Magically Benevolent

For some reason, the political left thinks that their government, the government they would build were they in charge, would be totally incapable of doing anything wrong. That is, if the left were in charge, every single person, every single policy, every single action taken by or on behalf of government, would be good.

While patently absurd, I can only conclude this is what the left believes to be true, otherwise, why would they advocate for ever more government?

Let me posit this another way:

Were there an admission that government is made of human beings and no human being is completely good, there could be no argument that government can be completely good, therefore no argument for an all-powerful government. That said, since the left advocates for an all-powerful government, and views all-powerful government as good, the only conclusion is that the left believes that all leftists are good, that the only bad people are those who do not believe as they do.

This goes a long way to explaining why the left hates the right. We are evil. The only reason government does bad things is because we are a part of it. If only we were expunged and forbidden from being involved, all would be good. Think I’m exaggerating? Consider the recent comments by the governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo,

If they are extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York.

Pro life? Get out. Fiscally conscious? You’re outta here.

Now imagine those words spoken by the President of the United States.

Chilling to say the least.

What’s so ludicrous about the left’s apparent belief that “they” are good and “others” are bad, is that people move right to left and left to right along the political spectrum. Do people actually believe that you become magically benevolent when you become a leftist? And who determines where the line is drawn between almost and all the way there?

This is the same ridiculous logic behind defining “rich” as making over $200,000 a year. So if I make $199,999.99 I’m not “rich” but one penny more and I’m an evil capitalist extorting labor from the poor and helpless.

Magically benevolent?

More like chronically malevolent.

Wendy Davis and the Rise of New Media

Those of you who consume conservative news media are likely aware that the Wendy Davis campaign is in trouble following revelations that her projected persona, while not a complete fabrication, leaves out components of her life that might harm her political agenda, not the least of which are the facts that she only lived in a trailer for the short time it took for her to find a man who would finance her way through law school, and that as soon as she graduated from law school she filed from divorce from the man who payed her way through, and coincidentally gave him full custody of her two children, one of which was from her previous marriage. Sordid and wicked come to mind.

More interesting to me however, is the escalating panic within her campaign as they attempt to spin these new discoveries and maintain control of the narrative. Unless it’s linked from a news source I follow, I do not consume anything broadcast by the legacy media, so I can’t be sure, but considering their historically biased coverage, I can’t imagine there is thorough if any mention of this conflict between the Wendy Davis that is and the Wendy Davis she wants you to think she is. So, if the legacy media isn’t covering it, why the panic to cover it up?

We’re told that our missives on the degrading status and stability of America are only heard in our little conservative circles, that we can scream and shout all we want, the people “out there” won’t do anything about it, they’ll just continue to watch “honey boo boo” and enjoy their hot dinner secured by the soldiers fighting in a land far, far away. I think the Wendy Davis breakdown signals different. I think the flood of new, unbiased, professional, thorough, new media outlets has more influence than we’re led to believe. I think there are more and a growing number of people like me who have shunned legacy media because of its bias and filled the void of news and information with that provided by new media sources. What I think is missing is the ability to judge the “temperature” and scope of those like me. The problem – the reason “new media consumers” cannot be easily assessed – is the same reason for new media’s success, independence.

The reason new media is able to escape the bonds of bias is because they are free to broadcast content without a central means to control that content. This is both a strength and a weakness. Freedom of speech is the strength, difficulty in measuring the impact of that speech is the weakness.

I don’t know the answer. I imagine some kind of emergent polling, petitioning, and aggregation technology might help. The idea should be to collect and distilll opinion as held by new media consumers and morph that into material and actionable political influence. But the answer isn’t the point of this commentary. My point is that we have undersold our influence. The Wendy Davis campaign reaction is proof of that. If new media was inconsequential, her campaign would need to do nothing. I believe the reaction of her campaign should be interpreted as a signal.

New media is rising. It is increasing in influence. To the point that a professional state political campaign must react. Take heart my friends. This is going to be interesting.

What Difference, At This Point, Does It Make?

I had dinner with a progressive last night. At least, I think I did, because she used the word “progressive” to describe countries that had elected a female president.

My first thought was that this was an effort to maneuver into a discussion about Hillary 2016. I assumed that the theme would be how America is second rate compared to those other countries that had already elected a woman as president.

My at-the-table response was to share my first hand experience in Brazil, describing the extreme division between the “haves” and “have nots,” which was quite shocking to personally witness.

After replaying the discussion in my head, I have developed a better response, and it is one that can be easily modified and reused for similar situations. Ironically, this improved response developed as I recalled the Benghazi hearing and Hillary’s disgusting attempt to belittle the effort to expose what happened.

When I am confronted in the future by a “progressive” talking point regarding the race, sex, or another superficial characteristic of an elected official, my response will essentially be, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

More specifically my response will be some variation of, “What difference does the sex of the President make? Don’t you want to vote for the most qualified candidate regardless of their sex? In today’s society why does sex matter?”

This forces the opposition to process the fact that their worldview is based on ideologies they claim to reject, that is sexism, racism, etc. It also forces the opposition into a choice: What is more important in an electoral contest, a superficial characteristic such as race or sex, or a fundamental characteristic such as training or experience.

The only counter argument I can anticipate is one regarding gender “inequality,” where the opposition claims that comparing candidates based on fundamental characteristics is not fair because the female candidate will always be at a disadvantage due to societal oppression. This is nonsense of course, but I think the better counter would be to acknowledge that this might be an issue, but enforce that it would be better addressed at the source, rather than allowing a lesser qualified candidate to hold an office (See: Barack Obama).

Even though this brief part of the dinner discussion was awkward, it gave me the chance to craft another counter position to the narrative that someone’s color or sex is important to their political aspirations, or their political value.

High Crime, High Time

You were lied to.

We were all lied to.

This lie wasn’t for self preservation: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”

This lie wasn’t for obfuscation: “I had no prior knowledge of the Watergate break-in…”

This lie was for deception: “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan. Period.”

This lie was specifically designed to conceal the truth – that millions of people would not be able to keep their health care plan, even if they liked it. Period.

This lie was told to placate opposition to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. To squelch the fear that passage of the Act would impact existing coverage. We were told that it would not. That was a lie.

As per the Collins English Dictionary:

“Fraud: 1. deliberate deception, trickery, or cheating intended to gain an advantage; 2. an act or instance of such deception; 3. something false or spurious; 4. a person who acts in a false or deceitful way.”

This lie was a deliberate deception intended to gain an advantage for those in favor of passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

A deliberate deception intended to gain an advantage.

Barack Obama has committed fraud.

Barack Obama has committed a high crime.

It is high time to call for impeachment.

Miriam Carey Was Not Unarmed

There has been much hand wringing over the shooting of Miriam Carey after she rammed the barricades at the White House and Capital building. The left is lamenting the senseless shooting of an innocent mother. Conspiracy buffs are claiming the shooting as a harbinger of police no longer serving as law enforcement but becoming lawless tools of intimidation.

Both camps rely on one characterization: that Miriam Carey was unarmed.

Oh, but she was armed. She was armed with a 4,000 pound, self-propelled projectile called an Infinity G Coupe.

If you don’t think lethal force is warranted when facing down a madwoman in control of a 4,000 pound vehicle, think again. Just because someone doesn’t have a gun does not mean they are unarmed. Those accusing the police of using unjustified force are falling victim to the same flawed logic used by the anti-gun crowd, that is to fixate on guns as the only instruments of deadly force. There are many things that can be used to deadly effect, including your own body…

…or a 4,000 pound automobile.

Stranger Danger: Open Borders, Open Season

When we are young we are told to be wary of strangers, that it’s better to not trust someone you don’t know, to stay away rather than take a chance. This is exactly why our borders must be secured. We have no idea who’s coming into this country. Sure, they could be a mother seeking safety for her child, or a young man simply wanting to earn a living, but they could also be a murderous psychopath.

All other immigration issues are secondary to border security. Without secure borders there is no basis from which to design immigration “reform” measures or consider amnesty. Why would we want to grant amnesty to people we know nothing about?

For illustration, consider the following…

Picture a town hall or city council meeting discussing the issues of immigration, amnesty, border security, etc. The floor being opens for public comments. A public representative approaches the podium:

“Thank you for being here and thank you for giving me a chance to voice my comments.”

“I’d like to ask you some questions. But before you feel like I’m putting you on the spot. I’m going to give you the answer. The answer is, ‘I don’t know.’ That’s right. For each question I’m about to ask, the correct response is, ‘I don’t know.’ So. My questions…”

“Of those people who are in this country without documentation, how many entered in possession of firearms?”

“What’s that? You don’t know? Ohh. Ok. Next question…”

“Of those people who are in this country without documentation, how many have a debilitating drug addiction?”

“You don’t know? Hmm.”

“Of those people who are in this country without documentation, how many are violent felons?”

“You don’t know that either? Wow.”

“Of those people who are in this country without documentation, how many have a communicable disease?”

“Don’t know?”

Wanting to control immigration isn’t driven by xenophobia or bigotry, it’s about safety. It’s about valuing the security of your neighbors and their children. It’s about trying to make sure we don’t allow people into our communities that will cause us harm.

Doing anything less is tantamount to declaring open season on our friends and neighbors.

Serious Thoughts on Syria

So we now have speculative proof that chemical weapons have been used in Syria. By whom is still in debate, and that is the main reason why we should not launch a campaign in Syria. We have no idea who to campaign against. But there is another, more compelling reason why we should not go into Syria. The fact that chemical weapons were used at all.

What?! I thought the “red line” of using chemical weapons should be the catalyst for action, not inaction?!

Allow me to explain.

What does use of chemical weapons say about the person who used them? That they are inhuman animals? Murdering psychopaths? That their objectives permit the use of disgusting, indiscriminate weapons of mass death and mayhem? Yes, all of those things.

And if that person knew that an attack might come, as they certainly do, would that person have any problem at all storing chemical weapons in civilian facilities? Absolutely not.

So don’t you think that whoever that person is has stored their sensitive munitions close to schools, hospitals, mosques? And don’t you also think that, if we were to engage those targets, even with remote missile strikes, that the destruction would be used to further inflame anti-American tensions?

Do you think that person, who used chemical weapons, weapons that cause the violent, tortured death of innocent people, would have any problem using images of “death by American missile” to agitate his followers, even after arranging the very situation that led to those images of death?

A horrific as the use of chemical weapons is, we have no business getting involved in Syria. Even if we knew who used them, striking likely storage sites will get innocent blood on American hands. And what’s needed to strike storage sites without getting blood on our hands? Boots on the ground. How’s that “smart diplomacy” working now?

A World Where Color Means Nothing

On this 50th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King’s “Dream” speech, I am saddened at the state of race relations in the United States. Not because racism still exists, but because there is a group of people who have made an industry out of racism, who have a vested interest in maintaining and inflaming racial tension.

For those people, color means everything. All issues, discussions, conflicts, and actions must be viewed through the prism of color. This is antithetical to what Dr. King envisioned.

But I am also hopeful. I am hopeful because of the rise of new media and its ability to expose the hypocrisy and venom of the race mongers. I am hopeful that the voice of new media will overcome the bias and corruption of those who insist on using color as the first basis of judgement. I am hopeful that the future is one where cries of racism are no longer used to defend destructive behavior.

Oh, the race mongers are going to fight. After all, they’ve made quite a living peddling misery, poverty, and hate. But I believe that time is coming to an end. Race mongers will soon be relegated to history. And in their place?

A world where color means nothing.

Flakes on a Plane

I don’t make a habit of listening to other people’s conversations when flying, but this particular discussion was pretty hard to ignore, considering it was so loud you couldn’t concentrate on anything else.

A young, male college student was having a conversation with a young mother who had her infant in her lap. They talked about random family and baby things, then the college student asked the young mother what her husband did for a living. When she told him he had a fracking business, the college student proceeded to shame her for having a hand in the destruction of the environment at the altar of profit. It is a shame you see to provide for your wife and newborn baby when it harms the planet.

Fracking was bad. The Keystone pipeline was bad. Dams were bad. Basically anything other than green energy was bad.

As the conversation unfolded, I found myself fantasizing about what I would say to the young, male college student, given the opportunity to do so. Here is what I developed:

Let me ask you a few questions if you don’t mind…

With or without a pipeline, the oil from Canada is being transported. Do you know how it is being transported?

By train.

Do you know what railroad is used?

Burlington Northern Southern Freight

Do you know what entity owns Burlington Northern?

Berkshire Hathaway.

Do you know what very rich man is at the helm of Berkshire Hathaway?

Warren Buffet

Do you know what political party Warren Buffet supports?

The Democrat party.

And what party is obstructing construction of the Keystone pipeline?

The Democrat party.

And isn’t that interesting how a very rich man supports the party that is making sure the oil from Canada is transported on his railroad?

Now, I want you to do some research. I want you to research which mode of transportation is more environmentally friendly, rail or pipe. And when you find that pipe is more environmentally friendly, I want you to ask yourself why the Democrat party is obstructing a more environmentally friendly pipeline. Could it be that obstruction is in the interest of one of their most wealthy supporters? Isn’t that interesting?

And before you go off and say we shouldn’t be using oil at all. I have some more questions for you:

The blades on a windmill are made from resins and fibers. Do you know what raw material is used to make those resins and fibers?


The generator in a windmill uses all kinds of lubrication and fancy things made from rare earth minerals. Do you know what raw material is used to make that lubrication?


Do you know what powers the machines that dig up and transport the rare earth minerals?


Windmills are painted a nice, bland shade of gray Do you know what raw material is used to make that paint?


So as you continue your journey westward on this giant, oil burning airplane, you have a lot to think about don’t you?


What the Zimmerman Verdict Means

Those who lament the not guilty verdict remain fixated on skin color. The only reason this confrontation resulted in a trial at all is because it could be framed as profiling, as if profiling is bad, and turned into an opportunity to agitate one color against another. Pitiful.

What is forgotten or ignored is what the not guilty verdict means. It means that you cannot violently beat someone without fear of consequence. Regardless of why another person is following you, you cannot choose to turn against them and hammer them with your fists and expect nothing bad to happen to you.

For the sake of discussion, I’ll concede the point that profiling is bad. I don’t think it is, but just for the moment, let’s say it is. And let’s also concede that Zimmerman was profiling Trayvon. That he recognized an anomaly in his neighborhood and decided to investigate. Trayvon still chose to confront Zimmerman, chose to harm the man who was following him. He didn’t have to do that. He chose to. And in choosing to do so he set in motion the path that led to the not guilty verdict and what that verdict means.

You cannot choose to commit bodily harm without fear of consequence. Sometimes that consequence is your death. Consider the consequence before you make the choice.