me and other Americans. I never watched another NFL game.

After three seasons without following football, my family remarks on occasion how strange it is that I went from being an avid fan of the NFL and my team to completely not caring. It seems like it would be hard to do, but it wasn't. I simply love my country and my fellow Americans more than I enjoy the NFL.

The NFL and their players forced me to choose. It was an easy choice.

Saturday, December 22, 2018

My Latest National Column at WND...BANNED by Facebook

I was informed by Facebook this morning that my latest column - nationally published at WND.com - about the 'Pence Effect' (men in corporate America and politics adopting Mike Pence's rule of not meeting alone with females) in response to the 'me too' movement - violates their community standards for "hate speech".

My column, linked above, is a discussion at a nationally-recognized independent news site of the Bloomberg article on the same topic.

I appealed the ban, and heard back from Facebook. They said that after reviewing my column, they stand by their original determination that it violates Facebook's 'Community Standards'. They didn't say what, exactly, I wrote to violate their standards.

I'm more concerned everyday at the direction things are headed in America.

Thursday, December 20, 2018

Constitutional Carry is the Only Answer

In the 1989 case of DeShaney v. Winnebago County, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled there is no Constitutional duty imposed on governments to protect individual citizens from private criminal actions. The case arose when a child was severely beaten into a coma and left brain damaged, notwithstanding repeated warnings to government social service agencies that the boy was in danger.

In a similar case brought on different legal grounds, SCOTUS ruled in 2005 that even a restraining order issued by a court did not create a Constitutional due process obligation of local governments to enforce such a court order and protect a citizen from violence. This case arose when a woman received a protective order for herself and her three young daughters. When her estranged husband violated the restraining order and abducted the three daughters, police refused the woman's pleas to find or arrest him. The man subsequently killed the girls and showed up to the police station and died in a shootout with police.

Without getting any further into the weeds or exploring other cases, as a rule, authorities don't have a duty to protect citizens from criminal harm.

Which makes sense, considering the wide range of ways people can hurt each other and the impossibility of predicting which people will go berserk and which people will obey the law.

A federal judge this week followed established caselaw in dismissing a lawsuit brought by victims of the Parkland, Florida high school shooting earlier this year. The judge ruled the school district and the sheriff's department had no duty to protect the children in the school, even when officers arrived at the school while the shooting was in progress and refused to enter the school while the shooter went room-to-room killing and wounding unarmed students. Also, according to reports, the school's armed resource officer not only hid outside the school during the shooting, but called for a formal lockdown of the school which is alleged to have prevented students from escaping the murder spree.

The difference between school shootings and the DeShaney & Castle Rock cases cited above is the government in those cases did not create the danger which resulted in criminal harm to the victims.

As schools, government buildings, public spaces and other areas are designated "gun free zones" by authorities, with criminal penalties for carrying firearms there for personal protection, these authorities should be held responsible for the safety of those citizens legally stripped of the ability to defend themselves.

If, as the federal judge ruled this week, governments cannot be held responsible for deaths or injuries resulting from criminal activity, even when they result from gunmen choosing "gun free zones" specifically because they are soft targets full of unarmed victims, the Second Amendment must be applied in such a manner to create a right to carry a firearm for personal protection anywhere and everywhere.

The Supreme Court has ruled the Second Amendment is an individual right. That is, it doesn't just apply to state militias as liberals claim.

We've reached a place where American society is suffering from violent crime on a level not even imagined by previous generations. Chaos can erupt anyplace, anytime. As governments struggle to control the violence, they restrict firearms, tax firearms, ban accessories and create gun free zones. None of these things has any effect on criminals who simply ignore the laws. The limits and restrictions, by definition, only apply to those who follow the laws.

'Constitutional carry', the right to carry a firearm without the restrictions of licensing, permitting, and other impediments to lawful gun ownership must be implemented.

If the government cannot or will not keep citizens safe, and cannot be held responsible for deaths or injuries inflicted by criminals on unarmed citizens, then restrictions preventing citizens from protecting themselves and their families should be removed. Everywhere.

It really is that simple.

Tuesday, December 18, 2018

To the Left: Normal Americans are Now the Freaks

This post is an unusual 'two-fer' at the Harsh Reality blog. I normally limit my commentary to one article or story. Even though there are two stories here, it's really just two versions of the same story.

To our liberal masters, if you are normal, you are now the 'freak'.

Two stories posted in the last 24 hours demonstrate the degeneracy and desperation of cultural marxists.

Both involve cross-dressing children.

You read that correctly.

I have to admit surprise at the speed at which advocates for cross-dressing people sprung into action immediately after the Supreme Court's overturning of the Defense of Marriage Act and legalizing gay marriage nationwide. Within days of the Court's decision, certain groups had mobilized and began sensational activism to advance the 'transgender' cause. That is, people pretending to be the opposite sex should be treated by everyone as though they are, in fact, the opposite sex. Which, since the sexes are, for all intents and purposes, legally the same, it came down to forcing everyone in society to personally participate in the fantasy of confused individuals. It seemed like every gay special interest group suddenly switched gears and became transgender activists.

The first story involves a 10 year old little boy (some sources say he's 11) who's a superstar in the world of homosexual live entertainment. The second story is about a 17 year old boy who is destroying H.S. girls in sports.

Earlier this month, 11 year old Desmond Napoles, whose stage name is "Desmond Is Amazing" took the stage in a Brooklyn, NY gay club and twisted and gyrated for the men to the No Doubt song 'Like a Girl' as they gave him dollar bill tips. Liberal media gushes over the child and his parents. Daily Beast promoted him earlier this year and NBC's TODAY Show called him "inspirational".

There have been a few prominent news items lately about men dominating in women's sports. There's the mountain of a man who's unstoppable in Australia's national women's handball team. There's that guy who's kicking the women's ass in international cycling. He won the women's World Championship this year, actually. Now we get a story about a 17 year old boy who's dominating girls' high school track.

He runs WAY faster than the girls.

I debated whether to do anything with this story. I don't want to give the website any clicks from it, and I don't want to give any attention to the author of the piece. But it's so cringeworthy on so many levels that I couldn't help myself.

This article is maybe 2,500 words, or more. That's a lot. At no time in all those words did the weepy girl writing that self-righteous nonsense allude to the fact it's just a male racing against girls. You have to be able to untangle leftist doublespeak and know to sift through an avalanche of intentionally false pronouns to realize she's lionizing a boy running against and beating girls.

So, yes...he's shattering every record. But it's no more impressive than if he "identified as" (pretended to be) a 5 year old and smashed every world record for kindergarteners.

What's most obnoxious about this is the desperate virtue signaling. As though it's 1964  and racist police are turning the firehoses and dogs loose on peaceful protesters. This writing style is straight baby boomer cult marxist. There are super evil villains who are all faceless, angry and unreasonable. There's the angelic minority teen who's fighting the injustice by just doing a normal thing like everyone else is allowed to do. There's the breathless, intrepid reporter bravely revealing the awe and wonder of this everyday hero.

But it's all fake. It's a dude beating girls.

The reason I decided to include this was a bit from the sub-head on her story:

"...this 17 year old black transgender girl represents what they [normal people] are afraid of: no longer being the norm."

Do you understand? It's you who are no longer normal. To the left, you are the freak now.

So, there we have it. A little boy pimped out to gay bars for crowds of men to leer at and throw dollars while he dances, and a boy dominating girls in sports portrayed as a victim. But you are the one who's not normal.

There's a lot worse to come.

Friday, December 14, 2018

Globalist Blame of Russia Proves What We Suspected: French Protests are a Nationalist Uprising

In my column last week at WND.com regarding the "yellow vest" protests in France, I pointed out the observers on the ground and some claiming leadership in the protests believed it's about more than a new gas tax.

A man identifying himself as a protest leader told BBC News:

“The French people want a complete political transformation. They want to change the way things have been for the last 30 years."

That's not a protest about a gas tax.

When globalist French President Emmanuel Macron had no choice but to partially cave on the tax increases by postponing them for six months, it was apparent the taxes were just a pretext. Whether they were simply the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back, it's hard to say. But the protests raged on as hard as ever since the announcement of the gas tax's postponement.

Some things have happened this week that have only verified that these protests in France are what we expected. They are a full-blown nationalist uprising. And, I don't know about you, but how surprising is it to see something like this happening in France, of all places? Although, I suppose the French have a pretty solid resume when it comes to violent revolutions. But still.

As mentioned, Macron announced he would postpone the tax for six months, hoping that would satisfy the protesters and make them go home. That seems like a pretty weak response to throngs of your citizens who look pretty angry and have forced the president into hiding, but it shows how committed globalists are to driving up taxes for imaginary problems for the purpose of increasing their own power over the lives of ordinary people. Basically, making everyone wage slaves to the globalist multi-millionaire ruling class. Their always-growing governments can never be expected to go without more and more taxes. That would be ludicrous to them. So, with all the violence and the shocking size of the protests, they agreed to put off their massive tax increases for a few months with Macron telling everyone "the violence has to stop!" The protests didn't stop.

Then Macron agreed to permanently cancel the tax.

But the protests continue.

This week news reports began coming out that France is investigating Russia (!) as the culprit behind these protests. There is no other thing that could have plausibly occurred that would better tell those of us paying attention that this isn't a tax protest, but an all-out anti-globalist backlash by French nationalists who want to take back their country. The American left did a 180 in November 2016 and suddenly, for the first time ever, hated Russia. Leftists in every Western nation have been cucking to Russia since WW2. Even since the end of the Cold War, leftists have been falling over themselves to bend over for Vladimir Putin and Russia.

Remember Hillary's silly "reset button" with Russia? Remember Barack Obama mocking Mitt Romney in a debate in 2012 when Romney said Russia was a threat to Ukraine and could seize Crimea? Obama, in his best junior-high-girl-on-a-playground voice famously mocked "Uh...the 1980s called. They want their foreign policy back." Liberals and globalists everywhere laughed at what a funny zinger their god Obama had lobbed at Mitt Romney. Within three years, everything Romney said came true. Obama, who should've had egg on his face for being such a child and incompetent leader, was protected by globalist major media and nothing was ever mentioned about it.

Hillary, besides embarrassing herself with that 'reset button' nonsense, took $145 million from Russian interests at the same time those same Russians were seeking approval from Hillary, in her role as Secretary of State, to assume control of a large share of U.S. uranium. This is to say nothing of Bill Clinton's speeches in Russia where he was paid a cool $500,000 for a 20 minute talk.

Russians were loved and adored by the globalist left.

After Donald Trump's stunning election victory in 2016, those same globalists focus-grouped a quickie bunch of conspiracy ideas to see what messaging they should focus on. Accepting the results of the election has never been a thing leftists do (Reagan cheated Carter by using the 'October Surprise', Bush cheated Dukakis with the Willie Horton ad, Bush cheated Gore by colluding with the Supreme Court to not count votes, etc.). So there was never going to be an honest reflection about where things went wrong and what they could do better in future elections. Maybe they were wrong about some policy position? Nah! They needed an excuse. They quickly came up with something out of left field: Russia! It was Russia that interfered, hacked the election and stole it from Hillary.

All the excuses they used in the immediate days after the election coalesced into one big excuse: Russia!

For two years now, major media in the West has basically blamed Russia for everything that doesn't go their way. It's a pretty convenient excuse, actually. It's extremely vague, they don't have to actually prove any of their accusations because, well...Russians are tricky and they won't admit to being evil. An added bonus with all this is it gives leftists a chance to be patriotic (in their own minds) for the first time in anyone's lifetime. They get to wave the American flag and scream about those damn Russians. It's actually quite fascinating to watch.

So when I began seeing one news item after another in some of my sources I knew, even if these protests are not a nationalist uprising, the globalist left sees them that way and they've mobilized their media to run with this absurd angle on their troubles and get the talking heads on the cable news channels and the Sunday morning shows talking about it. Hey, it's better than admitting the people don't like your policies, right?

People are asking me what I think will happen in France. It's hard to say. It's very difficult to keep up this level of intensity for very long. I imagine one of two things will happen. Either the protests will intensify until they topple Macron and the French government, which I don't really know what that would mean as far as new elections or follow-on leadership or order of succession...I don't know. On the other hand, the protests could eventually just Peter out and things return mostly back to normal. Whatever that is in France.

Andrew Torba, the founder of the Gab social media platform where a lot of us banned from Twitter have migrated to, reports a huge spike in accounts from France. This is similar to the massive influx of users from Brazil as that nation, in coordination with the big social media platforms, began banning accounts supportive of Bolsonaro (the Trump of the Tropics who ended up winning that election, by the way). French globalists are mobilizing their weapons to stomp out this rebellion and maintain control.

One thing is for sure now. This is a nationalist protest against a globalist government hell-bent on completely transforming France against the wishes of the French people. I contend it's largely succeeded where other public demonstrations by nationalists in other Western nations has failed because the pretext for the protest has been a tax. When these types of protests have taken place elsewhere, globalists have successfully portrayed them as a racist movement and scared away people from the supporting it. The sudden absurd, coordinated talking points trying to deflect attention away from Macron and anything he might've done wrong and onto the bogeyman Russia is a dead giveaway France and globalists elsewhere have reason to believe this is a populist uprising against globalist power.

Whatever direction they take, there are a lot of lessons for both sides that will come from these French protests.

Thursday, December 13, 2018

Liberals Destroy Another Institution; Boy Scouts Explores Bankruptcy After Decades of Lawsuits

Liberals have succeeded in killing off another foundational institution in American culture. After decades of lawsuits and harassment by women's groups, the homosexual lobby and leftist organizations, the Boy Scouts is exploring bankruptcy protection.

Growing up, our family didn't have a lot of money. I was raised by a single mom. My dad left the family when I was little and passed away a few years later. My mom worked in a factory until it shut down and then worked miscellaneous manual labor jobs. We moved a lot. Life wasn't always easy. But when I was old enough to join the Cub Scouts, it was something I desperately wanted. I imagined wearing my uniform, earning badges, hanging out with the guys and learning about outdoor stuff that I never got a chance to do.

It cost money to join. Not much, as I recall. But the fee was in addition to the uniform items and whatever else new Scouts were required to have. I remember my grandparents helped get me set up. We didn't have a lot of stability in our life at that time. Looking back, I believe that was the most important part of scouting to me. It seemed like a tradition that I could be a part of. Something bigger than just getting by day-to-day. Something that was good, honest and tried and true. I'm sure there was a male bonding aspect, too, that was appealing to a boy without a dad.

I enjoyed my time in Cub Scouts for a few years until we moved and moved again, and we just didn't have the ability to find another pack for me to join. So I drifted away from scouting. At some point as an early teen someone invited me to attend their scout troop meeting and I went to some meetings. But I never really fit in with most of the guys and that was the end of my connection to scouting.

The events of the past few years and the news this week of the Boy Scouts of America seeking bankruptcy protection has brought back a lot of memories.

Only after beginning this column did I realize I never commented on the big news earlier this year regarding the Boy Scouts decision to admit girls. I never wrote about it, never commented on it and didn't involve myself at all in the debates about the matter on social media. It never even occurred to me that I was avoiding the issue for some subconscious reason.

Having spent some time thinking about it, I believe it's because the whole topic makes me sad. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's had the sense for a long time that Boy Scouts was on life support. It always made me sad to see something good from my childhood being slowly killed off by plaintiffs in lawsuits like a mighty buffalo being surrounded and wounded over and over by hungry wolves.

There were traditions and rules. The combined wisdom of generations of men guided the organization and acted as a foundation. The goal was to help guide young men to be good, productive and reliable citizens.

A wolf pack of leftist causes has wounded the organization in the typical way they destroy any institution. Lawsuits, demands for admission and demands for fundamental changes that completely transform the institution into something it was never intended to be. Eventually, the institution falters and fails as it no longer able to serve its intended purpose. There are 100 examples of this pattern in various stages of the destruction. Universities, private clubs, charities, churches, the military and associated organizations.

The Boy Scouts was forced to allow gay men to be scout leaders. The organization was forced to allow gay scouts. The Boy Scouts have subsequently faced lawsuits over scout leaders molesting boys in their care. Boy Scouts changed their rules and allowed women to be Boy Scout leaders. They have been sued for not allowing atheist boys to be Scouts. The Boy Scouts have been forced to allow girls pretending to be boys to join. They were sued for not allowing girls to join Boy Scouts. Then they announced earlier this year they would allow girls to join and drop the word "Boy" from the organization's name since it no longer made any sense. Last month, the Girl Scouts filed suit against the Boy Scouts over the name change.

It's not just been legal attacks from leftist groups and their plaintiffs that's taken a toll. Nonprofit fundraising groups like United Way, thoroughly in the grip of leftist radicals in many places, started de-funding the Boy Scouts for not being sufficiently politically correct. I actually have personal experience with one particular major United Way organization. A colleague I knew personally worked their way into a position on the Board of Directors where they were in charge of all spending for a very large United Way outfit. This person was a hardcore liberal Democrat strategist and campaign manager. They were very open about using the money as a political weapon to cripple local groups perceived as enjoyed by conservatives and give double or triple helpings to groups seen as future Democrat voters. They were very open about it. Both in terms of being extremely proud of figuring out a way to "make things more fair" (i.e. screwing the privileged) and also bragging that, if anyone had a problem with it, somebody should try to knock them out of that position. So, when United Way organizations began de-funding Boy Scouts for being homophobic or being bigoted against atheists or sexist for restricting membership to boys...what little funding they were getting from this local United Way was cheerfully cut off altogether.

In addition to nonprofits defunding them, corporate support dried up in an early version of the corporate boycott that's a standard feature of leftist hysteria in their outrage-of-the-day.

Participation in Boy Scouts has steadily declined as these existential changes have happened as a result of decades of never-ending lawsuits and harassment which has stripped the organization of its ability to focus on the original purpose for existing. It's no longer an organization for boys to go and be together and be with men who are a good example and learn to master stuff that men and boys are interested in. Now, when a boy shows up, there might be girls at the meeting. Or there might be a girl pretending to be a boy at the meeting. Or there might be a boy pretending to be a girl. Or there might be a homosexual scout master or a gay scout who wants to share a tent with him. Young men don't want to be around that. And the vast majority of parents don't want their kids having to deal with all that. Since 1970, participation in scouting has mostly been in a free-fall, with only a bump in membership during the Reagan years. Otherwise, the organization has been shrinking to historic low participation over and over since the mid-'90s. 

The constant attacks have finally worn down the venerable organization, as it now faces bankruptcy.

The demise of the Boy Scouts demonstrates the destruction caused by the de facto elimination of freedom of association in America. The left’s use of lawsuits and harassment from corporations and nonprofits to bully private individuals, organizations, businesses and institutions into accepting members or conducting business against people’s will must stop.

The egalitarian fascination with “fairness” for an aggrieved individual has destroyed foundational American institutions and denied fairness to everybody else.

Tuesday, December 11, 2018

The Media's Latest 'Outrage Porn' Is Just Another Lie; President In No New Legal Jeopardy

If you've been on a desert island for the past week you might be unaware of the latest media frenzy. The media doesn't actually report news anymore. They just lurch from one outrageous feeding frenzy to the next. They simply saturate the news cycle with the latest hyperventilating take on the exact, same thing, all using the exact, same words meant to grab eyeballs and generate clicks. Once everyone is sick of the topic, the herd rushes to the next "outrage" and starts hyperventilating all over again.

Harambe the gorilla, Chik-fil-A, Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Mike "Gentle Giant" Brown, Cecil the lion, "Russian collusion", North Carolina's bathroom bill, Judge Kavanaugh's hearings and 100 other stories are examples from the past few years. It's such a thing that there's a term for it: "Outrage porn".

Here's what the Wikipedia article on the term says:
"Outrage porn is a term used to explain media that is created...to cause anger or outrage among its consumers. It is characterized by insincere rage, umbrage and indignation. Media outlets are often incentivized to feign outrage because it specifically triggers many of the most lucrative online behaviors, including leaving comments, repeat pageviews and social sharing, which the outlets capitalize on. Salon, Gawker and affiliated websites...have been noted for abusing the tactic."
Basically, the media is dishonest and whips up otherwise insignificant stories into a CRISIS! to get people enraged so they'll repost the story on social media, leave comments, drive up clicks for advertisers, etc. Basically, what used to be journalism has descended to the shameless tabloids from the checkout line. Wild headlines and questionable stories that are mostly not true, but all that matters is making money and advancing their political agenda.

Over the past few days the media's outrage porn is the supposed terrible legal danger President Trump is in. The starting presumption in every single story is 'illegal payments' made to that porn star in exchange for a non-disclosure agreement.

A quick word on the chronology of this situation as reported in the media and generally understood: Over a decade ago, private citizen Donald Trump enjoyed an evening with an adult entertainer. Several years later when he announced he was running for President she got a dirtbag lawyer to extort $130,000 from Mr. Trump or she would tell the media she slept with him. This is a felony, and I presume it's common enough with famous billionaires that they just pay the ransom rather than have law enforcement investigate and charge the perpetrator. So two sleaze bag lawyers worked out an agreeable price for billionaire Mr. Trump to pay to get the porn star to sign a NDA. Which she did. Which she then violated to make even more money once Trump actually won the election.

The media's spin is Trump's paying extortion money was somehow an illegal in-kind campaign contribution that was not reported. An in-kind contribution is one where someone donates something of value to a campaign instead of money. So a restaurant catering an event without charging the campaign is an in-kind donation to the campaign that has to be reported. As you might recall, the Trump campaign was largely self-funded. But the media and democrat prosecutors and investigators are trying to spin this as Donald Trump making an illegal campaign contribution to himself.

To reiterate: Donald Trump paid a woman who was threatening to tell people she slept with him over a decade before. He used his own money. No campaign funds were involved. But the media and democrats are hoping you're too stupid to ask what, exactly, is illegal about paying a woman who's extorting money?

There are two significant takeaways from this.

First, this bodes very well for the President because after nearly two years of exhaustive investigation by an entire team of anti-Trump lawyers with an unlimited taxpayer-funded budget and subpoena and charging power, this appears to be the worst thing they could come up with. Even in the deepest fantasies of Democrats where these circumstances amount to a violation of campaign finance rules, it's nothing that can be used for impeachment since it didn't happen while he is President.

Second, if paying women money to sign a NDA regarding sex-related accusations against men is a campaign finance violation, there are hundreds of Congressmen who must be prosecuted for using their taxpayer slush fund for this exact purpose. And hundreds or thousands more elected officials, including Bill Clinton, who made payments to women while they were in office to settle sexual allegations.

Without some other development, President Trump is in no real legal jeopardy for using his own money to make an ordinary payment to a gold digger while he was a private citizen.

The left's narrative about this is just outrage porn and more grasping at straws for something to smear the President.

Friday, December 7, 2018

My Latest Column on the Riots in Paris and the Surge of Nationalism in France

My latest column is up at WND.com. You can get there by clicking on the picture above.

The riots in France are supposedly about environmental gas tax hikes. But protesters and observers say there's more to it. A lot more. The wave of nationalist pushback against decades of globalism is taking on new forms. Great read! Check it out. Share from the 'share' buttons on the story.

Thursday, December 6, 2018

"Hate" is Just a Liberal Euphemism for "Not Liberal"

In August 2017, I wrote a column arguing the time had come for federal regulation of the tech giants. The issue has come up since then as Google, Facebook, Twitter and others have tightened the screws on enforcing a staunch leftist world view for users.

I have argued that these companies have a monopoly the oil barons or railroad tycoons of 120 years ago could never have even dreamed. And those comparatively small monopolies were the impetus behind anti-trust laws enacted to keep a small group of men from amassing absolute power over a segment of the transportation industry or oil resources. In this case, a handful of men actually control information. And, not only that, they openly manipulate that information to help their favored political candidates and causes and stifle points of view with which they disagree.

This week, social media blogging platform Tumblr announced it is banning adult-oriented content. This appears to be a reaction to Apple's removal of the Tumblr app from its App Store. Apple's complaint was some Tumblr users had posted child pornography. Tumblr had systems in place to detect and delete such images, but enough was slipping through the filters that Apple punished Tumblr not allowing Apple customers access to the Tumblr app. Tumblr responded by banning all adult-oriented content. Imposing such a broad ban on content in an attempt to satisfy one of the tech giants may end up sending Tumblr to the tech graveyard where MySpace, Napster and Google+ reside.

But Apple's attempt to control content is even more far-reaching. Accepting an award this week, Apple CEO Tim Cook proclaimed "hate" has no place on Apple's platforms. Curiously, the word "hate" is never defined. It's a vague buzzword popular with the left to describe those opposing Marxism. For example, commentators such as Alex Jones can be completely un-personed in Soviet fashion from access to the modern public square while virulently racist leftists like New York Times Editorial Board member Sarah Jeong, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan and many others use social media platforms to spew vile, racist hate against white people and are celebrated by the same tech companies.

When leftists use the word "hate", that's code for "not a liberal".

While Cook boasted of banning music he and others deemed to have a "white supremacist" message, Apple appears to have no issues with rap music or other content calling for the assassination of the President or violence against white people.

Actual screenshot (title redacted) of innocuous video, disabled
by YouTube due to being potentially offensive.
Similarly, YouTube has continued tightening the screws on content containing criticism of liberals. It's always surprising how many videos and channels on YouTube have been de-monetized, disabled (no comments, no sharing, etc.) or simply removed. A few days ago I went to a video that it never would have occurred to me to be controversial. Nothing about the video or audio was even remotely inappropriate. But YouTube took the "hate" euphemism to an even crazier level of subjectivity. The video was disabled, with the explanation that it had been identified as potentially "offensive to some audiences". Well...what video that's ever been made is not potentially offensive to someone? You'll have to take my word that the video was beautifully done and not in any way offensive to anyone, except that the video featured a semi-famous conservative with personal opinions abhorred by the left. Similar to the way comedic actors Tim Allen and Roseanne Barr were kicked off television. Not for anything having to do with their performances, but because leftist TV executives didn't like their personal opinions.

Twitter, of course, makes itself more irrelevant every week as it purges conservatives and creates more of a pure, leftist sewer.

Google and its employees not only heavily financed Democrat candidates and liberal causes in the 2018 midterm elections, but also actively interfered with Republican candidates such as Tennessee's Marsha Blackburn by refusing to run campaign ads showing Democrat protesters screaming profanities at Blackburn during a moment of silence for victims of a shooting. Since the election, it's been revealed Google staff actively met and planned changing algorithms to alter search results and oppose President Trump's 'travel ban'.

In reading up about Tumblr's kowtowing to Apple I read elsewhere that Craigslist, the online classified ads website, had gotten rid of personal ads earlier this year after passage of the Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act. The federal law holds 3rd parties responsible for the unlawful use of their platforms.

This all speaks to life in our current clown world. People can't be expected to take responsibility for their own healthcare, so the federal government has to force people to get insurance or just give it to them for free. When kids turn out to be violent, illiterate little criminals who can't score higher than kids in 3rd world countries on a standardized test, it's the schools that failed. Tumblr is held responsible for the acts of individual users and Craigslist is legally responsible for somebody using their service to do something illegal.

At the end of the day, we're living in a world where nobody is responsible for themselves, but everyone is responsible for everybody else.

Leftists have managed to shield themselves from responsibility for anything, while ruthlessly enforcing their liberal orthodoxy on everyone else by stomping out speech and demanding everyone in their sphere of influence stomp out speech, also.

Wednesday, December 5, 2018

No Place For 'Civil' Conservatives in the Vicious Culture Wars of Today

As often happens with me, a couple of seemingly unrelated news items struck me as two versions of the same thing that's taking place all over.

In the UK, Nigel Farage announced he was leaving the UK Independence Party. Here in the U.S., conservative media outlets are having to merge. Two continents, two completely different things...same causation.

The culture wars are heating up and the battles are moving beyond the control, or even the comprehension, of most of the political elite class of talking heads and politicians.

As conservative media outlet TheBlaze announced it was merging with conservative rival CRTV, the reaction from the trenches of the culture war was an almost audible collective shrug.

TheBlaze was started by Glenn Beck when he left Fox News back in 2011. I honestly didn't even know it was still around. Mark Levin started CRTV a few years ago as a subscription thing, so I've never seen it. The only thing I know about it is Michelle Malkin was one of the big names there. But more on that later.

I have lots of conservative friends. I have conservative family members. I have conservative followers of this blog, my facebook and my podcast. I'm frequently contacted by people to ask my opinion or advice. Such as "How do I respond to my uncle Fred when he starts bashing the President at Thanksgiving dinner this year?" (I actually get a lot of this type of question.) I don't know anyone who watches TheBlaze or CRTV. I don't know anyone who ever references these sources. This left me wondering who their audience is? Of course, this probably explains why they're having to merge.

Asking around, I can't find anyone who remembers ever watching content from TheBlaze or CRTV, except for those video bits they put out on social media or commercial time they bought on talk radio. Since I couldn't find anyone who actually watched any of that, I asked everyone who they thought the audience for that was, since my conservative colleagues didn't follow either one?

The consensus seemed to be it was for your dad or grampa. Baby boomer conservatives who liked their news in comfortable, familiar packaging and grouched about how they wished mainstream media was still respectable like when Walter Cronkite was on every night. These are the people who like Fox News and talk radio. Nothing wrong with that. But that's probably the extent of their information. They're not involved in the 'meme wars' or using their phones to follow stories in real time. They don't really care about Facebook, Twitter and other platforms purging conservative voices at a shocking rate because they're either not on social media platforms or they think they're stupid. They're probably not incorrect about that, actually.

They're comfortable with traditional news and opinion formats for the same reason they think everything would be a lot better if Republicans would get control of Washington and clean up that government: They were raised in a high trust American culture.

In the 1950s & '60s when that generation was impressionable young people, there were still institutions that hadn't been completely corrupted yet. President Kennedy said we needed to send men to the moon by the end of the decade and the government organized people and industry and made it happen. As I mentioned earlier, Walter Cronkite's reporting was fact. Journalism at that time was the 'Fourth Estate', a serious business with a code of ethics and an expectation of integrity in their work. General Motors stock was as good as gold. It was a completely different time in America. America was still America.

The reliability of these kinds of things makes a big impression on young people when their minds are learning how the world works. It's the same reason so many of those who grew up during the depression spent their lives distrustful of banks. When I was in Iraq another American shared how his  grandmother told him to only keep the money in the bank that he thought absolutely necessary. She warned him repeatedly that banks can fail any time and your money vanish. He tried to explain to her the measures that were taken to correct that and how the banks wouldn't fail. She always told him: "Don't tell me the banks can't fail. I've seen it!" Turns out, she was right. It really is a house of cards.

So there's an entire generation of Americans who grew up in the high-trust society of America in the '50s & '60s. They have a certain expectation for how media is presented. A fair amount of boomers are liberal. So they're not going to watch TheBlaze or CRTV, so they've got a fairly limited audience. And they're subscription services, I believe, so that cuts out a lot of audience. Most importantly, though, they always struck me as 'conservatism light'. Not too controversial. Steering safely clear of hot button topics that could get them accused of hate speech or called other names by the shrieking lunatics on the left. But every day the left is forcing their agenda more aggressively into every nook and cranny of American life. The comparative civility of the old days is gone. Liberals would never have formed a mob and screamed at Gerald Ford or Ronald Reagan to get out of a restaurant. Leftist mobs wouldn't have gone to Walter Cronkite's house and kicked in his door and terrorized his wife for saying something on a TV newscast they disagreed with as they did with Tucker Carlson last month. We're in new times.

Unless the new Blaze Media figures out a way to become relevant in this new political cage fight, I don't see how they'll have any different outcome from what got them to this point. Michelle Malkin announced she is leaving the organization. Malkin always struck me as having an understanding of the threat to our culture from the left. I'm not surprised she's leaving, but it would be interesting to know why.

As I'm writing this, there are rumors Bill Kristol and his car full of clowns over at the Weekly Standard are going out of business. I propose it's for largely the same reason. Time has simply passed them by. Kristol and his gang of never-Trumpers not only seem to have some fantasy that bipartisanship is possible with the left, but went so far as to viciously attack their own side for the past three years. From the individual conservative voters all the way to the party's President. They did this not only to try to convince everyone they were the real conservatives, but also because they made a career of virtue signaling to the left, promising they'll whip all the stupid hillbillies into line and the party elites from both sides can all be friends. That ship sailed long ago. And the Bill Kristols, George Wills, John Kasichs and John McCains of the party are incredibly angry about it. They hate it and they don't understand it.

This is not to say some old-timers haven't adapted. Rush Limbaugh is like a machine. Now in his late 60s, he's transformed his national radio program as times have changed. His tone and topics are reflective of the leftist threat to America's culture as it's become more severe. He's edgier than he's ever been. Donald Trump, in his early 70s, has shown himself a master of using technology and having his finger on the pulse of ordinary Americans. But Trump and Limbaugh are unusual in their generation in this regard.

Nigel Farage's resignation from UKIP is another example of conservative leaders who are confused and unhappy with the rapidly changing pace of political discourse and are clearly unable to adjust to the current onslaught on Western Civilization from the left. I've always liked Farage. He's a unique character and always managed to blend great humor with a serious defense of his nation. But now he cites Tommy Robinson, the English Defense League and others who are sounding the alarm at the islamification of the UK, saying he no longer has a place in the party because those elements are too extreme. As I said earlier, the UKIP is to the British Conservative Party what the Tea Party was to the Republican Party. The EDL would be akin to the American 'alt right', only more organized and with a logo and meetings and such. It's not a perfect comparison, but you get the idea.

For all the good he's done with Brexit and being the happy face of regular Britons who love their country, Farage appears unable to grasp the level to which the left is escalating their war on the British people. The left will not be defeated by gentlemanly debate. They're actively importing the replacement for British culture by the millions. They're criminalizing debate by labeling disagreement with them as hate speech and prosecuting their opponents. It's Marxism. It's what they do.

Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Castro didn't engage in vigorous gentlemanly debate to convince their countrymen to embrace socialism. They murdered, jailed and terrorized those who disagreed with them.

This is where we're at in the U.S. and the UK. But some conservatives still want to conduct business as if the modern left is like Tip O'Neal or the guys running the Chicago Democratic machine back in the day. Those days are over. There was a common culture and a common love of country at that time. The modern left hates this country and openly works for its destruction and transformation.

Wednesday, November 28, 2018

You Must Agree With Liberals, Or They Will Make You Pay

I doubt anyone reading this is still allowed on Twitter. But a news item regarding that platform illustrates a trend that is definitely growing. And it ties in with a couple other stories of note this week.

The one common thread that runs throughout every leftist position is force. They force their opinion, their position, their wishes on everyone else. Those of us associated with the political right just want to be left alone.

For instance, as a carnivore, I honestly don't care if some purple-haired girl with 'trouble glasses' wants to be a vegan. But leftists seem to be genetically incapable of simply doing their own thing and leaving everyone else alone. Vegan protesters in the U.K. this week stormed a popular steakhouse in Brighton, held up photos of dead animals and forced diners to listen to loud recordings of what they claimed was a slaughterhouse. The worst part of this story is the protesters were allowed to berate and harass diners for a full 20 minutes before wandering outside to protest for another hour. This animal rights activist tactic has been used in lots of places here in the U.S. and it always frustrates me that the protesters are never made to pay a price for holding a group of people hostage.

The law exists to keep civility and prevent individual citizens from having to enforce their own peace. That's where we're seeing a major failure in Western Civilization. The left is engaging in any behavior they want and their victims are willingly constrained by the law. If protesters are permitted to ignore laws relating to harassment, trespass and other public order criminal offenses, then their victims must be permitted to ignore laws against battery. This escalation is what the Rule of Law is intended to prevent. But over the past several years, liberals have ignored any and every law they found inconvenient at any given moment. Protesters block highways, rioters are allowed to burn and loot, leftists tear down public property, antifa physically assaults people trying to listen to someone speak, Obama ignored federal court orders, Eric Holder illegally oversaw a gun-running operation, Lois Lerner used the IRS as a weapon to target conservatives, Hillary Clinton committed a mountain of felonies with her illegal email server and destruction of evidence under subpoena, Obama supporters in the FBI used fake evidence to get a search warrant from a secret FISA court to use national intelligence assets to wiretap and hack the servers at Trump Tower to spy on an opposing presidential campaign. Leftists are never prosecuted.

At a university in New Jersey, officials blocked fast-food chain Chik-fil-A from students' choices in a survey for restaurants to include in the food court. Not because anything the restaurant has ever done, but because of the perception the company "opposes the LGBTQ community". In reality, the entire gay protest of Chik-fil-A is due to the long-deceased founder's comment in his church's bulletin decades ago that he supports traditional marriage. The entire irrational hatred of a chicken sandwich place has absolutely nothing to do with the restaurant or anything that's ever been said or done by that business. But, to the left, actual facts and reason aren't a strong suit. The university, acknowledging their removing Chik-fil_A was "exclusion", went on to say excluding the restaurant was "faithful to our values of inclusion". It doesn't matter what you want. All that matters is what liberals will allow you to have.

Finally, for the rational few who've not been banned from Twitter yet: The platform has revised their Terms of Service to include defining "hate" and "abuse" as referring to a cross-dresser by the pronoun or sex at birth. They also now ban "dead naming", which I had to look up. It sounds scary, but it really just means referring to someone by the name they went by before they decided they were the opposite sex. So, for example, as far as I'm concerned Bruce Jenner is Bruce Jenner. He was Bruce Jenner for 70 years or so. He was a public figure. He won gold medals as Bruce Jenner. He holds athletic records as Bruce Jenner. He was on boxes of Wheaties as Bruce Jenner. He was a commentator on ABC Sports as Bruce Jenner. He was on some cable reality show as Bruce Jenner. No matter how foot-stompy mad he and his friends get, I can't un-remember all those things. But, according to Twitter, not speaking the way I am ordered to speak is a hate crime that will cause a user to be banned.

Ultimately this what all these things come down to. Force. Leftists demand you eat what they want you to eat, or they will harass you and ruin your peaceful evening out. Liberals don't like Chik-fil-A, so nobody is allowed to even consider that restaurant for the university food court. And when a mentally ill liberal tells you how to speak, you will speak the way you are told or Twitter will kick you off the platform.

Liberals are never told 'no'. Until the law or their victims' physical resistance starts inflicting punishment for the incivility they heap on ordinary people, the harassment and forced agreement with their agenda will keep getting worse.

Tuesday, November 27, 2018

We Were Scared Into Having Smaller Families, Now We're Told There Aren't Enough Young People

Two separate, but related news items caught my attention this week. 2018 marks the 50th anniversary of Paul Ehrlich's 'The Population Bomb', one of the most significant books ever from a standpoint of cultural impact. In another story, the U.S. census bureau released figures this week showing that old people will soon outnumber young people for the first time in American history. The report also gives a timeline for when whites will no longer be a majority of the population, the result of mass immigration from developing nations since the Immigration Act of 1965, which drastically changed the focus and purpose of our immigration system.

I was a little kid in the 1970s. I started kindergarten in 1972 and spent the rest of that decade in elementary school. Fashion was horrible, the music was just as bad and the baby boomers were young adults just starting out their careers. That generation, which challenged every institution and tradition in America, got a chance to be the young teachers to grade school kids across America. Their Marxist mentors in the universities had their proteges in positions of actual power, forming and molding the young minds they had as a captive audience for an entire day. These young boomer teachers were eager to try out every new thing and were positive they were going to make school cool, not like it had always been in America. Like everything, the boomers were really going to show their stodgy old WW2 generation parents how things should be done.

So, in the 1970s we got sex education, 'open concept' schools, new math, whole-language learning and a dramatic increase in emphasis on social studies. This was a time when America saw the deconstruction of the concept of neighborhood schools, where children went to a convenient school with kids in similar situations because they were from the same neighborhood. That was replaced with forced busing by court order, where kids were uprooted and forced to ride buses across town to go to school with people they didn't know and to whom they couldn't relate. As a result, much of my childhood was spent trying to avoid fighting in the halls and on the playground and seeing entire neighborhoods and communities completely destroyed as people fled to get their kids out of the war zones schools had become. It would be easy to write an entire book on the social destruction caused by the left's attempt at social engineering America's schools. In fact, every one of the left's "educational innovations" was a total disaster.

One of the things I remember vividly about my time in grade school was the panicky lessons we got about how horrible America's future would be if we continued in the bad old ways of our culture. Oil was going to run out, food was going to run out, trash was going to cover every square inch of land and sea and various ecosystem disasters were going to plague us. At that time the environmental catastrophe we learned about and wrote reports on was global cooling, also known as the new ice age. It was a thing we were all assured was going to kill us all. By the mid 1980s when I was finishing high school and getting ready to head off to college, they had changed that to global warming and teachers were talking about the greenhouse effect. I remember saying "Now, wait a minute. What about the ice age we were supposed to be seeing anytime soon?!?" I even remember where I was at in my high school when I said that.

I'm not a guy who believes in conspiracy theories very easily. I'm firmly in the Occam's razor camp. But there's a certain long-game brilliance to the Marxist cultural transformation of the United States from the time I was a little kid. One of the most panicky of all the panicky lessons was how the world would soon be overpopulated and we were in for a future of misery and suffering. It was pervasive in our studies in school and in popular culture at the time. Movies like Soylent Green, Mad Max and Logan's Run were big hits, and all presented a dramatic depiction of the future we were being told awaited us. Famine, wars, drought, disease. When I was a kid, we were told the future was going to really suck for us.

The book largely responsible for all this was published 50 years ago. Paul Ehrlich's 1968 book 'The Population Bomb' was a best seller. Having sold over 3 million copies, it catapulted Ehrlich to stardom and earned him awards, worldwide acclaim and a named professorship at Stanford University, which he is still milking to this day. To sum up Ehrlich's thesis: The world (in 1968) is overpopulated and will soon run out of food. As a result, the book explores the madness into which the world will descend in the 1970s and '80s. His predictions were taken as fact and fed to a generation of trusting kids. There was only one problem. Every single cataclysmic prediction Ehrlich made...was false. Demonstrably false. He predicted that by the mid-70s, 100s of millions of people around the world would be dead of mass starvation. He predicted massive wars over diminishing food and vanishing supplies of water. The planet, he argued, could simply not support the world population in 1968 for another 10 years. 50 years later and double the population of 1968, the average person is better fed, wealthier, healthier and has a much longer life expectancy than in 1968. And, completely the opposite of his core theme, the biggest problem confronting America isn't mass starvation, it's obesity.

Ehrlich wasn't just wrong, he was spectacularly, embarrassingly wrong.

Back to my conspiracy reference earlier, though. Ehrlich's book was so well received by the intellectual elite that real changes were made around the world. In the U.S. and Europe, having a big family became socially unacceptable. The left spread the lie that having too many children resulted in poverty. Feminists argued having kids was just another way the patriarchy was stifling women's independence by forcing them into motherhood.

The introduction of birth control pills in the U.S. (1960), the hippy days of free love (late '60s), the nationwide legalization of abortion (1972), the skyrocketing divorce rates of the '70s, the ratcheting up for the feminist movement and the cultural and educational blind acceptance of Ehrlich's ridiculous predictions all came together to slam the brakes on Western fertility rates. In a surprisingly short period of time, people started having dramatically smaller families. In just a few short years, something humanity had always valued was suddenly a liability. What had been seen as a blessing by people throughout history was suddenly socially unacceptable and something for learned people to sneer at. It must be one of the most massive cultural shifts in human history, certainly in such a short period of time.

But not everybody in the world decided to change their cultural values and stop having children for the betterment of humanity. If you've not seen what's been called "the most important graph in the world", I've included it here. It is a United Nations projection for population groups through the remainder of this century. While Westerners were being encouraged to dramatically limit their number of children, leaders in those same nations were sending food and medicine to people with massive fertility rates in Sub-Saharan Africa for the past 50 years.

In 2018, as hordes of people pour North from Africa and the Middle East into Europe, and from Central America into the United States, globalists tell us unchecked migration from these nations is the only way our nations will survive. Their reason is the birth rates in Western nations is below replacement levels and importing high fertility third world workers is necessary to increase the population and provide cheap labor for industry and pay taxes to fund the strained social services and benefits programs.

This is similar to the long game I referenced earlier. My generation was taught our future, if we survived at all, was in a hellish dystopia of food riots, mass starvation and lack of water. We were told the reason for the coming disasters was because our stupid ancestors had too many children and the only thing we could do was make sure we dramatically scaled back our families. To conserve food, save the planet and to save humanity. Now we're told the reason our culture and our countries are being transformed into something unrecognizable, and we need masses of people pouring over our borders from the third world, is because we didn't have enough children to sustain our nation.

If all this wasn't done on purpose, it's a remarkable series of coincidences over 50 years.

Friday, November 23, 2018

Liberals: Obama Orders Americans Killed = Hero; Saudis Kill a Saudi in Turkey = "Trump is Evil!"

You might have heard the name Jamal Ahmad Khashoggi a lot lately. Especially if you've been exposed to major media over the past six weeks or so. He was a Saudi journalist who was becoming famous for writing bad things about how things are run in Saudi Arabia, which probably didn't sit well with the Saudi prince who seems to have a firm grip on power in that country now.

Khashoggi went into the Saudi embassy in Turkey last month to conduct some business and was never seen again. It's presumed he's dead, and there's a good chance it was a gruesome death. But that's what happens when you're a high-profile person who's becoming famous for insulting an all-powerful ruler who runs your country, particularly a Muslim nation. I say that because liberals - by this, I mean Western globalists of every party - persist in this bizarre, narcissistic worldview that every culture everywhere is either exactly like Western democracies or is yearning to be one.

This is the reason the U.S. has been floundering in Afghanistan for 17 years. It's the reason we went to war in Iraq, to overthrow the 'bad guy' strongman leader and set the people free. They were supposed to embrace us and love us and transform into a Western democracy and be a U.S. ally forever and ever. They embraced us when we overthrew Saddam (which they perceived as incredible strength), but it was only because they were terrified of us. Once they realized we wanted them to be our allies and weren't going to brutalize them (which they perceived as weakness), the insurgency was on. I received the Iraq Campaign Medal for my service in 'Operation Iraqi Freedom'. The joke when I was in Iraq was "If we're freeing these people, why do they keep shooting at us?" The humor comes from the fact the globalists slapped a label on the operation that was clearly ridiculous because it bore no reflection of the reality of what was actually happening.

This is just an example of the narcissism of globalists. They think they know what's best for everyone and they're willing to kill as many people or destroy as much as necessary to force their way of living on everyone. It's standard operating procedure for the left.

But back to Khashoggi. He was a Muslim. The citizen of a very wealthy Islamic nation with a very wealthy, very strong leader who came to power through his birth into the Saudi royal family and his skillful maneuvering within that large family of smart, wealthy people to seize power. When you're a citizen of a country like that, a kingdom, it doesn't make a lot of sense to make yourself famous by criticizing and insulting your powerful leader. Bad things can happen. In the West, liberals liked him because they saw him as 'sticking it to the man'. Sort of the romantic (but laughably wrong) view they have of themselves. So, it was bad enough that Khashoggi was publicly criticizing Saudi leadership, but he was doing so in such a manner that people in other countries were paying attention to him. Add to that, the fact he was doing this in Turkey, a powerful regional rival of Saudi Arabia.

Sort of like your cousin who's a jerk and never has anything nice to say about the family. But the grandparents or whomever only have to see the guy at weddings, funerals and Thanksgiving. So, he's tolerated. But when he gets a blog and starts getting famous all over town for dishing the dirt and insulting and ridiculing the family to others in the community...something has to be done. In our example, cousin Fred gets cut off from coming to Thanksgiving dinner anymore and taken off the Christmas card list. With an Islamic royal family presiding over a wealthy nation, they don't have Thanksgiving dinner and Christmas cards. Cousin Fred bin-dumbass might get snatched up by shadowy agents and tortured to death.

Being disloyal and insulting and airing dirty laundry to the world from an enemy camp is a trifecta of poor choices in that culture. I don't want anyone to be killed, but nobody should be surprised that he ended up dead.

Also not surprisingly the American left has blamed President Trump for Khashoggi's death. There have been a few different reasons the media has advanced for why it's Trump's fault, but they haven't really coalesced on one particular theory yet. But they agree he's to blame somehow.

If you're like me, you find it hard to care very much about Mr. Khashoggi's tragic, but not completely unexpected, demise. I care about him as a human, but no more than I care about some junkie who overdoses in an alley in Istanbul. I'm sorry it happened, but he put himself in a bad position.

From an American public policy standpoint, I can't see where it makes any difference at all. I don't know how it effects any discussion whatsoever. Khashoggi was not an American. He wasn't killed in America. He was not killed by Americans. He was a Saudi, allegedly killed by other Saudis in Turkey. It's not President Trump's or America's job to get to the bottom of the mystery and it's not President Trump's or America's fault. As I've asked liberals on social media why this was the business of anyone in America, all I've gotten is the predictable screeching about President Trump being the very face of evil and setting the tone for journalists to be murdered, blah blah blah. It's ridiculous. They always end by calling you a racist or a Nazi, regardless of the topic of the conversation. It's actually funny. Complete disconnect from reality.

With American liberals weeping and gnashing their teeth at President Trump over Khashoggi's death, I can't help but ask why his death is a tragedy that must be investigated and avenged, but Obama was a liberal hero for ordering the deaths of U.S. citizens abroad? Barack Obama ordered the murder of American citizen Anwar Al-Awlaki. No charges, no due process, no judge, no jury. President Obama simply ordered him killed by a drone and he was murdered in 2011. His 16yo son, also an American citizen, was killed, as well. I'm not losing any sleep about either of these killings, either. But it points out the hypocrisy of the left. They worship Obama and aren't bothered at all when he orders Muslim Americans killed in Muslim countries, but they hold President Trump personally responsible for crimes against humanity when a Muslim country orders the death of one of their Muslim citizens in another Muslim country.

Things like this is why you can't have a rational discussion with a liberal.

Wednesday, November 21, 2018

Democrats Burn Every Bridge in Election Defeats

Some suggested I got a little ahead of myself with my assessment of the GOP's performance in the midterm elections. My column at WND on the topic can be found here. You can listen to my podcast talking about the midterms here. My take on the elections was positive. Although Democrats re-took the House, as expected, the GOP losses were surprisingly low compared to Bill Clinton's first midterm election in 1994 and only about half the electoral annihilation suffered by Obama in the 2010 midterms. (George W. Bush's first midterm in 2002 really can't be considered because it came on the heels of the 9/11 terror attacks and in the run-up to the Iraq invasion.) Overall, the President's party had done very well, including big wins in the Senate.

On election night, all the big-ticket, nationally-watched races were won by Republicans.

In addition to the GOP actually increasing their majority in the Senate via flipping Democrat seats in Florida, Missouri, Indiana and North Dakota, two more Senate seats previously held by hardcore 'never-Trumpers' Jeff Flake & Bob Corker had been won by outstanding conservative women Marsha Blackburn & Martha McSally from the Trump wing of the party. A real net gain in the Senate of six seats and a dramatic turn towards support for President Trump in that chamber. Very useful as both a firewall against the craziness to be expected from the antifa controlled House of Representatives with its Ocasio-Cortezes and Keith Ellisons, but also to smooth the path to confirmation for the President's nominees. Especially if Justice Ginsburg continues in her current ill health and obvious inability to function on the Supreme Court.

So, in the big picture, it was a good night for the President's party. It would have been an incredible night had the GOP held the House. But that was a realistic and historical long shot.

As early as election night, though, something began bubbling in various election board offices around America. Democrats began complaining of problems with ballot counting, mail-in ballots suddenly showed up, boxes of uncounted ballots were "found" in miscellaneous places.

"COUNT EVERY BALLOT!", Democrats cried.

Before anyone knew what happened, Rick Scott's Florida Senate victory and Ron DeSantis' gubernatorial victory were suddenly in question. And the focal point of what would decide if their victories stood was the Democratic Broward County election officer with a history of illegally handling ballots.

In Arizona, Martha McSally had won a close but solid victory for Flake's Senate seat. But found ballots, machine problems and recounts suddenly threw that election into the air and her Democrat opponent was eventually declared the winner.

In Georgia, Republican Brian Kemp won the race for Governor, but his opponent Stacey Abrams began making generic accusations of 'voter suppression' and filing lawsuits demanding the race results be held off until "COUNT EVERY BALLOT!", and the scramble was on for Democrats around the state to come up with some more Democratic ballots.

In California's traditionally conservative Orange County, Democrats and Republicans split the four Congressional seats, but after Democrats got hold of ballot counting, mail-on ballots, found ballots and miscounted ballots, claimed victory in all four Congressional races, including one in which election night returns had the Republican with an 8-point win. Both erased after Democrat messing around with vote counting and ballots.

With the exception of the 2 Congressional seats in California and the Arizona Senate seat stolen out from under Election Day winner Martha McSally, the other results stood despite the electoral games.

But, even on those, Democrats had to burn the bridges of civility as they cursed their opponents.

Broward County Election Director Barbara Snipes accused people of racism who were frustrated with her blatant attempts to steal a U.S. Senate and a gubernatorial election days and weeks after Election Day.

Stacy Abrams in Georgia gave a not-a-concession speech where she refused to concede she lost the Governor's race, refused to acknowledge Governor Kemp is the legitimate Governor of Georgia and accused Georgia's citizens of prohibiting black people from voting. She offered no specifics for her accusations, told media "democracy had failed" because she didn't win.

So, even though they seized control of the House of Representatives and managed to re-count their way into grabbing two additional House seats and a Senate seat, Democrats still felt the need to accuse people of racism in elections they didn't win.

This is an example of how there is no common ground between the sides anymore. We are in a struggle which of two completely divergent ideologies will control our republic.