The Great Color Lie

I met the boyfriend of my friend, Marie, a Congolese refugee who I had helped to get established here, and he seemed like a nice guy despite our political differences.  I’m pretty sure he would claim to be anti-racist and a feminist, if asked, and was a very loyal Democrat voter at very least.  But, as time went on, under this facade of empathy was an abusive monster.  Not only did he verbally abuse and physically assault my friend, he also forced her to get an abortion against her own wishes.

This rage lurks right below the surface for many who are white and vote blue.  The left pivots instantly from “think of the children” and “black lives matter” to calling a black Supreme Court Justice a “field n*gger” for the decision to let states choose their own abortion policies.  White Democrats become anti-democratic and very openly racist when things don’t go their way:

Dumb only because they disagree.

Sounds like a threat, doesn’t it?

Celebrity racism.

Apparently Clarence Thomas becomes a sub-human because he doesn’t agree with white Democrats who strategically place abortion clinics in minority communities and also treat the unborn as subhuman.  With the black population reduced by over 19 million as a result of Roe v. Wade, the white wealthy eugenicist who founded Planned Parenthood is likely very pleased.  And white Democrat economists, Levitt and Donohue, tried to argue this reduced crime—they continue to push this racial dog whistle despite better analysis.

Now, in Pennsylvania, where Democrat John Fetterman, a Senate candidate who once profiled and chased down an innocent black man and held him at gunpoint, the social media rhetoric against his opponent has taken an anti-immigrant turn.  Dr. Mehmet Oz, a person of color by the current standards, is under attack by white Democrats for being Turkish-born.  Imagine that, the party that opposes common sense border security and betting of new arrivals, calling it xenophobic, now targeting a renowned surgeon.

Do you see the pattern here? 

Any non-white who opposes the ability of these Democrat elitists to dictate outcomes is the target of hate.  They are truly pro-control, not choice.  The mantra “my body, my choice” vanished faster “kids in cages” when it was revealed that this policy started during the Obama administration.  Indeed, hose outraged over the Dobbs v. Jackson decision had no problem with a bunch of white men overruling state legislatures in 1973.  But they do have a problem with a black man and woman ruling against their own eugenicist aims.

Having it both ways.

The point here is not to call out these mostly white elites (or their token minorities) for their hypocrisy.  No, only those who live by a moral code can be held accountable to an exact standard.  Rather, I’ll call them out for their use of phony compassion as part of a cynical ploy and manipulation.  It is why they voted for a geriatric racist white man in their primary over the independent-minded Tulsi Gabbard.  It is why they “stand with Ukraine” and don’t care at all for tens of thousands of brown children dying in the ongoing US-aided Saudi invasion of Yemen.

The forgotten US-aided invasion.

Many who vote blue are brainwashed.  It would seem that the many who come out in support Democrats are victims of Stockholm syndrome.  Black Americans continually vote for their former and current oppressor.  Joe Biden, not Donald Trump, was close friends with with the infamous former Klansman Robert Byrd.  It is Democrats who tell people that they can’t be successful and therefore need handouts.  That’s disempowerment, it is a lie to keep the most vulnerable American communities bound to false campaign promises.

And let’s be real, giving women the message that they can’t raise their offspring is not empowering, it is fear-mongering, it feeds anxieties and is exploitative.  Seriously, why do you think big corporations are offering to pay female employees to travel out of state for abortions?  Should we believe that these otherwise soulless entities suddenly care about women?  Nah, it is avoiding having to pay more for maternity leave and risking the loss of a productive young woman to motherhood.

If it were actually about choice for women, white Democrat elites would not be vowing to hassle pregnancy care centers where struggling mothers are encouraged and given resources.  They wouldn’t be claiming that nobody wants to adopt and then turn around and belittle those who do.  Again, pro-abortion is not about choice, not about democracy or informed consent, it is about control.  It is truly about keeping women and minorities useful to them and their corporate sponsors.  They, like the asshole who forced my friend to have an abortion, only pretend to care to get what they want and have no commitment to their host beyond what they get for themselves.

Damned if you don’t, damned if you do?

The real parasites are in Washington and Wall Street, not in the womb.  These are the same faceless egregores that cause those on corporate boards to greedily send our jobs overseas and urge us to mindlessly consume to increase their profits.  It is virus that drives governments and bureaucracies to continual expansion despite the long-term consequences and enormous cost.  What needs to be aborted, and post haste, is this angry beast crawling out of the belly of the American ideal.

Like vintage tobacco advertisements that sold their addictive carcinogenic products as being liberation, the elites wrap their control agenda in words like hope and change.  But the only result of their policies is doubt, dependency and despair.  Is America being built back better?  

How to Avoid a Felony for Detaining Black Joggers

Did you hear about the white man, with a shotgun, who chased down a black jogger whom he suspected of a crime and then held at gunpoint?

If you’re thinking of the three men sentenced to life in prison for a similar circumstance in South Georgia you’re wrong.  Fortunately, in this case, there was no struggle for the firearm, no shot fired, and no charges ever filed for this detention.

Who was this white man who would simply assume that the black man running by was responsible for the sound of gunfire?

It was no other than John Fetterman, then the Democrat mayor of Braddock, now the Lieutenant Governor of Pennsylvania and currently running to be a US Senator.  Here’s what was reported of the incident at the time:

Fetterman said he noticed a man, dressed in black and wearing a face mask and goggles, running from the direction of the gunshot sounds. Fetterman followed the man in his truck into North Braddock, stopping him on Jones Avenue.

When the man refused Fetterman’s two orders to stop to wait for police, the mayor pulled the shotgun from his truck to stop him from leaving. He said he never pointed the gun at the man.

Interesting how the article then makes no mention of the detained man’s race and only says the jogger was not charged.  If a similar incident happened involving a Republican politician, or anyone else, do you think the thought of racial profiling would not make it into the reporter’s account?

Anyhow, as far as Fetterman’s claim of never pointing the weapon, that was disputed:

But in a television interview at the time, Miyares said Fetterman “aimed it at my chest.” In the same interview, Miyares said he believed the sound Fetterman heard was bottle rockets, not gun shots.

So, there you have it, a Democrat politician detaining a black jogger, downplaying and even lying about the incident, who doesn’t get charged with anything and is actually promoted to the second highest post in the state of Pennsylvania.

And knowledge of this incident is what made it so jarring to see a Fetterman campaign sign in the same yard as a Black Lives Matter supporter and one of those multi-language tolerance/welcome signs.  How is this even possible?  Do the occupants of this house not know that they’re supporting a man who literally chased down a black man with a shotgun?

This, of course, is Democrat privilege.  Only a Democrat could ever get away with wearing blackface, like Ralph Northam, the former governor of Virginia, who defiantly remained in office despite the incriminating photos and a string of blatant lies.  And only a Democrat is allowed to do things otherwise considered to be racial hate crimes without even missing a beat.

That’s the only real privilege that exists.  If you are a Democrat politician you are simply exempt.  You can chase down black joggers, be friends with a Klansman, even collude with foreign governments and commit felonies, and the corporate media will always cover for you.  I would put money on it that Fetterman wins the black vote in Pennsylvania.

Nobody will warn them. There will not be endless national headlines that link the name Fetterman to racial prejudice and hate. He has Democrat privilege and represents the party most guilty of the murder of black men in this country. The virtue signalers, with signs in their yards, don’t actually care about black lives or real inclusion. They will gladly vote for the most corrupt and blatantly hypocritical politicians of our time.

Mass Incarcerations, Political Privilege and Tech Monopolies

Hypocrisy is not something new in politics. It is not unusual for people to pick the smoothly spoken candidate over the alternative either. But it would seem incomprehensible, in a time with protests calling for criminal justice reforms, that the very people responsible for the suffering of so many are currently leading in the polls and especially given their own criminal connections.

Kamal Harris, the daughter of an Indian and Jamaican immigrants, identifies as African American, the Democrat selection for Vice-President, worked her way up the political ladder through her role as a prosecutor in California. In the Democratic primaries she was criticized for laughing off her own smoking weed in college (lying about listening to Snoop Dogg and Tupac in college) while later putting over 1,500 in jail for marijuana infractions. Even the New York Times took issue with Harris “progressive prosecutor” self-description and cited the mass incarcerations under her watch.

Joe Biden, who continues his “average Joe” schtick despite having been a prominent politician for longer than most of us have been born, only has one major legislative accomplishment to his name and that being the now infamous Democrat 1994 Crime bill which is responsible for putting many non-violent offenders (including disproportionate numbers of African Americans) behind bars for decades. Much of the current criminal paradigm that leads to claims of systemic racism stems from this Biden drafted and Clinton signed legislation. The much needed reforms only took place by the Presidential pen of Donald J. Trump, in 2018, who has highlighted this reversal of Democrat policies as a signature accomplishment.

Black lives matter?

It is astounding, given those facts alone, that anyone who believes that black lives matter would vote the Democrat Presidential ticket. If racist dog whistles exist, then the Clinton, Biden and Harris touting their “tough on crime” stance (before it became unpopular to do so) is it. But, in the current political paradigm (where the faces of the corporate media are disproportionately Democrat) the Biden and Harris are not being held accountable for their past policies and behavior.

Laws For Thee, Exemptions For Me

In Animal Farm, the George Orwell novel where the animals overthrow their humans and start with the intention of a Socialist utopia, the pigs put in charge of administration very quickly begin to amend the rules the benefit themselves. One night, drunken with power, take the rule “all animals are equal” and add “but some animals are more equal than others.”

Currently, and to our own destruction, difference in outcomes is being framed along racially divisive lines of white and black. And, while there is very little doubt of racial disparities, very little is said about the special exemptions given to those of social class that have nothing to do with color and everything to do with wealth and connections. It should be abundantly clear that those with the privilege of wealth, even when black like OJ Simpson, R Kelly or Jussie Smollett, are more likely to walk than the white dude in a trailer park without high powered attorneys to comb the technicalities of the law for them.

But, where money talks, having political power and correct party affiliation is an absolute exemption to any crime. Ask Hillary Clinton who, by a normal standard (as applied to those named Snowden, Manning or Assange) would be dead to rights and yet was given a special didn’t-know-she-was-commiting-a-crime-thus-can’t-be-charged exemption. The legal process is corrupted by partisan politics all of the time, that’s where the biggest difference in standards and true privilege exists. If anything, Trump, as someone pursued zealously by a political prosecutor despite no evidence of a crime, has more in common with poor urban minorities than Harris.

So this is where things get interesting. After years of the corporate media pushing unsubstantiated rumors, anonymous accusations and spurious allegations against Trump, suddenly the tune all changes when damning evidence surfaces about Democrat candidate and his son. Immediately, without time to truly vet the claim, big tech platforms began to shut down the bombshell New York Post stories about the Bidens. What would have been regarded as smoking gun evidence of collision if it were something leaked about the Trump family, is now being said to be off-limits on the basis of how the evidence was obtained.

Big Tech: “Shh! Democrat secrets must stay secret!”

Twitter’s CEO, billionaire Jack Dorsey, flat out lied and said that New York Post story came from hacked materials and therefore violated the popular social media site’s ambiguous (and very selectively enforced?) terms of service. The evidence was legally obtained, not “hacked” as has been spuriously claimed to excuse the censorship, and this is very clearly election interference. Sure, Biden may believe we do not deserve to know his position on “court packing” (ie: politicizing the Supreme Court) until after the election, that’s his prerogative. But we do deserve to know about the shady dealings of his family, to the tune of millions paid by foreign entities, and the technical details of how the information was obtained would not matter in any other case.

The trove of information obtained, discovered on Hunter Biden’s abandoned and legally acquisitioned laptop, would probably be enough to put any of us average folks behind bars for a long long time. And yet, if I were to put money on it, this will all likely lead to nothing as media corporations do their best to ignore and suppress this massive scandal. Biden senior, if voted in, will have another quid quo pro and fired criminal prosecutors to brag about openly on television. The Obama administration will still be portrayed as scandal free and the American people will be kept in the dark and told the privilege is a matter skin color.

Unmasking the Truly Privileged

The true privilege in this country is wealthy Democrat privilege. A wealthy person (yes, even a wealthy person of color) can get away with a crime that those of less resources may not. And a Democrat, of enough rank or having the right connections, will never so much as face criminal prosecution and now, in cahoots with the corporate legacy media, have big tech monopolies playing interference for them. It is time for us little Americans, black white, immigrant or otherwise, to stand up and say “no” to special privileges on the basis of Democratic party affiliation. Tech oligarchs, also above the law, must be reigned in as well.

The man who wrote the legislation that put many minority men behind bars should not be allowed to be President if black lives matter. He should instead be investigated, by a special prosecutor not affiliated with his own political party, and then charged to the full extent of the law if the evidence does indeed implicate him. This man, and his running mate, made careers out of harsh punishments of sometimes innocent and oftentimes non-violent offenders. We at least deserve to know what the Chinese, Russian and others were given in exchange for the millions given to Hunter while his dad simultaneously negotiated with political leaders.

Beijing, Billionaires and Biden

Furthermore, we need to know what vested interest Twitter and Facebook, both who have significant amount dealings with China, do not want this information reaching the American public. We should not believe for a second that they are acting in benevolence. We cannot longer consent to being tools in their resistance against Trump without knowing what they stand to gain from their opposition to him. Is this their way of maintaining access to the lucrative Chinese market? Do they have significant investment in multi-national corporations that outsource American jobs and oppose the Trump tariffs? It is time that we the people have a look behind the closed doors of silicon valley and all their unannounced motivations be brought to light.

This paradigm of “Laws for thee, exemptions for me” should be returned to Orwellian fiction along with the Big Brother silencing of dissent, different perspectives and “wrong think” by Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg. All Americans should be treated equally under the law, black or white, rich or poor, and political affiliation should not matter. The hypocrisy of Biden and Harris on matters of criminal justice alone disqualifies them from holding any political office, let alone the Presidency of the United States, and that is the message we must speak very clearly at the ballot box.

It Is Time to Retire Black Lives Matter

The political organization Black Lives Matter (BLM) quickly rose in prominence after a disturbing image of a Minnesota police officer sparked national outrage. President Trump almost immediately took to Twitter to announce a Federal inquiry into the incidents and also to express solidarity with the family of George Floyd. The officer involved was soon arrested.

But, what could have been a time for national unity was hijacked by political opportunists looking for an excuse to cause chaos. Sure, there were many peaceful protestors, and yet also plenty of arson, vandalism, looting and other violence. Pretty soon there were murders as well. Those slain including David Dorn, an elderly retired St Louis police captain, who had responded to a break-in at a friend’s pawn shop and the body count has continued to rise.

David Dorn matters

The assassination of Bernell Trammell, a black Trump supporter in Minneapolis, followed by the stabbing of videographer Andrew Duncomb by an Antifa thug, largely ignored by the corporate media, further exposed the true nature of the unrest. This clearly was not about making black lives matter and never was for those behind the organization of that name.

The founders of BLM are self-described Marxists, extremely far-left individuals, and clearly only care about black lives when it helps advance their political agenda. They have nothing to say about Planned Parenthood, founded by a woman named Margaret Sanger for the purpose of killing black babies, nor the thousands of murders as a result of fatherless homes and gang violence. The name of BLM is simply a way to exploit the sympathies of the gullible and drive a wedge of racial division.

The Lie of Black Lives Matter

One thing the left likes to do is monopolize language as a way to prevent honest conversation. Politicial correctness, along with cancel culture, is a way for the left to control the narrative and silence dissenting voices. The word racism, for example, once denoted racial prejudice or discrimination, has now been narrowed to apply only to white people and can be applied to almost anything a white person says or does. The left is continually inventing new racially charged language and yet to say anything about this manipulative word play and hypocrisy will instantly get you accused of being a racist.

When the words “black lives matter” began to appear everywhere many sensible people retorted with the more inclusive “all lives matter” and rejected the toxic racial tribalism. Of course, the propagandists, trying to milk racial grievance for all it is worth, could not allow this better framing, this needed to be exclusive and racially divisive. So articles started to appear everywhere parroting absurd claims that this framing was coded white supremacy and refuse to comprehend that some people simply are not as obsessed with skin color and actually do care about all lives black, white or otherwise.

The lie of black lives matter, the phrase, is that 1) it doesn’t reflect a kind of dangerous racial tribalism and 2) that black lives don’t matter. Saying “white lives matter” is interpreted by far-leftist organizations as being white supremacist, blatantly racist and ‘hate’ speech. But the reality is that most use of this as a satire, to point out the racial doublestandard that excuses racial tribalism in one breath and then condemns it in the next. It is gaslighting. It is to shut down critical thinking and force acceptance of their false and divisive racial narrative. We are supposed to simply accept that only one factor shapes outcomes, that all white people are privileged and all black people are oppressed.

It’s all lies and manipulation. Black lives matter more than white lives. How do I know? When Daniel Shaver was gunned down, crawling as commanded by a police officer, begging for his life, having committed no crime, there were no protests, no Federal inquiries, nothing. Likewise, when a Dallas teenager, Tony Timpa, cried out “you’re going to kill me” and died as officers mocked him, there was no national conversation about police brutality or Twitter hashtags. The majority of those killed by police are white men and at rates disproportionate in their participation in violent crime. But there are no murals of them, no marches, or being turned into martyrs.

• 

Daniel Shaver matters.

And that’s what “white male privilege” really is: When a white male is killed everyone, besides their mother, believes they deserved it. But somehow, if a man has the right skin color he can be doing anything, high on drugs beating a grandma, and automatically he’s the victim of oppression.

Facts are racist.

Jessica Doty Whitaker, a young pregnant woman and nurse, was murdered for exercising her freedom of speech, saying “all lives matter,” and there was no condemnation of that nor the threats against her family. We are supposed to believe that she and her Hispanic fiance are racists who deserves what she got. We are supposed to believe she is “Racist Rachel” for daring to be truly inclusive and taking a moral stand against racial tribalism.

The reality is that black lives matter is a statement of racial supremacy, that black matter more, and the defense of this is inexcusable.

Enough is Enough!

The left-wing propaganda media constantly accuses Trump of things like fomenting hate for standing up to their bullying and misinformation. For example, when he stated a simple reality, “looting leads to shooting,” after Dorn was gunned down by a looting mob, Twitter flagged this as “glorifying violence” and raged in headlines about the supposedly racist origins of the phrase.

But these same moralizing morons, liars, have absolutely nothing to say about the violent rhetoric that flows like a river of hate out of their own camp and the similarities between that and Nazism.

Antifa and Nazi symbolism

The corporate media takes no responsibility for the fears and anxieties that they amplify nor the innocent who are the collateral damage of their campaigns. Any white woman who acts can be labeled as a “Karen” and become an object of national ridicule, may even lose your job and face criminal charges. Meanwhile, cities have burned, groups of youths attack random strangers, destroy property, invade peaceable neighborhood, and aren’t even prosecuted.

Hmm…

When a leftist acts out, this is always justified as a response to injustice. Even when one black Trump supporter is murdered and another stabbed, stabbed by a white Antifa terrorist, there is barely a murmur against it in the corporate media. Black men only become maytrs when they are useful for political agenda and that agenda being the Marxist agenda, otherwise their lives do not matter. BLM and their white supremacist Antifa allies do not actually care about George Floyd. They do not care about any life, they are driven by hate and ideology, and exploit tragedy and racial grievance. They want violence and unrest, not peace, and the media is complicit.

We are led to believe that, after weeks of racial division being fomented, that a five year old boy being murdered in cold blood, his brains blown out in front of his siblings, is a random act of violence and barely newsworthy. The same media that spent weeks obsessing on a man who was high on drugs, passing fake currency, and saying “I can’t breathe” (long before being restrained on the ground with a knee to the neck) now has nothing to say when grown man intentionally kills a child of another race and we aren’t supposed to notice.

Privileged child and oppressed minority?

We aren’t supposed to notice when a boy of similar age was tossed off of the third floor balcony a couple of years ago in Minneapolis either, it would be racist to notice the overall patterns of violence. But eventually peaceable people will have enough. The left cannot be allowed to continue their murderous spree. Marxist hate and hypocrisy matters. Marxism is a far bigger threat than racism because it kills people of all races, all ages, and is never held accountable.

It is time to cancel BLM, Antifa and all hate sympathizers. It is time to unapologetically say that all lives matter.

David Dorn matters.

Jessica Whitaker matters.

Jessica Whitaker and fiance.

Bernell Trammell matters.

Bernell Trammell

And, yes, Cannon Hinnant matters as well.

#sayhisname #CannonHinnant

If you can’t say all lives matter. If you can only show solidarity with people who share your own skin color and side with them no matter what. Then you have no moral ground to stand on against racism. You are not a voice against hate and injustice as you claim, but are a liar and hypocrite. The reality is that BLM, Antifa, and their corporate media sponsors are projecting their own prejudices. It is time to stop caring what they call us, stop letting them gaslight us, and start pushing back against their divisive lies. It is time to retire the racist hate-groups that only care about some lives at the expense of all.

Covid-19: Where Do Our Individual Rights End?

There were many “muh rights” conservatives up in arms about forced closures intended to slow the spread of Covid-19. 

These libertarian/individualist types insist all social distancing measures intended to contain the virus should be entirely voluntary and were very upset when told to temporarily shut down.  Even if for the sake of their neighbors, they argue, it should be their choice.

I certainly can understand the frustration of a small business owner or someone living paycheck to paycheck being told that they are “non-essential” and can’t earn a wage.  It is especially bothersome when government officials privilege themselves and the businesses tied to them rather than join the rest of us.  Is a man living off tax dollars and investments really in the place to tell a waitress, with a small child, to stay home?

But the hypocrisy of politicians and economic concerns aside, the question remains: How far do our individual rights extend?  At what point should our governing bodies be allowed to interfere with our freedom to do as we please?

To answer this, I’m reminded of a quote “my right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins” or what is called the “harm principle” and was articulated by John Stuart Mills as follows: 

“That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right… The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.”

John Stuart Mills

In short, we should be allowed to do whatever we please so long as it doesn’t harm other people.  Which would seem simple enough to apply, as a principle, when you are talking about when someone intentionally strikes another person and yet becomes extremely murky when talking about an invisible pathogen, especially not one that people can carry for weeks without showing symptoms or realizing that they are infected.  Is someone responsible for manslaughter if they shook hands with the person who passed Covid-19 to their elderly grandparent (or immuno-compromised relative) resulting in sickness and death?

At some point, the rights of the individual must be curtailed for the good of all others.  Sure, we do not close down all business for the flu season, despite the risk of thousands of deaths, those more vulnerable should also take more precautions rather than foist their limitations on the rest of us.  I also do not believe in taking away 2nd Amendment rights because of the abuses of a few individuals.  As some have pointed out, we do not ban motor vehicles despite tens of thousands dying every year in accidents.  So how do we decide now that a rogue virus from China is worth the imposition of sweeping restrictions on commerce and travel?

These are not easy questions to answers. But I do know this: When I decide to go out on the road I do that with full control over my own participation and understanding the risk.  If I die on my way to work (one of those reasons that I dislike my long commute and have been actually advantaged by the work from home order) it will be my own choice, but can the same be said of someone who gets Covid-19 because they need to eat?  Can the same be said of a nurse or doctor who, compelled by the nature of their profession to help, going to work in a time where there shortages of necessary protective equipment and they could bring infection with them back to their families?

There is a need for strong and resilient individuals who make their own decisions.  That is the backbone of this nation.  But there is also a need for concerted effort and coming together (or, in this case, staying apart) for the sake of our neighbors.  Initially, the governor of Pennsylvania issued strong recommendations.  However, when those were largely ignored, when voluntary compliance proved to be a failure to accomplish the desired ends, that is when the enforcement mechanisms came into play and why I disagree with those who say that it didn’t need teeth of law to be effective. 

In the end, it may actually be fairer to all to have the order enforced, where we are all harmed and benefited equally, than a mere recommendation that isn’t followed by many and is an entirely wasted effort.  So long as our elected officials also sacrifice their own economic interests, and prove they are in this with us, there are times when our individual rights take a back seat to the collective whole.  Even if you think that it is an overreaction (and it may well be) there is a time when a wise person realizes that they cannot possibly see everything and should be willing to voluntarily submit to orders that they do not themselves fully agree with.

I personally believe, especially with the very capable vehicle that I own, that I am safe driving over 100 mph in the right conditions.  I also do not see Covid-19 as posing a great threat to me personally as a healthy and relatively young individual.  But I am completely willing to submit, voluntarily, to what officials (informed by experts) are telling me.  There is no lasting harm to me in taking a few days off from my normal life for sake of my neighbors.  That said, there would be great harm to those who would, as a result of my carelessness, become infected and die.  So, I both drive the speed limit (for the most part) and will respect the order of the state as much as I am able.

All that said, we are living in a moment, a time of war, when we must be especially wary of government overreach.  Our patience with this imposition should not be indefinite.  It can certainly not be allowed to be used by opportunists, both in our legislative and executive offices, as a permanent power grab.  This is a good time to prepare for the fight with those who will use this true crisis as their foot in the door for tyranny. So, keep your distance for now and also keep your firearms clean. After we are done beating this virus we may need to reiterate our rights. 

We have the right to take down tyrants for the same reason the government is allowed to curtail individual rights: To protect ourselves and others from harm.

Bill Maher and the Mostly Ignored History of Left-wing Violence

Can you imagine if Ruth Bader Ginsberg died and a conservative pundit celebrating her death and hoping it was painful?

The corporate media and political establishment would express outrage. Not only would they likely accuse the pundit of being a misogynistic anti-Semite (given Ginsberg’s Jewish ancestry) they would also blame Trump and demand every Republican apologize.

However, when Bill Maher said he was “glad” David Koch was dead and that “I hope the end was painful,” yet this vileness is simply called being “candid” by the corporate media.

The Koch brothers, conservative billionaires, were routinely demonized by leftist politicians. For example, Barack Obama, in 2015, said it was “un-American” for the brothers to exercise their rights in opposition to his “green energy” policies. Nevermind, as dedicated Libertarians, they opposed all government subsidies and would rather let the truly free market pick winners.

Recently the Koch’s joined with far-leftist billionaire, George Soros, in the creation of a think-tank, the Quincy Institution, for the expressed purpose of encouraging diplomatic rather than militaristic solutions to world problems. The Koch’s did not support Trump’s tariff policies on principle. They lobbied in favor of free trade and argued against stricter border controls, which put them at odds with Trump’s “America first” agenda.

Still, despite this, the leftist media portrays them as one and the same as Trump, refusing to understand the nuances of conservative thought. To them, you need to share every radical leftist opinion they have or they want you to suffer and die.

Long History of Ignored Leftist Violence

Maher’s hateful outburst, already downplayed in reports, will likely result in no real consequences for him professionally or otherwise.

This is not the exception. Left-wing violence and hate are routinely omitted from history books. For example, the assassination of Idaho governor, Frank Steunenberg, in 1905, by a man who claimed to have been hired by the Western Federation of Miners (WFM was instrumental in founding the Industrial Workers of the World) to kill the man who had, despite his union sympathies, stood up against far-leftist violence a few years before.

In 1899, in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, WFM union thugs commandeered, at gunpoint, a freight train full of dynamite. They would go on to use the stolen cargo to totally destroy a state-of-the-art mill in Wardner, Idaho, run by the non-union Bunker Hill Mining Company, but not before gunning down an employee (on the site) after ordering him to run. The reason for this cold-blooded murder and senseless waste of resources? Bunker Hill Mining Company had refused their demands to unionize.

It is because of this event and others that then Idaho governor Steunenberg was forced to intervene to restore order. He would not be allowed to retire in peace.

Far-leftist terror bombings and assassinations were not unusual over a century ago. In 1919 a whole slew of mail bombs were delivered to politicians, government officials and businessmen and journalists who stood in the way of anarchist and Socialist aims. These bombings resulted in a couple of deaths. This, however, inspired the far more deadly Wall Street bombing, on September 20th of 1920, when a cart full explosives was parked across from the headquarters of JP Morgan Bank in the Financial District of Manhattan. The result was 38 dead instantly in the blast, along with 143 seriously wounded and hundreds more were less severely injured.

Various left-wing terrorist groups have sprung up in the time since then from the Weather Underground to Venceremos, Black Liberation Army, Symbionese Liberation Army, and ANTIFA. The particular grievance changes slightly, guns have become the weapon of choice (the Dayton ANTIFA terrorist used a popular rifle), but the underlying Marxist philosophy and use of indiscriminate violence to accomplish political ends remains.

Once Socialists gain power in government they become even more abusive, albeit usually in less visible ways like internment camps and Gulags or by other indirect means. But with far-left governments, you always do things their way or they will treat you as a threat to be eliminated. When a leftist speaks of ‘rights’ they do not mean respect for your life, liberty or pursuits, it is merely a tool for them to gain power for themselves, a means for them to gain control over resources or over individuals who stand in the way of their agenda and nothing more.

Meanwhile, Another Phony Rise of Right-wing Violence?

The corporate propaganda media, along with government ‘intelligence’ bureaucracies, for political reasons, push this myth of a rise in right-wing violence. They use this as an excuse to write new legislation and to crack down on people mostly minding their own business—or at least were until provoked by government aggression.

Recall, the 1990s, when Janet Reno’s justice department and the left pushed a narrative of a right-wing threat?

Starting with a phony crisis, in 1993, that eventually led to an ATF raid and FBI siege of a compound of religious separatists in Waco, Texas—resulting in dozens of completely avoidable civilian deaths?

Or the Ruby Ridge incident in 1992, where Randy Weaver, a man with some extreme views yet an isolationist and not a threat to anyone, who was falsely accused of assassination threats by an angry neighbor, was coaxed by a government agent into sawing off shotgun barrels, which became the basis of criminal charges, leading to an invasion of his property and the wrongful deaths of his pets, his family and a friend?

Both of these cases are what provoked the violent retaliation of two men, Timothy McVeigh, and Terry Nichols, who bombed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in 1995. All of this violence completely avoidable had the government not acted in precisely the way that would confirm the worst fears of those who thought of it as corrupt and tyrannical. However, now, without context, the Oklahoma City bombing is presented as proof of a right-wing threat and not as blowback against deadly government abuse of power.

Right-wing violence stopped being an issue as soon as the Clinton Administration was out of power and the harassment campaign ended. The right, unlike the left that fights for control over others, simply wants to be free to live their own lives. Many would probably not even vote if they felt that the government would stay out of their business, not try to take more of their money or constantly threaten their right to bear arms. It is only now, with the rise of far-left ANTIFA, hatred of Trump supporters and online censorship, that some on the right are feeling some pressure again.

The right only rises in response to left-wing violence or when the government begins to infringe on their individual rights. It starts as a defensive reaction to the aggression of others and never as offensive. When the right takes power they deregulate, cut taxes, end foreign military interventions and distribute power rather than redistribute confiscated resources. By contrast, the left, they use government to force others to pay for the “free” stuff they’ve promised and often try to provoke a crisis as a means to expand their control over individuals and solidify their grip—which is why the corporate leftist media is running with the right-wing violence narrative.

Leftist Envy Kills

Capitalists are often accused of being greedy for supposedly prioritizing profits over the good of people. The left wants you to think of the wealthy as Scrooge McDuck swimming in a vault full of gold coins or a comic book villain trying to find new ways to screw the unwitting masses out of fair wages while destroying the planet at the same time.

The irony is that this is likely a projection of the critics own corrupt motives as much as it is a reflection of the actual reality of what energizes men like the Koch brothers—who donated vast sums of money to cancer research and keeping both PBS and Nova funded.

Greed is certainly not good, but envy is far worse.

Envy kills.

Envy justifies hatred and violence against anyone who has a little more. Maher’s hatred of Koch is a great example. Maher is said to have a net worth of $100 million dollars and has never produced anything of value in his life. He is extremely wealthy, yet is still angry because he doesn’t have the same amount of influence as the Koch brothers and thinks he could do better than them. It is classic leftist envy, it is why leftists are dangerous people, they are provoked simply by your success and, given their warped envy-driven values, feel entitled to anything you have.

The Democrats and the complicit corporate media fear-monger about far-right violence. Meanwhile, ANTIFA is beating up random people in the streets and young men with extreme left-wing opinions go on murderous sprees in Dayton and El Paso. The left attacks men like the Koch brothers as greedy and destructive of the environment. But then, like former President Obama, live in their multi-million dollar homes in places that they claim will soon flood because of climate change, but hate Trump. It is this kind of hypocrisy that makes many doubt the popular narrative of anthropomorphic global warming and suspect another leftist power-grab scheme.

It has consistently been the left that plays the part of the aggressor. They always have a cause. They hide cancerous envy in terms like “social justice” and “white privilege” as a means to manipulate the unsuspecting, but their hearts are full of rage, bitterness, malice, and slanderous accusations. Instead of taking responsibility for their own failures they always point a finger of blame and invariably their envy becomes an excuse to do violence. Like Cain who was angry because his brother Abel’s sacrifice was blessed, the left will beat you to death using a rock because you worked hard, bought a piece of land and earn a modest profit by renting it to them.

The Orange Man Bad Farce

Trump is supposedly the evilest man of our time, supposedly worse than Hitler because he doesn’t completely accept the leftist mantra on climate change, and has been continually railed against for his counterpunching. He also continued his feud with Senator McCain after the warmongering Republican (RINO according to many) passed away from brain cancer. McCain had gone after Trump ferociously and apparently used the fake Russian dossier as a means to hamstring the new administration. But Trump, having every reason to be upset, has never done what Maher did. Trump did not cheer about the death of McCain nor wish that he suffered.

In fact, Trump has actually wished well, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, a liberal justice, saying “I’m hoping she’s going to do fine.” And this perfectly illustrates the difference between conservatives and the far-left. Trump will spar with opponents in the political sphere, he fights their fire with fire, and yet he still has not attempted to destroy them personally as many on the left do.

It is the left that doxxes and endangers schoolboys for merely wearing a MAGA hat. It is the left that sucker-punches a man out on a date for the same reason. But then we are supposed to believe that it is right-wing intolerance and Trump we need to fear?

This is just a continuation of the unprovoked leftist attacks that span over a century and nothing new. The left will destroy by any means available to them, through fear, violence, and intimidation, but the moment you step up to them they will play the victim—like they do with Trump.

The left is the schoolyard bully that takes your lunch if you let them or cries to the teacher when you stand up to them. The misdeeds of the left are conveniently forgotten or treated as a legitimate response, but pity the conservative who dares to say “no” to their demands or fight back. Maher hates the Kochs because he can’t control them. Trump, likewise, is hated by the left because he’s not intimidated by their nasty accusations. If we are to survive as a free people we will need both educate our neighbors about the true nature of the left and also learn to not care when the left tells the world that we are bad people for opposing their radical agenda.

We should not fear them. They do not have the moral high ground.  Both leftist activists and governments have a long long history of hate and violence.

Hate, Hypocrisy and President Trump’s Home Run

“Trump is knocking it out of the park!”

That was my first reaction to President Trump’s State of the Union address before Congress.

For the past couple years, especially the past few weeks, the American public have been fed a steady stream of propaganda about Trump being angry, incompetent and completely unreasonable. The saturation was so thick that even those of us who see through the partisan agenda in the corporate media coverage would half expect a screaming incoherent tirade, filled with profanities and hate. That was the expectation built up. However, instead of a belligerent tyrant, we got a man who spoke clearly, made an earnest appeal to those across the political aisle, and was not at all absurd.

The optics could not have been better for Trump. Any talk about Nancy Pelosi’s bizarre behavior “stealing the show” is spin that is pitifully obvious, a hallucination based in a privileged woman’s desperate attempt to condescend to her superior that fell flat—even the most blindly dedicated Democrat partisan knows (despite what they might say) that Trump was not upstaged. No, the whole event came off like a Trump campaign rally—even Democrats being forced to stand, when he praised the accomplishments of women, and join in a “U-S-A” chant.

That’s not to mention the sincere gratitude on the faces of special guests and recent beneficiaries of Trump’s “First Step Act” (which does something tangible for those who suffered penalties seemingly more severe than their crimes) and his explanation of the “moral duty” of immigration reform:

“The lawless state of our Southern border is a threat to the safety, security and financial well-being of all Americans. We have a moral duty to create an immigration system that protects the lives and jobs of our citizens. This includes our obligation to the millions of immigrants living here today, who followed the rules and respected our laws. Legal immigrants enrich our nation and strengthen our society in countless ways. I want people to come into our country in the largest numbers ever, but they have to come in legally.“

There is nothing extreme or ridiculous about the Federal government doing what it was created to do. More importantly, in the comments above, the persistent myth that Trump and others are anti-immigration for arguing against illegal immigration is specifically addressed. There is nothing more annoying than this blatant misrepresentation (and false dichotomy) presented by Democrats and their corporate media propagandists.

I am completely pro-immigration, but I am also entirely opposed to the unfairness of letting some, including criminals and human traffickers, slip through without any vetting process while other well-qualified people need to wait years. It is completely absurd that we make actual US citizens go through an invasive search at the hands of TSA agents, waiting in line and behind barriers, at a cost of 7.6 billion dollars in 2017, then Congress claims we can’t spend even that much to construct a barrier on our southern border.

We deserve better.

There is simply no reason, other than hypocrisy and hate, that the Democrats cannot get together with Trump on the immigration issue. After this speech more and more Americans will begin to see through their nonsense about Trump. If they can’t come to the table and make a reasonable compromise, one that includes wall funding, they will own the next government shutdown and even if their pundits, in a weird orchestrated unison, try to convince us otherwise.

Moving on…

In other related news, it has been a bad time for the corporate media and especially their claims of being truth-tellers. And nothing makes their misrepresentation of reality more clear than the coverage of the Covington Catholic boys. For a nervous smile to be turned into a national outrage, endangering the lives of these young men for merely standing their ground when faced with some real bullies, is a perfect example of journalistic malpractice.

Not only did they get the story wrong in a way skewed against Trump and his base, they actually reported the complete opposite of what happened. The truth is that these students were being harassed by professional activists, adult men, who were yelling blatantly racist and bigoted things at them. The man making the accusation against them (who was found to be lying about his military service) was the aggressor, he walked right up to the boy and literally beat a drum in his face.

There is so much that is disturbing about the whole Covington Catholic outrage. It was a narrative built on defamatory lies, It is real life example of “facecrime” as imagined by George Orwell in 1984 (where it became illegal to make the ‘wrong’ facial expression) and, worse, the calls for actual violence against these school children!

But the most disturbing aspect of the whole ordeal is what it represents in terms of a dangerous double standard based on race, gender, religion and political affiliation. A white boy with a MAGA hat can’t so much as smile awkwardly without being branded a racist and having a national outage mob wanting his life to be destroyed. All while other boys brawl in malls and it is explained away as “teenage boredom” or simply ignored.

This sort of upside-down inside-out coverage of the events is doing more harm to the credibility of the corporate media than a million Trump tweets targeting purveyors of fake news. Sure, there are many who still believe the propaganda narrative they are spoon fed on a daily basis, but there is a growing who have woke from their slumber, see through this and can never be returned to their previous blindness.

We do not need the media to tell us how to think, we do not need them to advance a social agenda, we especially do not need them to divide us by race and gender. What we need is more truly objective journalism and less opinion. It is tiresome having to sift through the deluge of lies from “fact-checkers” and headlines carefully crafted to distort our perceptions rather than simply communicate the event.

Working-class Americans are tired of being accused of “wrong-think” and racism for supporting a man who is actually doing something for them. Trump’s didn’t win because of the Russians, he won because he promised to do what many, especially the blue-collar types fighting for survival, have been begging for and that is a President that cares more about their needs than that of bankers, big corporations and those who profit the most from globalism.

The average guy who voted for Trump is not a ‘deplorable’ for thinking everyone entering this country should come legally nor is the pink-haired Antifa activist a hero for treating anyone who disagrees with their far-left agenda like a Nazi. There should be no designated villains or victims and especially not based in race, gender or anything else that has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Behavior, not identity and group affiliation, should be the basis for any standard or judgment of character that needs to be made.

Meanwhile, in Virginia…

Speaking of media agenda, many stories covering the images from Virginia Governor Ralph Northam’s medical school yearbook and allegations of a sexual assault against his potential successor, Lt Governor Justin Fairfax, oddly leave out party affiliation. Had pictures of a Republican been found—with them in blackface, wearing a minstrel costume, and standing next to a Klansman—would the headlines not be emblazoned with that information?

Anyhow, as one who believes in presumption of innocence (we should never rush to judgment on the basis of an allegation) and while I’m not one to say that a man should be judged for a silly picture taken decades ago, it is the double-standard in the coverage that is bothersome. If Trump is branded as a horrible racist for merely saying that some crossing the border illegally are rapists (true) and an awful sexist for a crude comment he made while with a Hollywood celebrity, then how much more should a belittling depiction of black Americans, making a joke out of a group that lynched black Americans, and an actual assault be the cause of widespread outrage?

When Brett Kavanaugh was accused, without substantiating evidence, we were to simply to believe the allegations were true, it was reported as if a proven fact and lawmakers were harassed by activists. However, the same who lectured us then aren’t nearly as boisterous now and none of these men (now including third in line, Mark Herring, another Democrat, who also confessed to wearing blackface) have yet to resign. I half expect that they will remain in office despite the ceremonial condemnation of other Democrats.

Whatever the case, Democrat allegations of racism and sexual misconduct against conservatives are starting to look suspiciously like projection more than anything else. Perhaps guilt because of their own past as the party of lynchings, Jim Crow and eugenics? Or is it because they are friends with the Harvey Weinstein’s and Larry Epstein’s, who donate millions to their campaigns, and thus take their own hypocrisy out on the innocent? I mean, this is the party arguing for infanticide, is it not?

I know for certain that I’m tired of those who live to a lower standard than I do and have the audacity to talk down to me. They can all spare me their sanctimonious blather, their heavy-handed Gillette ads featuring fictitious derogatory depictions of men that are oddly reversed from statistical evidence and weirdly leaving out the real examples of abusers. I’m tired of BuzzFeed lies about Russian collusion and being the whipping boy for their protected classes—preferred for their slavish voting habits.

I’ve had enough of their hate, hypocrisy and lies. They have distorted reality to the point that everything is almost always opposite of what they’re telling us. Trump is a very good president. It is not racist to support orderly and fair immigration system. It is not hateful to wear a MAGA hat nor is a smile an act of aggression. What have they done other than blame everyone but themselves for the problems they’ve created?

Trump looks great compared to them!

Trump was right, the ‘fake news’ media truly is the enemy of the people…

Some would say that last week was a bad one for the corporate propaganda media. First BuzzFeed’s “bombshell” report that would, according to the eager propagandists, surely result in the impeachment or resignation of Trump turned out to be a total fabrication. And then, if that wasn’t enough, the weekly racist story they pushed, that targeted innocent Catholic school boys for wearing MAGA hat, was also proven (by video evidence) to be a vicious lie.

Unfortunately, that wasn’t a bad week for the corporate propaganda media. No, other than the fact that they were clearly caught in their lies this time around, that was a normal week. For years and years these organizations had a monopoly on the dissemination of information and thus could not be challenged. Even now, with their vast resources and concerted efforts to defame, defund and deplatform potential rivals, these mega-corporations still have tremendous control over the narrative.

And it isn’t only that the corporate propaganda media publishes outright lies. The “Rathergate‘ scandals and the total fabrications of CNN’s “journalist of the year” are probably the exception to the rule. However, the more insidious issue is their bias or how they present facts in a misleading way and otherwise distort with half-truths. How a story is presented makes a huge difference as far as how it will be received—and that’s if they report on a story at all. It is through selection bias and other means that the corporate propaganda media attempts to shape public opinion and prejudice their audience.

The big lie is that the corporate media is objective and simply reporting facts. The reality is that journalists are as agenda-driven and partisan as anyone else. They, like everyone else, search out stories that fit their own narratives and ignore those that go against it.

A prime example being the Jazmin Barnes story—that spread like wildfire when the story was that a white man had killed this poor black child, supposedly a hate-crime according to pundits, there was even a bounty offered by black activists, and yet as quickly the story disappeared when the actual perps turned out to be black men. Likewise, when a black man said he wanted to “kill all white people” and then proceeded to kill six white people, this didn’t lead to a national conversation about hate-crimes as it would had the roles been reversed.

Which could be explained as confirmation bias, people do tend to only notice the evidence that confirms their existing perspective, but I suspect often is also intentional and to serve a divisive political end. Because if their intentions were pure there would be profuse apologies in the case of the falsely accused Covington Catholic boys. Instead they have circled the wagons and continued the stream of misleading headlines and deceptive descriptions.

For example, a CNN commentator who described members of the black supremacist organization, “Black Hebrew Israelites,” who were hurling homophobic slurs, as “preaching about the Bible and oppression.” That’s like calling Westboro Baptist “a caring group of religious folks who promote virtuous behavior” and not at all honest. Then, at the same time, while minimizing actual toxic behavior as “teenage boredom” (*ahem* Gillette, are you paying attention?!?), anyone conservative or right of them is described in unflattering terms, called things like “far-right” or “alt-right” or “white nationalist” and lumped in with Nazis.

There are no consequences for this type of gross mischaracterization. The corporate propaganda media can get away with turning a nervous smile from a high school student into a smirk (or a “stare down”) and nasty assault on a poor helpless “Native American elder” (whatever the heck that means…) and many people soak this nonsense up. It is especially egregious considering that many of this accuser’s claims were apparently never vetted. Like that the unedited videos that show clearly that he approached the boys rather than the other way around as they reported or the debunked claim he was a Vietnam veteran.

There will be no retraction or apologies, at least not on the front page or to the extent that the false narrative was pushed. Many will likely continue to believe the lies, they will go on with their skewed perception, and rather than question as some of now do they will join the next outrage mob. It is dangerous in that it is divisive and has potential to destroy lives. It is sad that the same people who lecture about bullying, regularly harangue and harass conservatives, and should be ashamed of themselves.

These same media organizations that constantly nitpick Trump over inconsequential details can’t even get the facts right about a story barely important enough to he in a grade school newspaper. They act as if they have the moral authority to condemn a man like Brett Kavanaugh (on the basis of an allegation without any corroborating evidence) and can’t even tell the truth about some boys on a school trip. Then they are indignant that we call them fake news.

Stop Being Silly, Of Course Walls Work!

Critics of Donald Trump, desperate to discredit him at every turn, are now ridiculing one of the most basic and effective means of deterrence. I’ve seen several memes on social media and numerous comments—from the President’s political rivals—ridiculing the idea of a wall, claiming it would be ineffective, too expensive or even immoral.

Heaven has walls, hell doesn’t…

The silliest argument against a wall is the claim that it is immoral or not Christian. Not only is this ignorant of what Scripture says, it is also hypocritical (considering the source) and strange.

First of all, I don’t think it is a good idea to inject theology into a political discussion and it is very strange when those who typically argue for separation of church and state inject their religious opinions. Yes, our moral values should carry over into the public sphere, but we don’t have a theocracy and those who do not believe in national defense have no business being in government. Government is established for one purpose, one purpose only, and that purpose is our common defense.

But, more importantly, if Jesus did not believe in walls he would not have described himself as the gate: “I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved.” (John 10:9 NIV) The reality is that Christianity makes a case for barriers to separate innocent people from those who do them harm. A wall, with a gate, is necessary to keep the predators out and protect the sheep. Jesus portrays himself as a good shepherd, the one who guards the gate of the heavenly kingdom and decides who is allowed in and who is left out. Heaven has borders.

And then there’s the hypocrisy of someone who says a wall is immoral while themselves living behind walls. And I’m not talking about only wealthy Democrat politicians and left-wing celebrities who have walls around their mansions either. It is hypocritical to be oppose a border wall on moral grounds if you live behind the doors and walls of your house or apartment. If walls are immoral, then lead by example, move outside, rather than moralize to your neighbors.

The wall isn’t too expensive…

Suddenly those who typically have no problem with huge spending are throwing a fit about a few billion dollars. A billion dollars is certainly a very large sum of money, yet it is peanuts compared to the massive Federal budget and a small price to pay if it were to even reduce, by a fraction, the flow of drugs and illegal immigrants. Estimates range of the cost of illegal immigration from $2 billion to $19 billion, according to the US Government Accountability office, all the way up to $116 billion annually according to the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

It is very strange that Democrats, a party that voted eagerly for billions in increased spending when Obama proposed it, are now suddenly concerned with fiscal responsibility when it comes to securing our borders. You would think that those who claim to care about the welfare of US citizens would try to win back some of the blue collar voters who jumped over to support Trump. Considering that the US spends upwards of $49 billion on foreign aid, $25 billion to maintain vacent properties and hundreds of billions on other national defense programs, why so much resistance to spending now?

Whatever the case may be, illegal immigration is extremely costly to the US taxpayer and the wall would soon pay for itself if it cuts that number only a little. I would sooner spend a few billion less on projecting US power abroad, to places where our presence is not exactly welcomed, and more at home where it could protect working-class Americans suffer depressed wages due to the never ending flow of illegal aliens. The current system only benefits the rich, the suspiciously wealthy politicians, hypocritical celebrities and big corporations (who own the mainstream media) at the expense of the average Joe.

And, yes, walls work!

There is no such thing as a perfect solution. For example, restraints in cars, both seatbelts and airbags are intended to make an impact more survivable for the occupants of the vehicle and both do work reasonably well for that purpose. However, that doesn’t make them the perfect solution and there’s always that guy who will give the hypothetical situation where someone is trapped in a burning car by their seatbelt. Or you could always look at the real life stories of injuries caused and children killed by the deployment of an airbag. But, overall, the technology has spared more lives than it has taken and is effective despite not being 100% reliable.

Same is true for walls. No wall is impenetrable. And, obviously, one can use many different means to get past a barrier. You could cross over, tunnel under or simply go around them—like Hitler did in going through Belgium to attack rather than face the teeth of the French defensive strategy at the Maginot Line. But those memes, pointing out are long coastlines or other things that everyone knows, miss the obvious: Security measures are never about making it impossible to do something, they are only about increasing the cost for those who try and an attempt to deter or dissuade.

Nobody is saying a wall would be completely impenetrable. No, that is silly and stupid, any barrier can be overcome by someone determined and able to exert the effort. A border wall, likewise, could be overcome by someone with a ladder willing to risk the climb or with a boat and ready to face off with the US Coast Guard. However, the argument for a wall is the same argument for installing front door locks on a home despite the fact that a burglary could use a hammer to break a window or using “hurricane ties” to secure a roof even though a big enough storm would take it down—deterrence.

A wall would, at very least, make it far more costly for those interested in defying our national sovereignty rather than go through established points of entry and would also free up our border patrol to deal with those more determined. Yes, human trafficking and drug smuggling would still be a problem so long as there are market forces at work. Still, nobody argues that we should totally disband law enforcement because not every rapist or murderer is brought to justice. A wall doesn’t need to be 100% effective to be well-worth the cost.

So don’t be silly, border walls ended terror attacks in Israel and stopped the flow of migrants into Hungary and would work here as well, a little visual aid:

Bottom line…

I’m still on the borderline as far as the wall. I would tend to believe that there are more important matters to deal with and am generally against increased spending and especially with ballooning budget deficits. That said, I am tired of the asinine arguments and intellectual dishonesty of Trump-hating naysayers.

There is no reason, in a budget of trillions, that Congress can’t cut a little here and there, and give millions of Americans what they voted for when they elected Trump as President. The wall may not work, but neither has the trillions spent in “war on poverty” and the multitude of other Democrat programs of no real benefit to the US taxpayer.

No, It Is NOT Racist To Enforce Immigration Laws

The far-left Democrat corporate propaganda media is at it again. They’ve accused Trump of “racism” for running a political ad that brings attention to crimes committed by illegal immigrants and makes the case to enforce our immigration laws. A story from the HuffPost describes the ad as “anti-immigration” because it is in opposition to a caravan of those who intend to ignore our laws and add to the existing $113 billion dollar price tag of illegal immigration.

It is ironic that the far-left media accuses Trump of seeking to “whip up voters’ fears” while themselves fear-mongering by accusing him (falsely) of racism for supporting orderly and lawful immigration like every other President before him, including their hero Barack Obama. This is not hypocrisy, it is doublespeak, they know full well that they are doing exactly the same thing that they accuse the Republican leader of doing, except Trump’s ad is talking about an actual invasion of illegal immigrants while their charges of his racism are a total fabrication.

Illegal immigrants are not a race. It is not racist to defend our borders. There is nothing racist about expecting all people (white, black, brown, or whatever) to abide by the same laws. Those south of our border should go through the same process that Asians, Africans, and others go through to legally enter the United States. To do otherwise, to allow some Mexicans and South Americans to simply force their way in, would be grossly unfair to the many who wait patiently and go through the correct legal immigration process.

Furthermore, it is dangerous to all races living within our borders not to enforce our immigration laws. Sure, many in this ‘migrant’ caravan are only trying to gain a better life for themselves and their families. I have complete sympathy for them. However, there is also no way of knowing who is hiding amongst them.  There could be gang members or human traffickers in the caravan, not to mention those who could be carrying disease, and that is why we have an immigration process to begin with—so that we know who is entering and also know a little about their intentions.

It is for the good of US citizens of all races that we vet those who wish to enter.

It is actually racist to lower expectations on account of race, which is what the Democrats (and their corporate propaganda media mouthpiece) do constantly and are doing in this case. Trump is not a racist for believing in orderly and fair immigration nor is he fear-mongering for pointing out the problems with unfettered illegal immigration. But the leftist media is trying to terrify minority voters with their constant allegations of racism against anyone who believes in preserving the greatness of this nation.