15 Decades Strong, Democrats. Great job!

Ok, so slavery ended at the end of the year in 1865 which makes me early by much more than a few months, but with the newest “humanitarian effort” being led by Harry Reid and the Democrats on our southern border, I find it necessary to congratulate them early.

In December of 2015, the nation’s Democrats will celebrate exactly one-hundred and fifty years of promoting humanitarian causes while doing nothing but screwing over humanity, the poor, minorities, free people in general, and pretending like they have never been anything but angels when it comes to human and civil rights.

If you ever want to sit down and brainstorm a humanitarian solution to a problem, save yourself the time by Googling “what are the Democrats doing?” and do precisely the opposite of that.

I find it necessary to insert my typical disclaimer here, as per usual, as my incessant ramblings about the American Left insinuate an unrelenting measure of support for the American Right, which just is not so.  As I’ve said a number of times, the Right has their issues too– frequent disconnects from reality, their people, thick-headedness, pussification…to name a few– but no major political party or movement commands disdain for liberty and freedom like that of the progressive left.  There also is no other political party or movement that relies, solely, upon the lives of its supporters being miserable- in a persistent state of need, and often greed- like the American left.  While no Republican has yet to come forward with enough gusto to motivate me to vote for the first time in well over a decade, no Democrat has proven to me that they give even the smallest of fucks about freedom, about people, or about the immortal words of our Founding Fathers.

And trust me, they sure as hell don’t care about the well-being of people from Honduras, Guatemala, or any other place where people have been living and raising families in squalor and hell for decades.  Not months.  Decades.  The plight of people living in Central and South America is not new– what is new, however, is the realization that the Democrats need some fresh blood, and some votes; perhaps not in 2016, but most certainly in the years after.

And that is what this about.  Votes.

In what era of American history have Democrats done anything but “help” the needy and poor by shuffling them into the bottomless pit of subservience and dependence we call the “welfare state”?  Republicans, back when they were republicans, fought for years to end slavery, and battled through Democratic filibusters of the first two Civil Rights Acts intended to end segregation (among other activities created and carried out solely by Democrats, to include the murder, rape, and pillaging of non-white families and homes), yet the DNC’s own “about us” page will tell you a different story entirely and its voters will echo such a sentiment through their early-November actions.  At what point in our nation’s short history have Democrats done anything but everything they can to ensure people remain piss poor, miserable, and reliant upon the State?

If any progressive out there would like to begin countering my point by starting with the New Deal and FDR, just stop.  You’ve already lost.

Why is it that children from these disparate nations are being shuffled into the nation with zero regard for the infrastructures of our small southern towns and cities, or the health of our people?  The answer: because the Democrats know you’ll still vote Democrat if you already did in 2012, even if you have Hepatitis.

The goal is simple for the Left– you get as many young people in here with their young mothers as you can, and you make them as reliant upon the government as possible, in the shortest amount of time.  Second, you talk about “amnesty” as if it is the solution to the problem, though it is the root cause of the problem since the government all but promised it a few months ago when it decided to not enforce the basic laws that any and all sovereign nations revere (for as much as progressives like to talk about how much we should “be like Europe”, you think someone would ask why this doesn’t apply to immigration).  Lastly, you get people– well-intentioned, or not– into the nation and into the system.  You get them into “affordable housing”– housing that I will BET should be springing up in some key red-cities any time now– and you get them not on a “path to citizenship” in an American sense, but on a path to citizenship in the Starship Troopers sense.  Except in Starship Troopers, citizenship relied upon serving the nation and not sucking it dry.  Also, in Starship Troopers, attaining citizenship wasn’t easy, so I suppose this was a terrible example.

Whatever.  The point is your “path”, if coming into the States via “amnesty”, is not prosperous, but pious– get on your knees and honor thy Democrat.  Welcome to the Church of Progressitopia.

Democrats don’t need you prospering or making something out of yourself– they require you to be stuck because they know that if or when you “make it”, you’ll probably stop voting Democrat.

And that doesn’t work for them.

Since well before the mid-1800s, Democrats have been destroying human lives– though they might not have known it in 1865, they sure as hell knew it by the mid-1900s when they realized they could trade pretending like they weren’t racist bigots for creating national-level policy that ensured people of color remained dependent upon them forever.  The fact that today’s minorities overwhelmingly support them and probably think of slave owners and traders as “those damn Tea Partiers” was but a bonus.

I’ll leave you with this thought–  do you know who this guy is?:


Some random Cuban guy or something like that, right?

Maybe you’ll remember him better in this light:


That’s Elian Gonzalez.  Bill Clinton sent him back after weeks of “what do you we do with him?” in the national media in the late-90s.  What do Cubans tend to become, if or when they become American citizens, after their escape from Cuban oppression?  Movie stars? Athletes? Politicians?

Well maybe in some cases they do– but they also often become Republicans.

And Bill Clinton would have never given up the opportunity to send a potential future-Republican back to the world of communism.

But today, in 2014, no– we’re so focused on giving people “a shot”– the same kind of shot we’ve been giving historically oppressed people for well over one hundred years.  I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t be looking upon that with much praise.

At what point are people going to stand up, get involved, and admit that we needed to elect our nation’s first black president to show just how badly Democrats have been fucking over minorities for well over a century?  What will that accomplish in 2016?

Probably nothing.

How many more American, urban centers need to fall before we wake up to exactly how “humanitarian” progressivism is, and how humanitarian it promises to be in our not-so-distant future?


So one time I wrote about…

…the newest trend in media, which is to make everything a list, a picture, an emotion, blahh blaaaaah blaaahhhhhh.  Into a whatever- anything but paragraphs and complete statements.  At the time, I didn’t get into much detail about that observation and I didn’t expand upon my point much further than noting that it was becoming hard to read news on the internet these days in general. Today I am going to revisit the topic in a very unprofessional and non-academic way.

My forever-growing, people-who-regularly-embarrass-themselves-on-Twitter bookmark tab in Firefox has seen some recent additions.  Recently I have often found myself being directed to Vox- a company which challenges us to “understand the news”, which is its write-up on Twitter.  It’s not difficult to discern that Vox is just another progressive, heal-the-world hack job of a news source, but it’s worth a glance every now and then to get a giggle out of some of the plans they dredge up from the bowels of progressitopia.

Just a few minutes ago, I pulled up their page on Twitter.  Now tell me- since we all know that progressives write and/or speak to no one and for no one but each other, do these look like articles addressed to an educated, intellectual, or well-informed public?  Write to your audience, right?  It seems Vox is doing a little more talking down to people than they are talking to them– not much of a surprise considering one of DC’s biggest morons, Matt Yglesias, is their “executive editor”.

Behold, the intellectual beauty that is Vox (Beware, this is about to get long):



I stopped right about here.  There were a few links to articles that seemed “normal” on the surface, but I did not check into them, nor care enough see if they were anything more than articles saturated with lists, charts, and chatter about how “scary” their lessons were.  No, Vox, I don’t give a damn about what “Transformers 4 teaches us about economics”, and I know that it is difficult to go an hour without pondering his worldview but no, I don’t give a damn about what George Takei thinks, about anything, at any time.

Through the first twenty or so tweets from Vox, in its quest to help us “understand the news”, we got:

…tips about which board games adults should play (as if hipsters need one more reason to move to Brooklyn and not work), the ANSWER to the “Great American Soft Drink Debate” which seeks to answer whether or not it’s called “pop” or “soda” (answer: it’s SODA, why?  Because whatever a New Yorker says is always correct), the FIVE (not six) ways that Seinfeld has changed television, 21 charts that depict how America is changing- one that I actually checked out, and was not even slightly shocked to find it was full of “well, duh” factoids like “we’re becoming less religious” or the ever-important “we’re moving west in larger numbers”, a map that gave us insight into– now wait, make sure you’re sitting down– how people in countries that see its populace making better, and more stable livings, pay a smaller percentage of their annual incomes on food, a single graph which is reportedly nothing but a straight line and has Ezra Klein nearly in tears over it, because it shows that people have little power and that the dreaded oligarchy has become us (what do you think happens when we spit upon republicanism for the better part of a century?), another amazing list which names Ireland the #1 “goodest” country while the United States came in a miserable 21st, another map of the top beers in each state, an article that will take you to the next level at your weekend Rock, Papers, Scissors club using “science” (of course), 4 tips from a food scientist about the art of barbecue, 5 songs released this week that you just have to hear, an article explaining how it really is alright to swim right after you eat, and finally- THE single most important fact about American politics.  No, I didn’t bother seeing what that fact was.  Knowing Vox it wasn’t much of a fact anyway.

Phew, I’m beat.  And that was after skimming through but twenty or thirty of the hundreds of tweets Vox makes per day.  They’re not the only ones guilty of this massacre of the brain, have no doubt, but I have never seen such fluff condensed into one package, in such volume.  This company defines bullshit news, yet over 100k people seem to be interested enough to follow it daily.

And we wonder why we have low-information voters?  Because we are a nation of low-information voters.  Plain and simple.


Oh look, another reason for progressives to tell you what you should be thinking!

Well, it’s June, and since Donald Sterling’s racist comments are sooo last month, progressives scrambled to find the next thing to bitch about and man have they found it.  What important national-level issue did they choose?  Berghdahl?  The IRS?  Unemployment?  Nah, The Washington Redskins, naturally.

I’ll start this by pointing out that I’m precisely 0% Native American.  That makes me ten-times more Native American than Elizabeth Warren though.  I remember when I was a kid, with the purchase of a Value Meal at McDonald’s, that you could score a VHS of Dances with Wolves for $2– I think I watched it once, which also makes me more Native American than Elizabeth Warren.  Why is it important to highlight how “Native American I am” to preface this discussion?  Beats me, but I’ve seen a few articles around the web recently where an author’s “cred” was validated by the percentage of Native American blood they had.


Yeah, I don’t get it either.

I’ll spare the usual talk about how there are plenty of Native Americans out there (actual ones) who don’t give two damns about the Redskin mascot, and the discussions about where the name for the team actually came from.  It’s been discussed, over and over again, and at great length.  It’s boring already, and progressives have a solid track record with regard to how little they care about any kind of counterargument that might knock them off the waaaaaambulance they’ve been riding in for about four or five decades now.  So instead of talking about a bunch of cultural factors that I don’t really give a shit about, I’ll just use this time to talk about how the bansheeing over the Redskins name is the epitome of progressivism.

I’ll ask this question again, as I’ve done in the past:  if everything was going well in the country, what would a progressive be left with?  What about the progressive ideology, and the “progress” it claims to make, ever leaves room for things to simply be good, or even good enough?  Without thinking everything is miserable, does a progressive opinion even exist?  If a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound?  We needed healthcare reform NOW, because healthcare sucks and only served to make “corporations” wealthier; we need immigration reform NOW, because even though there’s barely a job to be found in today’s market, illegals will do the jobs (that suck) that Americans won’t; we need some kind of undefined reform NOW because of income inequality, and because no CEO ever earned, or worked towards the millions of dollars they make or anything silly like that (and because they suck); we need to change the name of a sports team NOW because it’s racist, and racism sucks, and because–


People might be jumping on the bandwagon in calling for the Redskin name to be changed because of “racism” (quotes necessary), but the progressive politicians leading the movement don’t really care about that.  If they did, they’d stop targeting minorities for votes as they condemn them to poverty– something they’ll never cease doing so long as it returns nearly 100% support in every election, without fail.  If they really cared about race more than they do about creating race wars, they would have made a new hashtag on Twitter for every one of the thousands of young, black, American men and women who died as a result of gang or gun-related violence between Trayvon Martin’s death and the Zimmerman not-guilty verdict.

The reason why the Redskins name has become such a hot topic is because a progressive will never, ever, allow the chance to dictate how people should think, live, act, or feel to slip through their greasy, thieving hands.  They already spend most of their time putting those hands in your pockets, and now they’re putting them in your brain.

Has anyone ever noticed how it’s always old, white, and liberal politicians who spend their time telling us what we’re thinking, and how much those thoughts bug groups of people they have absolutely nothing in common with?  Yeah, we get it, politicians are supposed to stand up for and speak for the people– all people– and be their voice.  They’re supposed to be on the “level” of the people, and for whatever reason people are pretty convinced these days that the nation’s Democrats have somehow done that better than Republicans while they both spend their weekends launching yachts from their backyards and eating oysters.  I’ll believe that politicians are on the same “level” as the people when they start sending their children to the same schools we send ours to.

How many national, prime-time commercials denouncing the Redskins name did you see on television last year?  The year before?  In the early 2000s?  Earlier?  None.  And that’s probably because at the time, tribal nations either didn’t care, or they didn’t have progressives funneling money to them to spend on multi-million dollar, 30-second commercial spots during the NBA Finals.

No one asks these questions, but the celebrations for pitiful, cowardly, and do-nothing examples of “progress” (like the Redskins trademark getting canceled earlier this week) go on for weeks.  Even if we assume that the Redskin logo is in fact racist, or that the team’s owner is a racist, do you think progressives care about changing the people behind that supposed racism more than they do covering it up and pretending it’s “mission accomplished”?  Of course not.  As with any and all things progressive, all that matters is how much people see you being a progressive.  The results don’t matter nearly as much as the “look at me” factor, and the pats on the back you earn from the like-minded, progressive friends sitting next to you in the drum circle.


I’m a Giants fan, so really I couldn’t care any less about the well-being of the Redskins than I already do– I hope the team experiences a future of NFL misery and many more long, and painful years of pitiful performance– but I will defend their owner’s resilience when it comes to the egregious and mind-controlling nature of America’s lacktivists and the puppeteers in DC who control their subsidized, Silver-Plan strings.




On last week’s Toure incident

For years now I have been telling friends that one of my life goals is to become famous and get featured on  After coming home last week one afternoon from work and seeing my Twitter exchange with MSNBC’s Toure go somewhat viral– hitting Twitchy, the Daily Caller, the blogs of multiple progressive low-life lacktivists (word I just made up…just think about it for a second), and even The Blaze– I can safely say that fame is something I no longer wish to have.

Screw that.  It’s not fun, it’s not enjoyable, and even though I barely even experienced 1/100th of 1% of what your average celebrity must experience every day when they leave their house or apartment, I can confirm that it is not that awesome.  I write on this website anonymously– not to “hide”, but because I do not believe that the concept of liberty needs to have a face or a figurehead.  I do not claim to speak for the whole, but rather I write as a voice offering a different perspective on some of the topics we often hear about daily in newspapers or on television.  My goal is to examine issues from a new angle– an angle often dismissed, or shunned by people of prestige, power, and influence.  People exactly like Toure– and they have been doing it for a long, long time.  I get brash, and I make some very real statements which I deem to be true.  I do not exist in a position of power like Toure does, and he should have known better than to get so careless about how he tried to inject race into something that he had to know was going to segue into an all-out rage from the Twitterverse.  He brought that on himself.  I on the other hand do not have anyone to answer to, and do not owe anyone a toned-down, or more “sensitive” approach to the topic of race in America.  Plenty of brave souls have tried that, and every single one of them has been summarily ignored and labeled a racist by the militant left.

If I’m going to be labeled ‘racist’ for what are arguments against racism, and accusations that the nation’s progressive contingent is perhaps the most relentless band of racists this nation has ever known, I sure as hell won’t be the “nice” guy while doing so.

I addressed this via Twitter, but I most definitely understood what Toure meant when he initially replied to me with “The power of whiteness”, after I mentioned the story of my grandfather and his surviving imprisonment in Dachau.  Had I expected the fire to ignite like it did (I only found out about it via a Facebook message from a friend, hours after its beginning), I might have stuck around and made note of a few facts for people:  that I was not Jewish, as many outlets claimed, that I understood Toure was talking about my family’s “white power” and how that helped us after coming to the States, and so on.  But you know what?  In hindsight, this worked out just fine.  Toure has been making brash statements about race for years now, and if he were a white guy pulling such nonsense, he would be fired or asked to resign.  He would be the Donald Sterling of MSNBC, except he wouldn’t get a $2 billion severance check.

But I am not writing this post to simply recall the events of last week in detail– a week in which for the first time ever, Toure just stopped using Twitter for days on end, which I can only assume was evidence of his bosses figuring out the best way to approach the fallout from his irresponsible tweeting.  The truth is, I didn’t even expect an apology (and didn’t get one, though he did make one to the general public a few days ago), nor did I want one.  I believe in the concept of free speech, for everyone, and in every medium in which that speech exists.  What I find a ridiculous amount of irony in, however, is how people like Toure will praise the firing of television personalities, or support forcing people to sell their basketball teams, yet they will talk themselves out of problems (or just tweet their way out of them) as if there is no measure of equivalence between these differing brands of supposed “hate”.  I will continue to call people out who persist in abusing their power and privilege in the media, just as Toure does, while doing so much to trample on the freedoms of others– and typically in the name of “freedom”, or “equality” at that, which is laughable.

But moving on–

I wanted to address my position from my tweet to Toure first, and discuss the motivation behind it.  I read a lot of criticism about it, and a lot of ridiculous conjecture as to what I “meant”, for example, when I capitalized the word “LEGALLY”, and make things more clear.  Here’s the tweet for reference:

Toure, as usual, was pushing some bullshit idea– this time by promoting an article about the concept of white privilege, reparations, and its applicability in today’s America.  The truth is I didn’t even read the article he posted.  Why?  Because Toure has a long and well-documented history of bashing white people and drumming up race wars via Twitter, or during his time on television, and I didn’t need to reference some random article he skimmed to understand the motivation behind his support of something like reparations.  The justifications for any kind of reparation-based system, regardless of what they were, did not matter to me– I cannot even tell you who wrote the article, and I won’t be able to tell you anytime soon.  I just don’t care.  This was about Toure and his incessant race-baiting- and that’s it.  Also, and just to fit the explanation in here, I only referenced my family’s “LEGAL” immigration to the States so as to bolster the legitimacy of it, and not to claim that people fleeing to the States for other reasons have done so illegally…though millions obviously have, and still do.

My statement to him was about responsibility.  In other words, I was asking what hand my family played in the many atrocities committed against people of color from our nation’s past– how in the run up to some of our most trying times post-slavery, my family wasn’t involved in the rape, murder, house burning, and segregation of black people (that was all done by Democrats), rather, they were either imprisoned in Dachau (which was where my grandfather found himself during the war as a prisoner), or running from Nazis, and even the Soviets.  My issue with not just Toure’s promotion of reparations, but of the “race card” in general, comes down to how such tactics are entirely abstract, passively blameless, and entirely responsible for the “blame everyone but yourself” mindset that progressive culture creates.

The crazy thing here is this:  if people made an argument about “white privilege” in a way that did not a.) blame people with absolutely zero connection to our country’s dark past for it, b.) belittle those who accepted no help from the government and still made things work, or c.) entirely excuse people who just might not be that good at something, skilled enough at something, or determined enough to pave their own way, we might actually have a conversation where we look at the problem as one we would love to lend a hand towards solving together.  As it stands, the idea of “liberty” is a no go in bridging that divide, and even people like Toure have claimed that “jobs aren’t the answer for unemployment” (I’m paraphrasing because the position is too stupid to devote time towards Googling for the actual quote, but yes, that’s what the man said).  None of the liberty movement’s (or as Toure would claim, none of the “extremist right-wing”) positions are good enough to help create equality, so what we are left with is an onslaught of government-heavy legislation which, intentionally, breeds dependence.  You know, I had to laugh when Toure tweeted a picture of him reading Rules for Radicals in first class during one of his recent trips– Toure isn’t man enough to be a radical, and he isn’t autonomous enough, or “colorblind” enough to imagine a world without the government holding the hands of the citizenry through every step down the path of life.  I called Toure out because he is ignorant, hypocritical, and gets a pass for just about everything he says– including what he said to me about the “power of whiteness”.  But more so, I monitor what he says and criticize him often due to his constant support of government-enabled dependence and despair.  Toure is the antithesis of radicalism.

I did not start this conversation with him expecting it to stretch into days of banter, inquiries from news media about my grandfather’s story, or to become a Twitter and blogosphere sensation.  I did not particularly love coming home to 700-1000 Twitter notifications, even though it was interesting to check out what people were saying about the incident, and it became tedious though the vast majority of it revolved around Toure’s condemnation from the public– something long overdue.  I write as a means of voicing an opinion that is too often dismissed, for all of the wrong reasons, by the country’s political and media elite.  One such “reason”, and often from the folks at MSNBC, is for the liberty movement’s “obvious racism”, which oddly enough goes without evidence just about every single time it is proclaimed.  I write to act as a vector from the sidelines, for other “little people”– those of us who might remain silent in the face of Facebook friends, coworkers, and relatives who speak with complete freedom because progressivism is “like sooo coool mannnnn“, and because they’re so into “like progress and not hate, maannnnnn“.

Progressivism is nothing more than a more academic term for “poser”.

Earlier I made reference to the term “lacktivist”.  In other words, an activist that lacks the substance necessary to make their end goals come to fruition.  This is the very definition of the American progressive.  Toure, Maddow, Harris-Perry, Matthews, Gore, Moore, deBlasio, Bloomberg (yes, Bloomberg), Matt Yglesias, Joan Walsh from, every single contributor to Think Progress, etc.  These are lacktivists.  They are individuals, often ridiculously privileged in their own right, with minds obviously intelligent enough and coordinated enough to find success and generate ideas, but their emotions enable them to do nothing more than consider their good intentions and “caring” to be all that is necessary for the eradication of the societal ills they simply cannot shut up about.  It is all talk, and no substance– and in five or ten years when the newest, progressive “caring” initiative fails, they figure out a way to convince the poor souls they are ritualistically screwing over that it’s the Republicans’ fault for not giving enough money to the cause.  For as much as progressives love to wail about the billionaire Koch Brothers (looking at you, Harry Reid), they sure do settle on “money” a lot as to the reason why their utopian, castle-in-the-sky fantasies never seem to pan out.

I did not create this discussion with Toure to minimize the severity of what slavery was, or to detract from the gaps in society something more recent like segregation has caused.  No shit there have been negative effects in the aftermath of those horrendous events– even effects which have spilled into, and influence the way we live our lives today.  But get this– they were all Democrat-created things.  Every single one of them.  And today, in my blog, I often discuss how the same “ownership”, dehumanization, and liberty-suffocating principles (which was in essence what slavery was) of the “old” DNC are very much alive and well in today’s DNC and its progressive, demagogue pulse.  I will continue to point this out, regardless of who I piss off and who it “insults”.  If this correlation startles you, then please consider how Democrats, in the decades since the New Deal, have run urban populations into the ground, into poverty, and continue to do so through today.  Please explain how our first black President, a man that was anointed as a political messiah as the savior of America’s downtrodden, and given Nobel Peace Prizes before even so much as lifting a finger, has managed to ensure those in the lower classes are only slipping deeper into the holes that either they, or society has dug for them– worse off than ever before.

But no– keep blaming the Koch brothers and “corporations”.  That’s the spirit.

Perhaps if I write enough of these blog posts, it will finally click in the minds of a few people that making the poor poorer is the intent and not the problem progressives are trying to solve.  Toure, or any of the other folks I have mentioned, might not see things this way anytime soon, but if by chance I influence just one person in a way that enables them to see things in a scope wider than the foolishly simplistic and infantile way they see things now, this entire hobby of mine can be considered a success.  At least by my own standards, anyway.

Until then, liberty needs to be promoted, every day and always.  Adherence to our founding traditions of republicanism, as a nation which allowed democracy to happen, needs to be exercised.  And when people of power seek to use their atrociously biased influence to ensure we continue to set our nation “back”, which is often what they claim to be fighting so vehemently against, they need to be called out.  It just so happens I have gotten tired of being labeled as ignorant or racist because I happened to be born a white male, into a family that has been successful– this is how I started to create public discussions about race.  And it is quite alarming just how often we allow people like Toure to slip race into the equation when there are so many good people in this world who go about their days not giving a shit about what color someone’s skin is.

Until next time, with liberty, and justice for all.



People, and by “people” I am mostly referring to snooty undergrads who think they have a clue or faux-intellectuals who think their intelligence directly correlates with the type of beer they drink, love to theorize about what democracy is.  The discussion is predictable, if not entirely cookie-cutter:  the topic of freedom via our democracy is raised, some asshole in a beret or Prohibition Era jacket holding a can of Pabst Blue Ribbon points out that we don’t have a “true democracy”, and may even point out how some recent academics have considered that our democracy is actually a lot more like an oligarchy.  While the contention that our democracy has in fact evolved over time is a correct one, the spirit behind such discussions is based on false premises of what democracy is and ignorance surrounding what our democracy was meant to be like in the first place.

Democracy does not enable freedom.  It does not permit freedom.  Democracy does not necessarily create room for liberty, and it does not imply or facilitate equality.  The most glaring evidence of that fact is the practice of the electoral college, which reminds us that the vote of a person from California is about 20 times more important than the vote of a person from Delaware.  When the discussion about democracy is raised, usually as a means of backing an argument based upon pro-socialist theories (universal healthcare, income redistribution, confiscating privately owned firearms, etc.), what goes entirely amiss is that the nation was envisioned as a republic, which enabled a democracy.  Democracy was a measure of control implemented to protect people from government, and not to deter the will of the people and empower those elected to lead them.  It was meant to make America anything but the monarchy it had run from; anything but the monarchy that was dead-set to maintain the New World as a group of British colonies and not its own, independent nation.

In today’s America, Republicans do a terrible job of promoting republicanism.  Democrats, today, don’t even like to pretend that republicanism ever existed.  The concept of a republic enables liberty– personal autonomy and freedom from the inherent tyranny of federal control that sometimes goes unchecked.  Liberty, via the framework of a republic, allows democracy to happen.  In other words, republicanism gives democracy permission.

Governance through democracy is intended to limit the power of the federal government and enable governance via the states.  The federal government’s role, as intended from the start, is to provide that which states cannot provide themselves– nothing more.  And though we like to pretend like there is no precedent for that notion while things like “hope and change” become justifications for the constant nullification of liberty, there is actually a ton of literature on the matter; let us take a glimpse at just a few of them.

An excerpt from “The Liberty Song”, the first patriotic American ballad, written in 1768 by John Dickinson:

Come join hand in hand, brave Americans all,
And rouse your bold hearts at fair Liberty’s call;
No tyrannous acts shall suppress your just claim,
Or stain with dishonor America’s name.
In freedom we’re born, and in freedom we’ll live,
Our purses are ready,
Steady, friends, steady,
Not as slaves, but as freemen our money
we’ll give.

The incredible thing about that excerpt is that the “purses” and “money” being referenced to do not have to be thought of as wallets, or actual hard currency.  The purses can hold anything– your possessions, your ideas, your individuality, your freedom of choice, the healthcare plan you used to have that was cheaper and worked better for you and your loved ones, or your goals.  These are all things that progressives make a living of either condemning you for having, dictating what these should be for you, or ripping from you what they deem the “excess” and redistributing that to others undeserving.  The “money” needn’t have the face of a former President emblazoned on it– it can be your time, your effort at work, or even your opinions.  Every one of those are examples of things that progressives like to either tax you on, lie to you about, or label you erroneously for.  The Liberty Song predates the Constitution, and is but another example of something we are more apt to ignore than revere, or learn by its example.

In the wake of the Boston Tea Party, and the subsequent British response to it which saw ports shut down and colonies deprived of their outlets to sustenance, a few men from Virginia called for the Continental Congress with this justification:

…We are further clearly of opinion, that an attack, made on one of our sister colonies, to compel submissions to arbitrary taxes, is an attack made on all British America, and threatens ruin to the rights of all, unless the united wisdom of the whole be applied.

Is there anything more arbitrary and ridiculous than a nation’s highest court validating a penalty for not buying something, under the justification that it can be considered a “tax”?  Yeah, we as Americans just cheered for that, and let it happen (not me though!).  Peter the Great actually implemented a tax on citizens for sporting beards sometime around the start of the 18th century, and that even makes more sense than the Obamacare mandate.  Hell, it would be especially applicable today in a place like the gentrified, and hipster-infested borough of Brooklyn.  Bring this one back, guys– in hindsight, it was pretty smart!

Patrick Henry wrote to the President of the Continental Congress in 1775:

Gentlemen may cry peace, peace!– but there is no peace.  The war is actually begun.  The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms.  Our brethren are already in the field.  Why stay we here idle?  What is it that gentlemen wish?  What would they have?  Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?  Forbid it, Almighty God.  I know not what course others may take, but as for me: give me liberty, or give me death!

The most amazing thing about how we view “liberty” today, to me, is that we so rarely look at liberty as being on par with something else we cannot exist without– oxygen.  We sit back and watch people push bullshit initiatives, in the name of liberty, when they are anything but.

“Access to” (i.e “free”) healthcare, is pushed as a universal right that directly coincides with the notion of liberty– yet to enable this in reality we allowed the federal government to monopolize it and dictate what “good healthcare” is, we cheered on the creation of a “marketplace” that offered an incredible selection of three whole healthcare plans and told you that you had to choose one, and we allowed that same government to pretend like such proceedings would have no ill effect on a market that already sorely lacks an inroads to competitive innovation (which is how you lower the cost of medical care, by the way).  It has also completely forgot about the motivation necessary to lead intelligent youths down the path of medical education in the future.  We somehow managed to allow the government to do this in the name of liberty, while it did nothing but carry on its tradition of enslaving the public will– a public that in the end, remains populated with people who do not give much of a damn so long as their birth control is free.

The problem with our understanding of liberty today is that it is not revered as something important enough to die for– a level of dedication to it like Patrick Henry must have had in calling upon his fellow colonists to take up arms, and to start taking action, even if it meant that they would not be alive to see their children, or their grandchildren playing in the yards of the homes they owned– built on American soil.  In 2014, Patrick Henry would have been the guy that got his rifle ready, and jumped on his horse, if 300 little girls were kidnapped by the British.  He would not appeal for someone else to do something about it via Twitter, and pretend like he had done his part.

Today, we look at liberty like something given to us as a gift by the people we elect.  We place it below a good, but naturally flawed system we call democracy.  In doing so we allow the keepers of democracy to use liberty as a tool; a means of controlling popularity, directing public opinion, or guaranteeing subservience.  And that is a travesty.  Liberty is a gift bestowed upon the people, by the people who spilled blood to make such a gift possible.  It is liberty that motivated the founding of the nation as a republic, and allowed citizens to seek the honor of making decisions and acting as the voice of the people by way of public life.  If liberty was ever to be a tool, it was exclusively meant for the people and no one else.  Politicians– people who were expected to serve in politics as a secondary profession, and not a career– are not the ones who own the sow that reaps the fruits of liberty.  Today, we have this backwards.

Such a backwards situation would not be so bad if we regularly enjoyed leadership that understood that civilizations exist most efficiently when markets are free, and when people maintain a hold on the liberty that directs their personal decisions and lives.  Healthcare is but one of many examples in which the government has told us that we are no longer capable of being autonomous decision makers for ourselves and our families.

The unfortunate thing, in the end, is that many Americans are just fine with the way we perceive what liberty is, how we skew its meaning, and spit upon it daily.  Similarly, the British ruled over the colonies for a century and a half, and some even liked it, before people like Thomas Paine decided it was time to kick things into action and enable a revolution.  In Common Sense, buried deep in the parts that people don’t bother to Google, he states:

Small islands not capable of protecting themselves are the proper objects for government to take under their care; but there is something absurd in supposing a continent be perpetually governed by an island.  In no instance hath nature made the satellite larger than its primary planet; and as England and America, with respect to each other, reverse the common order of nature, it is evident that they belong to different systems.  England to Europe: America to itself.

We do not understand what it is to be ruled by a foreign power- a satellite.  But we are doing an impeccable job of recreating that satellite, and giving it an American flag to wave while it exercises control upon matters of importance not applicable to a need for federal concern.  We have turned D.C. into colonial England.

While big-R Republicans might be disappointing these days, if you ever encounter a republican, that supports republicanism, you should say “thank you”.  They support a cause that enabled your country to be what it is.  When the idea of free-anything (markets, choice, etc.) becomes something vilified, or entirely condemned by the progressive clowns who infest our nation’s leadership ranks, a great disservice is done to the history and the tradition imparted upon us by those who fought, and sometimes died for what became the United States of America.

If someone wants to pat themselves on the back as a progressive (which, really, is the sole purpose of their existence), and tells you in their next breath about how much they believe in the idea of liberty and the freedoms it should guarantee, kindly remind them that they are not only living examples of their own hypocrisy, but traitors to the cause.  Progressivism does not exist without a complete indifference to the nature of what is a free individual exercising their liberty, on republican soil.

Progressives, like the colonial British, are enemies of the dream that was liberty and became the republic.  In turn, they also exist as enemies of the State(s), and they need to be reminded of it more often.


Author’s note:  You may have noticed that I have not linked my quotations to any online sources or documents in this article.  That is because I have hand-written each one, from hardcopies I own, that are open right in front of me in my apartment.  I do not say this to sound pretentious like someone sitting at Starbucks reading Kerouac, but I think Americans would most assuredly prosper from seeking out, and purchasing the original documents that we so often pull up on computer screens and pluck pieces from to suit our needs.  In that regard, if you feel like you might want to read these documents in their entirety, I suggest you run down to your nearest Barnes & Noble (or whatever’s out there these days), and you grab a copy of some of the documents and publications that set forth the foundations for our country’s framework and its escape from tyranny.  Yes, you’ll have to deal with another arbitrary tax much like the colonies did called a “sales tax”, but I think there are more pros to be had than cons in reading every single word of these pieces we rarely see in full.  Just my opinion, though.  Take it or leave it.


On Dr. Ben Carson

A year or so ago, Dr. Ben Carson came out of nowhere and became an internet sensation with his somewhat critical, yet classy speech delivered at the 2013 (2012?) National Prayer Breakfast.  The President did not seem amused by Carson’s words– at least not by the ones that seemed to take a jab at his (more so the DNC’s) stance on national level policy– and the eruption that took place afterwards across the internet, the news, and beyond, is testament to the power of Dr. Carson’s message.

But there is something that none of the media outlets mentioned in the aftermath of the speech; long after progressives realized that Dr. Ben Carson was a conservative and started to call him an Uncle Tom, or worse, in the ever-so-tolerant and “no hate!” way they always do…

I did not hear a single news source bring up the “why?” as to how Dr. Carson’s comments caught everyone so off-guard.  Perhaps for the left wing channels and websites, the truth, as usual, was simply too much to face (rather, it is much more likely that these news sources were simply continuing their tradition of ignoring real, and blatant racism on the parts of the people they so often worship like idols).  And perhaps for the right wing news outlets, the truth was just too controversial– something that should not be brought up after a prayer breakfast- an event meant to bring people of differing political beliefs together while they exist in a sharply divided D.C. environment.

But here’s the truth about what led up to that day.

Whoever decided to bring Ben Carson to the event to speak (and he had spoken at it before, too), figured that because Dr. Ben Carson was a black man, he was going to kiss President Obama’s ass and sing his praises.  That a black man would never– but for the few brave souls that hold positions in the Republican Party and are ignored 100% of the time when they speak about demagoguery, or the inherent racist nature of our welfare, taxation, and social system– ever, call the President’s decision making abilities into question.  No one even thought to mention that assuming a person holds certain opinions based on the color of their skin is, in fact, an example of someone being a racist.  Of what I could imagine were the hundreds of people involved in planning an event headed by the President, all paid by your tax dollars, not a single one thought to say “Hey, maybe Dr. Carson isn’t a big fan of the President’s policy and is going to use that time to take him down a notch.”

None.  Because if one person brought up the idea of screening Dr. Carson’s speech before the event, you can bet your bottom dollar that a different person would have been giving that invocation– perhaps a holy, and totally not-racist guy like the NAACP’s Person of the Year, Al Sharpton.  At the very least, we would have heard a very different speech from Carson; and it would have likely been a lot shorter, and at its conclusion he would have been required to direct everyone to’s “marketplace”.

Judging by a breakdown of voting trends over the past two elections, it might not be illogical to understand why someone would assume that a black person should side with a President who happens to share a similar skin tone.  Perhaps you could say that in the business that is Beltway politics, people have to go with their instinct, or pass judgment based on statistics.  But in assuming that a black man is automatically going to praise a man at a prayer breakfast– a man who is often looked upon like a deity by the 95% of African Americans that voted for him, or the 50+% of non-minority folks who voted for him to prove how “with it” and non-racist they were– is still a racist position.  You cannot hide from it, but it can most assuredly be hidden from becoming public knowledge.

And how is that accomplished? You unleash the Dogs of Racecard War, to “have the conversation on race” and to explain to all of the willing, naive servants called voters the “real history” of racism in America.  A history that has been skewed, strategically and effectively, by Democrats for ages– a lesson from people who can empathize with the oft universal plights of minorities in America; people like MSNBC’s Toure who know all about how it is while being raised in private boarding schools, and enjoying long afternoons before going on the air in personal offices pumped with ionized oxygen.  Da streets, man– they’re no joke.

There was a time in this country’s history when the problems that minorities often face were much less of a problem than they are today.  Oddly enough, this period of history occurred in the years most closely nestled next to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  When the country’s minorities were often called something else– “Republicans”.  It is unfortunate to imagine a future in which our children’s textbooks will be forced to point out that it took the election of our nation’s first black President to prove just how far removed we have become from actually giving a damn about the character of individuals and not the color of their skin.

Perhaps someone can get an advanced copy of that history book to whoever vetted Dr. Carson before inviting him to last year’s Prayer Breakfast.


A big month for the racecard

Yeah, I took another break from writing.  The truth behind that is I am a graduate school student, and I am currently in a writing class that has made me consider how I’m not a very good writer.  I mean, I know that when it comes to this site I stray very, very far from what would be considered “good” or academic writing, but the point of the way I write here and the message I am attempting to get across is that you need not be an intellectual, a constitutional expert, or a student of a high pedigree to “get it”.  That’s why I try and keep things casual, as if these words could sound like I was simply having a conversation with a computer screen.  Despite that level of frankness and simplicity, I know that I often ramble and stray from some simple grammar rules that would make this all much easier on the eyes and in the minds of you, the reader.  Trust that I am working on polishing things up a little.

Anyway, there have been some crazy events popping up of late that are worth mentioning– whether I relay commentary on them with an aura of professionalism or not.

The state of Michigan recently took a step in the right direction by attempting to render their college admissions processes colorblind and the Supreme Court upheld it overwhelmingly.  When I’ve discussed this issue in the past with friends, I’ve mentioned an idea that focused on assigning serial numbers to college applicants and removing names, biographic, and demographic information from the application altogether.  Part of me wants to support the idea that there shouldn’t even be an essay in the application but perhaps that’s crossing the line; but if there’s one thing I know at 30, it is that us 80s babies knew absolutely nothing about the world at 18.  I wouldn’t put much stock in 90s babies being much better in that regard.  Regardless of what is done to render the college application process as colorblind as possible, one thing is for certain:  rulings like this make people go absolutely crazy, and it’s often for all of the wrong reasons.

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotamayor, a racist to the core in her own right, was particularly pissed about the ruling and issued a 58-page dissent about it.  If you’re asking yourself what was said in it, and you’re looking to me for the answer to that question, you’re asking the wrong guy.  I didn’t, nor will I read it.  That might seem ignorant but the bottom line is her dissent doesn’t mean jack.  Sotamayor, often lauded as an “activist justice”, waves the race card around more than MSNBC does.  For those unaware of the SCOTUS and its justices, it is important to note that there should not be “activist justices” on the court.  Their job is to uphold constitutional law, not promote activism.  Despite not reading the dissent, I am sure that Sotamayor made reference to the Constitution, the history of Democrats destroying the lives of people of color(s) (though she’d never go so far as to properly attribute such things to the nation’s left), and how the decision Michigan made is a “step back”, or whatever.  And it is now that I will explain how her perspective is so brutally flawed and infantile:

The claim that we are taking a “step back” often goes hand in hand with the insinuation that without affirmative action, the nation’s minorities would simply be denied admission to all of our colleges.  That affirmative action enables their admittance; that colleges are so racist, “just because”, that they won’t admit minorities without the government making them.  As per usual, people who support assumptions like this, have simplified the situation so much that they have convinced people that through legislation, we can eradicate a perceived problem.  But in this case, no one is even recognizing or calling out a problem– they are framing an argument in favor of federally-mandated racism, while everyone ignores how they are actually calling the administrators, officials, board members, students, and alumni of every single college in the States a racist.  The support for affirmative action requires one to embrace the idea of a perceived and universal racism on the part of our colleges and higher education system in general.  If our colleges aren’t racist, then what is keeping admissions boards from admitting minorities in higher numbers?  You see, at this point the answer to that question becomes something like “the applicant’s grades aren’t high enough”, “they aren’t well-rounded enough”, “they didn’t participate in after school activities, clubs, or organized sports enough”– things that flip the responsibility for someone’s denied entry into X or Y college on the applicants themselves.  As we have learned of the progressive movement in America and its ideals since day one, we simply cannot have that– the “problem” must always be caused by something abstract and beyond any unit of measure.  When will we see a day where liberals learn how to string the words “personal” and “responsibility” together?

That would be “never”.  When people become personally responsible, they become less dependent on the State, and less inclined to abide by the many edicts dictating how they should live.

In this case, the cause of the problem becomes the entire period of slavery, segregation, Jim Crow, and so on.  What people like Sotamayor fail to come to grips with is that every bit of the terror targeting minorities during this time– namely aimed at black people–was caused by the very people they vote for today.

Sure, there are a ton of social issues that screw with the development of children from impoverished families.  Many of them just happen to be minorities.  That is of course unfortunate, but the answer to that is reforming early childhood education (and not through some sham of a system that turns simple multiplication into an essay where the correct answer “doesn’t matter as much as the process”).  I’m not an educator, so the responsibility for that reform is on people better trained to do so– but it doesn’t take an educator, or a genius, to tell you that we are doing it wrong.  Legalizing and championing systematic racism in the college admissions process, as a way of combating systematic racism, is hardly the right road to travel down– even if the goal is to make things right.

I was going to transition into a chat about soon-to-be-former LA Clippers owner Donald Sterling, but perhaps I’ll write about that later in the week.  To avoid cutting things off awkwardly though, I will say that the NBA has every right to try and bully him out for whatever reason they choose– the NBA has a public image to keep, and Sterling is obviously an old, bitter racist.  That said, I wonder how long it will take the media to forget about this whole thing once they figure out that Donald Sterling is a raging liberal.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 27 other followers

%d bloggers like this: