Harsh Reality

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.

Monday, November 19, 2018

President Reagan Believed the Lies, Gave California to Democrats

On Sunday, Democrat Gil Cisneros was declared the winner in a closely-decided Congressional race in California.

His win is significant for two reasons. First, the seat is one being vacated by retiring Republican Ed Royce. So it is another pickup for House Democrats.

More significantly, though, it's a House seat where part of the district is in Orange County. There are several House districts that include part of Orange County, the famous, longtime bastion of conservatism. Now all of those Congressional seats belong to Democrats.

Again, Orange County, California is now 100% represented by liberal Democrats in Congress.

20 years ago it would have been laughable for someone to suggest that the previous sentence could ever be written. At least in anyone's lifetime at that moment.

30 years ago you would have been immediately dismissed as mentally deranged to suggest such a thing could ever be possible.

So, how did this happen?

President Ronald Reagan did it.

Into the 1980s, California was a reliable conservative state. In 1986 Ted Kennedy and Democrats suckered President Reagan into giving amnesty to millions of illegal Mexicans in exchange for the promise of a border wall and the promise that that amnesty would settle the illegal immigration issue for America once and for all.

All it did was flip California to Democrats and invite millions more Mexicans to pour across the border to stay with relatives who no longer had to fear prosecution and were able to settle in permanently. The wall was a lie, of course, just to get him to sign the amnesty and get those new Democrat voters signed up. And how did millions of Mexican immigrants thank President Reagan? By serving as a tidal wave flipping California to Democrats. Immediately after the amnesty, the normally reliably conservative state was only barely won by George H.W. Bush in 1988. By the next presidential election in 1992 it was owned by Democrats, and they've only consolidated their power since. Democrats now have a mortal lock on every aspect of state government. Republican officeholders in the state are in a permanent minority and fading fast.

And now even the most conservative county in California has been completely flipped.

The state was given away by Ronald Reagan who believed the Democrats' lies. He believed the globalist neocon Republicans who told him how Hispanics would support Republicans and repay his assent to amnesty with electoral loyalty. All of the Democrats' and neocon Republicans' promises were lies. Everything the same people are promising now are also lies.

California is Democrats' model for all of America.

Demography is destiny.

Thursday, November 15, 2018

My Latest Column at WND.com. Name-Calling and Violence is All Liberals Have Left

Check it out! I'm featured on the front page of the Commentary section at WND.com along with Alan Keys and Ilana Mercer! Very cool!

My latest column, hot off the presses. Metaphorically speaking, of course. Click the picture to link to my piece there.

The left has a terrible track record. All they have now is to call you a Nazi if you disagree with them. French President Emmanuel Macron used the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the end of WW1 to call his own countrymen and patriots of other Western nations Nazis. It's all they have left.

If you enjoy the column (and I'm positive you will) please share it from the 'share' buttons on the page. Enjoy!

Liberals Blame Conservatives for California Wildfires (and everything else)

If there's one bit of consistency in the world, it's leftists blaming their failures on everyone but themselves.

Like toddlers caught red-handed defacing a wall, they will always stare at the mess they've made and scream loudly "The Republicans did this!" The left's pathological inability to honestly assess their own performance or admit even the most obvious failure is actually quite remarkable.

Obama spent eight years crippling American industry, destroying American healthcare and destroying an already rough economy. He did all this while standing back and blaming his predecessor as the economic disaster spiraled into a full-blown dumpster fire. Similarly, as Obama and his cohorts shoved Obamacare up America's collective butt (with not a single Republican vote in the House or Senate and refusal by Democrats to even consider any GOP input into the legislation), the left blamed the spectacular failure on Republicans and "greedy insurance companies". Anybody or anything but the people who actually wrote, promoted, passed and implemented the law.

In Flint, Michigan, Democrats have completely owned the city for decades. As everywhere else where leftists take over, crime is out of control, productive people fled, infrastructure crumbled and utilities were looted and began failing for lack of maintenance. When their water utility ended up like Obama's economy, Flint city leaders - all Democrats - began screaming for everyone to bail them out and build them a brand new water utility and all the associated infrastructure that comes with it. They obviously weren't going to take the blame themselves, and they wouldn't blame Obama. So they found the first Republican in the chain, Michigan's Republican Governor, and began loudly blaming him for their having looted and destroyed their own city water utility. The willing media ran with pictures of sad minority children holding up glasses of filthy tap water in Flint and implicitly or explicitly accusing the Governor of racism for poisoning the children of Flint with dirty water. Never mind the fact the Governor has absolutely nothing to do with running a local water company, or that local Democrats would tell the Governor to get out of their business if he ever tried to assert control of a local utility to prevent it from being ruined by mismanagement. But facts never stand in the way for leftists. The narrative is all that matters. And they repeat the narrative ad nauseam with the assistance of their media.

When I was in high school and then college in the 1980s I had baby boomer teachers and professors who fretted about President Reagan provoking the Soviets to destroy America. They promoted the standard leftist position that communism was the future and resisting it was just going to get more people killed. Their standard was to appease communists everywhere so we didn't make them angry. Even as a kid it never made sense to me. I heard the stories of defections from communist nations and the shortages of food and consumer goods. The fact that people were escaping communist countries, and nobody was fleeing the U.S. or Western nations to get to China, the Soviet Union, North Korea or Cuba, told me it was ridiculous to try to make America into one of those countries. They were obvious messes, but my leftist teachers wouldn't admit it. That was the first time I was ever exposed to the liberal talking point that Cuba was a bankrupt hellhole because of U.S. sanctions. To the left, they never fail. Even the most obvious failures are always blamed on their political opponents. Sometimes comically so.

Turning to more recent events, in 2017 the Oroville Dam spillway in California nearly failed. It would have caused catastrophic damage and 200,000 people had to be evacuated to avoid the destruction. As the state of California has fallen more thoroughly under the control of the most liberal Democrats, even the most mundane state management policies have become infected with virulent strains of leftist insanity. As the state's natural climate ebbed and flowed between wet years and dry years, California's wacky Democrats used the global warming hoax as an excuse to stop maintaining critical infrastructure like the Oroville Dam so they could direct that money elsewhere in their bankrupt state budget. Why should they continue maintaining a dam when global warming made all the lakes dry up? Then, of course, it started raining again as it always does in that cycle and they were caught with a potential disaster because of their crazy policies.

As the latest massive wildfire rages across California, burning everything in its path in scenes of chaos and apocalyptic destruction, on what are leftists blaming the disaster? Their own environmentalist wacko state policies banning timber harvesting to punish "evil" corporations and timber companies that profit from nature? The same companies that clear millions of acres of underbrush that, left unchecked, becomes a tinderbox just waiting for a spark or a cigarette or a lightening strike to become an out-of-control inferno that kills people and destroys entire communities. Of course they won't thoughtfully examine the ignorance of their emotion-based policies. So far, Californians and their leaders have pointed fingers at PG&E, the power company there, anyone anywhere who doesn't drink the koolaid of their ever-changing global-cooling/global-warming/climate change/climate disruption pretext for socialism and, of course, President Trump. California's insane environmental management policies could never even be considered by the left as something having to do with these wildfires! The blame, as far as these nuts are concerned, can only be their political opponents or some other entity leftists already hate.

My heart goes out to people in California affected by this massive wildfire. When this gets brought under control and things can return as close to normal as possible for Californians, they would be well served to be honest with themselves about the causes of this disaster and steps to take that might mitigate the risk of this type of event in the future.

I am not hopeful, though.

Monday, November 12, 2018

Palestinians Now Officially Own a Seat in Congress

This is happening because globalists have turned the United States from being its own country into a place the rest of the world has a right to be and seize as their own property.

Same with the UK, France & Germany.

The UK isn't even a nation anymore, it's just a place. None of these nations have control over their borders, any say in who's allowed to come into their countries and have no real control over their own elections and leaders.

A nation has a common language and common heritage. All of these things are being zeroed out. Her and her flag is a statement. Palestinans own that seat in the U.S. House of Representatives now.

There's more of this to come.

Thursday, November 8, 2018

How is this Legal?

Source: votesmart.org
In putting together my column on the outcome of the 2018 midterm election, I researched the candidates' fundraising and expenditures. Texas Democrat Senate candidate Beto O'Rourke has been the big story in this campaign cycle for his fundraising ability and subsequent future prospects as a Democrat presidential nominee. He was handily beat by Republican Ted Cruz, but he has become a rock star among Democrats and the fawning media.

I was struck by O'Rourke's Top 10 contributors. For three different reasons.

1. Two of the top four contributors in this partisan political race are publicly-funded universities. The University of Texas and University of California receive money from the state and federal governments which, in turn, get that money from our paychecks. Put another way, people in these institutions take money seized involuntarily from citizens and use it to support partisan political candidates. The citizens have no say in the matter if their money is taken or if their money is used to promote a politician they don't like. I imagine these universities have some excuse whereby they claim there are separate accounts or some other accounting tricks to try to justify it. As with "charitable organizations" receiving government funding which then turn around and pour money into liberal political causes and politicians, the bottom line is taxpayer money is being seized and funneled to liberal political causes. Even if there is some bookkeeping trickery, the taxpayer money frees up other funds for them to direct money to their partisan political causes. If these universities have hundreds of thousands of dollars lying around to make partisan political donations, they do not need money forcibly taken from our paychecks.

How fast would there be a law against this if public universities were making massive donations to Donald Trump?

2. Alphabet, Inc. (Google) and Facebook also made the list of top donors to O'Rourke. Ordinarily, I would have no objection to a corporation making big contributions to political candidates. But Google and Facebook have become ruthless in stomping out conservative points of view, banning conservative pages, refusing Republican political advertising and rigging search results to favor Democrats. In this last election, Google refused to run Tennessee Republican Senate candidate Marsha Blackburn's campaign ad showing antifa protesters screaming profanities at her and her supporters during a moment of silent prayer for the victims of the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting. As frequently noted, over 90% of tech sector political donations go to Democrats and liberal causes. I have also noted that Google and Facebook have far larger monopolies than the oil or railroad tycoons of 120 years ago that caused the federal government to intervene with antitrust laws. The fact that Facebook and Google are actively funding Democrat candidates and they are, as corporate policy, running interference by refusing to run conservative political advertising in federal elections or silencing supporters of opposing candidates calls for the Federal Election Commission to address this matter and is more evidence of the need to regulate or break up these monopolies.

3. Of somewhat less concern, but still troubling: Both Apple and Microsoft were among the Top 10 largest donors to O'Rourke's campaign. Virtually 100% of the operating systems used in the computers of every candidate are from one of these two companies. Combine Apple & Microsoft's official corporate financial backing of a Democrat federal candidate with the fact that over 90% of tech sector workers personally donate to Democrat candidates and leftist political causes, it's not unreasonable to expect that Democrat campaign computer systems will function better and have fewer problems than those of their political opponents. Especially considering the active role other tech companies like Facebook and Google have taken in finding pretenses to rig campaigns to favor the candidates they are funding.

Once again, how loud would Democrat candidates scream if any of these scenarios were applied against liberals?

Publicly-funded institutions should be banned from both accepting taxpayer funds and making political donations. The tech monopolies should likewise be prohibited from pouring money into political races. And regulation is absolutely necessary to ensure these companies are not using their monopoly on information to run interference candidates they are funding by harassing opposing candidates.

Monday, November 5, 2018

The Democrat Rule "Never Punch Left" Is Imposed On Everyone

With another hoax hate crime this week we have another opportunity to compare and contrast the political and media reaction to newsworthy events from both the right and the left.

On November 1st antisemitic graffiti was found at the Union Temple synagogue in Brooklyn, NY. It got a lot of media attention due to the shooting at a synagogue in Pittsburgh the previous weekend. Classes were canceled and so was a planned political event. Because of spray paint. Liberals everywhere jumped at the chance to attack President Trump and wring their hands about how terrible it was to be victims again at the hands of vile Nazis. The Mayor of New York, never one to miss out on being a victim, made sure to get in front of as many TV cameras as possible and blame people who disagree with him.

As always with these things, it was a hoax. A self-described queer black Obama supporter who previously worked for New York City's Anti-Hate Crime office was arrested and charged with the vandalism, as well as starting some fires elsewhere in the city. As the media mostly dropped coverage, as is standard procedure now when it's discovered one of their own did it, the rear guard ties up the story in a neat little package to make sure they blame something else for what their guy did. Racism, white privilege, structural racism...the usual witchcraft liberals blame for their own problems. I'm not certain of the difference between "queer" and "gay". Or if they're just different versions of homosexual. And I'm not going to look it up. But CNN made a point to turn their hate crime vandal into a sad hero, battling his own demons and trying to overcome an unfair past. They noted he had a tough upbringing, so he struggled with his problems with drug use. They made sure to point out he's done so much to overcome his problems, like marching for LGBT rights, supporting Obama, working in the Anti-Hate Crime office and going to college. But no condemnation whatsoever.

President Trump, who has employed hundreds of thousands of people over the decades, paid hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes and is currently serving as leader of the free world for free, literally can't have two scoops of ice cream for dessert without being ridiculed by the same media and called Hitler. But a 26 year old Democrat activist who actually spray paints Nazi graffiti on a synagogue, sets fires and stands back while other people are blamed for it is a hero to the left.

Have you heard any condemnation from anyone on the left for this hate hoax? How about any of the hundreds of other fake hate crimes where it turns out it was a liberal activist? How about the man who took a gun and shot up the Republican baseball practice? Did anyone on the left ever denounce the Pulse nightclub shooter? Has any Democrat called for a stop to cop killings by Black Lives Matter? Or an end to antifa violence? Or blocking of highways? Actually, it's the opposite. As I've well documented in my columns and this very blog, prominent Democrats have called for more of this kind of violence.

Conservatives, on the other hand, are personally held responsible by the left for any bad behavior or harsh words from any of their constituents. How often have we seen Democrats and the media howl with rage demanding Republicans to denounce each other and condemn their constituents when they say or do something that upsets liberals.

A few weeks ago Nancy Pelosi was heckled by crowd of Spanish speaking people in Miami. The wimpier Republicans and "conservative" chattering class rushed to condemn the people calling Pelosi a socialist and apologizing for their rude behavior. These sissies also appear to spend every waking minute terrified of what President Trump will say next, and chasing the media around apologizing to make sure every liberal knows they condemn those people in the party.

Why does it always go one direction?

It's an old communist protocol known as "never punch left". The left is very adept at it. They never condemn anyone to their left. So, for example, a moderate Democrat (if such a thing exists anymore) is free to be as vicious as he wants with Republicans, but is not allowed to punch back when criticized by the more liberal elements of his own party. Likewise, Nancy Pelosi is free to heap abuse on that moderate Democrat and Republicans, but not on anyone in the Congressional Black Caucus. The rule comes into sharp focus when you notice there is nothing, literally nothing, anyone in the most extreme, America-hating sewers of Democrat antifa voters could do that will cause a Democrat leader to disavow their conduct. They simply will never, ever punch left.

This spills over, though, onto Republicans, only in reverse. Liberals demand conservatives always "punch right". More left-leaning members of the GOP, like Mitt Romney, John Kasich and George Will, are only too happy too oblige. They can't wait to attack everyone to their right as uncouth, uneducated and deserving of their contempt. Conditioned like Pavlovian dogs to the rules of the left, they're gobsmacked when the GOP base hit back at them. They begin stomping their feet in a hissy fit about the dialog becoming uncivilized. The rules allow them to sneer at ordinary conservatives, but any response is a violation of the rules and an outrage to them.

The never-punch-left conventional wisdom so saturates American political discourse that President Trump seems to be dropping the equivalent of a nuclear bomb on said discourse every time he "punches left". It's as though the entire political establishment of both parties and the media have no idea what to even make of such a thing. They still don't appear to have any idea how to respond to someone hitting back. They merely sputter about President Trump acting "unpresidential" (in other words, he is supposed to let them beat him up without any response) or calling him Hitler for the umpteen thousandth time.

The left has been in firm control of the language and all the rules of political discourse for decades. They've rigged everything to their favor. One of the ways they've done this is the unspoken rule that puts their motivations and their failures off limits to even being questioned, while anyone opposing them is free to be slandered as a racist, wanting to starve children or kill old people or be characterized as a simpleton not worthy of an opinion. Ronald Reagan refused to accept these premises and the rules laid out by the left. From 1988 until 2015 when Donald Trump announced his candidacy for President, conservative leaders prostrated themselves before the left in a never-ending attempt to live up to the rules made by the left and changed at their whim.

Trump has simply refused to play by their rules. That honesty and boldness needs to saturate the political discourse as thoroughly as marxists managed with their bullying and game-rigging.

Friday, November 2, 2018

The Left's Opinion on Violence Depends on Who's Committing It

The horrific shootings at a Pittsburgh synagogue last weekend revealed once again the curious, ever-shifting perspective of Democrats and their partners in major media when it comes to violence.

As the American left has become worked into what can only be described as unprecedented levels of mass hysteria, they have become unable to maintain anything resembling coherent discourse or a consistent frame of reference for events in the news cycle.

For example, a favorite theme of Democrats and major media is President Trump’s “dangerous rhetoric” sowing discord and damaging the public dialog. An entertaining pastime is asking leftists making this generic accusation for an example of such rhetoric. It can be amusing, but sometimes painful, to watch them tie themselves into knots trying to respond with another generic talking point. This is best done in person where they have more difficulty doing a search for talking points with which to respond. 

 Liberals, though, have nothing to say regarding open calls for violence from their own leaders. It is as though they are completely unaware of 2016 Vice Presidential candidate Tim Kaine’s televised calls for Democrats to “fight in the streets”. Or Democrat Congresswoman Maxine Waters telling her followers that Republicans should have “No peace, no sleep.” And “if you see anybody in that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them and. Hillary Clinton recently told her followers that non-liberals do not deserve civility. All this is to say nothing of the threats of violence from entertainers who threatened to assault President Trump if they have the opportunity, call for “blood in the streets”and rappersplaywrightsand the New York Times who portray the assassination of the Presidentto the delight of liberals.

The basic rule on the left is violence from their ranks, both actual and encouraged, is ignored, while conservatives noticing, responding or even objecting to hatred, incivility and violence is ‘dangerous rhetoric’.

If you can get a liberal to even acknowledge the violence of antifa mobs or the nonstop calls for violence from their own leaders and celebrities, the standard response is to justify such behavior as deserved because of ‘hateful rhetoric’ of the President or conservatives.

The shooting at the Pittsburgh synagogue took place at a time when liberals’ and major media’s reaction and reporting could be readily compared and contrasted with other recent acts of violence.

The same week as the synagogue shooting, police arrested a man for sending fake bombs to certain Democrats and liberal media. Authorities report some, and possibly all, of the fake bombs were not even capable of exploding and there were obviously no deaths or injuries. Major media coverage of the bomb scare and subsequent arrest was uniformly focused on the man’s support for President Trump. By contrast, when Republican Congressman Steve Scalise was shot last year by a deranged Democrat supporter of Bernie Sanders, his political motivation was rarely, if ever, mentioned in major media reports. In some places, it was twisted into just generic “politically-motivated violence against a member of Congress”, with a causal reader left to speculate or even attribute the attack to conservatives.

 Less than 11 months before the synagogue shooting, a militant atheist who had been kicked out of the military and convicted of Domestic Violence went into the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas and opened fire, killing 26 worshipers before being pursued by armed citizens and taking his own life. As it became clear the gunman was an anti-Christian zealot who spent his days harassing Christians on Facebook with atheist rants, the story was quickly dropped in major media. The facts of the shooting were unhelpful to a leftist narrative. An informal poll of my listeners and readers in the days after the synagogue shooting showed several did not recall the Sutherland shooting, had completely forgotten about it or incorrectly thought it had occurred several years ago. The most common reaction was surprise that such a horrific shooting in a place of worship happened only months before. The difference in media coverage and their universal portrayal of the synagogue shooting as a hate crime stands in stark contrast to the media’s dismissal of the anti-Christian motivation of the gunman in the Baptist church shooting just months before, despite the fact the Texas shooting was far deadlier.

It should also be noted that liberal reaction was swift in denouncing the social media service Gab because the synagogue shooter had a Gab account. Gab holds itself out as the free speech alternative to Facebook and Twitter. As thousands of conservatives have been banned from other social media in the wake of Donald Trump’s 2016 Presidential victory under the pretense of banning ‘fake news’, ‘Russian bots’ or ‘hate speech’, Gab has been a rally point for many conservatives. PayPal responded by immediately cutting services to Gab, and their web host caved to liberal demands to pull hosting services. As of this writing, the entire free speech social media platform Gab is shut down due to their web hosting being canceled. By contrast, the Texas church gunman not only had a Facebook account, but used that account to spew vile hate at Christians, harass them and even posted a picture of the rifle he used in his murder spree along with a profane caption. Again, dramatically worse circumstances than the synagogue shooter’s online conduct, but not a single person called for Facebook to be shut down or suggested the social media platform was responsible for the gunman’s rampage.

The left’s hypocrisy has come into sharp focus as they have become increasingly irrational in the time since the 2016 election. The very things they loudly condemn and upon which they cast judgment are offenses of which their own side is most guilty. The liberal view of hateful rhetoric and violence depends entirely on who is speaking or engaging in it.

Thursday, November 1, 2018

Democrats' Actions Tell Us What the Real Polls are Showing

A close friend is a political junkie. That's probably not a fair description, though. "Political expert" or "occasional political professional" are both more accurate terms. He grew up with politics being a bit more a part of his daily life than most Americans because of his personal family situation. Somewhere in the process, my friend developed an uncanny ability to read the political tea leaves and call political races with an amazing level of accuracy. Not from a perspective of wanting one side or another to win (although he certainly has his own opinions), but his talent is being able to objectively take dozens or hundreds of bits of data and accurately predict electoral outcomes.

The closest thing I can compare it to is a racing form at a horse track. Each race and each horse has a lot of variables. It would be like a man who reads a racing form and literally picks the winning horse every time. It's one of the most remarkable things I've ever seen in my life.

My friend was the first person I heard from who called both the GOP primary and the 2016 Presidential race for Donald Trump. I was the morning show host at a radio station in the midwest during the summer of 2015 when presidential candidates were springing up like weeds. As candidates from both parties announced, I spent a segment or two of the program with soundbites and talking about their candidacy. If you recall, Donald Trump's announcement was the biggest splash of all. He made his famous call to build the wall on our Southern border and became the instant Republican frontrunner. He was also attacked mercilessly by the media, and then polled even higher when he refused to back down. As every single political pundit proclaimed his candidacy over, my friend told me he would be the next President of the United States. When I asked what led him to that conclusion, he rattled off his usual litany of individual state poll results on political and nonpolitical matters, census data, past election results, economic news from various places and other seemingly random bits of trivia, synthesized and weighted according to importance and predicted Mr. Trump could win Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin. If he could win those states, other battleground states would already be onboard and he would have Hillary substantially behind in electoral votes. Trump's message was, my friend said, dead center of the sweet spot in places where he believed Hillary would be unexpectedly vulnerable.

As every other time we've spoken about a particular election, he nailed it. On election night, the entire world watched my friend's predictions come true. Many are still stunned by what we witnessed that night.

One would expect my friend is a campaign consultant who can write his own ticket. In a sane world, that would be the case. And that may be the case someday. My friend has, in fact, worked on a number of winning campaigns. But he's gone a different direction for his own reasons and works in a nice non-political job doing good things for people who need it. We talk politics all the time, and he frequently discusses obscure races in various places nobody has ever heard of. And he's never wrong.

I share this story because I've noticed several patterns from discussing various political races with my friend. He watches candidates for clues about what their internal polling is telling them. Even if I haven't spoken to my friend about a particular race, I've caught myself noticing a sudden change in message or an unexpected pivot on issues. It's a dead giveaway that the campaign's internal polling has revealed a strength or weakness somewhere they're moving to either exploit or shore up, respectively.

I have several examples of this, but I wanted to focus on several developments over the past 10 days or so that show the Democrats' internal polling is drastically different than the silly, biased polls trotted out every day on the news by major media. Those are for public consumption. Their purpose is to convince stupid people of whatever message the Democrat party wants people to hear. They're not real polls and the reporting on them is not real news.

The same media outlets that reported Hillary's mortal lock according to their polls during the 2016 Presidential election, continue using the same pollsters, polling methodology and the same talking heads to deliver the same great polling news for Democrats day in and day out during this 2018 midterm election cycle.

According to the talking heads of fake news, Americans are outraged by President Trump and Republicans. They are seen as racists and are so bad that people are forced to harass and attack Republicans and supporters of the President. That's the message the media would have us believe. Americans are so enraged with President Trump's theft of the 2016 election from the beloved Hillary Clinton that there will be a 'blue wave' in 2018 to begin taking back the government he and the Russians stole from the American people. That's basically it. And the Brett Kavanaugh nomination to the Supreme Court was just the icing on the cake, because now Americans are even more enraged.

Four separate news items over the past 10 days tells a different story, though.

California's Nancy Pelosi was appearing at a campaign event in Miami, Florida last week when she was allegedly heckled by "protesters" calling her a socialist. The "harassment" was so over-the-top silly that many observers and commentators expressed skepticism it was real, including Rush Limbaugh and me, who both live and work in South Florida and thought the encounter looked embarrassingly staged. Like a caricature of what Democrats think conservatives would do if they were to ever harass anyone.

Last week several Democrat officials and other prominent liberals allegedly received awkwardly obvious fake bombs. The entire internet noted a lot of discrepancies in the stories of how the fake bombs were delivered, including noting the stamps on the packages weren't cancelled, the fact no postal employee would ever accept such a package, much less deliver it, the ever-changing stories about it coming through the mail or being delivered by a courier and the fact that photos were released of the fake bombs before the police got there.  The bombs appeared to be made specifically for the purpose of being found and providing a photo-op and talking points. When the FBI arrested the mentally ill man alleged to have sent the bombs, even more questions arose because he seemed just as cookie-cutter obvious as the bombs. A homeless man who is allegedly an absurdly over-the-top supporter of the President living in a van conveniently covered in Trump bumper stickers. Once again, the silliest stereotype of what the left imagines Trump supporters to be.

This week news broke that Special Counsel Robert Mueller had referred a case to the FBI alleging mysterious political forces were trying to pay women to lie about being sexually harassed by Mueller in years past. Basically, the same thing Democrats and their minions did to Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh.

Also this week, Missouri Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill, who is in a bruising race to retain her Senate seat, became embroiled in a crazy public war of words with a black Missouri Democrat who verbally attacked her and called her profanities. McCaskill feigned outrage at the charge and appeared on cable news shows the next day crowing about how she agrees with President Trump 100% on immigration. McCaskill is a hardcore Obama-style leftist Democrat who is notable for representing a reasonably conservative state carried by President Trump in 2016 by a whopping 18 points. So McCaskill's liberalism makes her vulnerable under any circumstances.

These four stories all point to Democrat internal polling showing Americans are angry about antifa harassment and attacks on Republican candidates, officeholders and members of the administration. Leftist violence and unhinged mobs threatening the lives of prominent Republicans is reflecting poorly on Democrats. I'm confident the left has internal polling showing their outrageous smears of Justice Kavanaugh backfired and Democrats were taking a beating over their insane behavior in that fiasco. Finally, I have no doubt Democrats have data showing conservatives are sick of people being called horrible names by leftist officials and possibly even rally to someone's defense.

All four of these news items are custom made for liberals to position themselves as victims of what the public obviously sees as problem for Democrats. These situations also put Democrats in a position to dismiss antifa violence, mob harassment of Republicans and their obscene behavior toward Justice Kavanaugh by claiming "both sides do it!" And, of course, liberals never pass up a chance to portray themselves as victims. So that's just a bonus in all these scenarios.

We'll find out on Tuesday if the late flurry of activity where Democrats are portraying themselves as victims is a result of polling that looks bad for them and they're making a desperate shift at the last minute for damage control.

Pushing Back on Leftist Bullying: My Latest Column at WND

My latest column at WND is up. In it, I encourage Americans to begin pushing back on political correctness demands of the left by turning the tables on them.

"I don't demand you speak, act or dress any certain way, you don't demand these things of me."

Check it out!

When you share it, use the 'share' button on the page at WND.