For Democrats It Could Be Worse, And It Is

Even considering the skepticism and doubt Republican voters are experiencing regarding the apparent status quo in Washington's swamp, it could be worse.  Stunned by news that the same old same old is seemingly undefeatable, voters are left scratching their heads.  They're wondering why even vote if the democrats are going to continue to run the show, even - and especially - when they lose.  But it could be worse.  As recently pointed out in these pages, President Trump clearly needs a little more time to implement his vast voter approved plan despite the stonewalling by Democrats and RINOs.  If you're a Republican or a Libertarian, there's hope.  If you're a democrat, it could be a whole lot worse.  And it is.

Getting used to wearing orange

Consider what the Democrat Party has become.  The face of the party, Hillary Clinton, has pulled the party down to a deeper and darker place. Even after five months, the enlightened Mz. Clinton still cannot fathom how she lost a perfectly good rigged election.  While professing to take responsibility for her loss, she doesn't.  She still blames the Russians for hacking John Podesta's emails and releasing them to Wikileaks to be made public.  That excuse is fallacious.  Russia's hopes for the US election outcome would have obviously been the devil they know as opposed to the devil they don't.   Russia would rather deal with a US president who was merely corrupt, rather than a maverick with his finger on the nuclear trigger.   And not to be satisfied with just blaming Russian hackers, she also blames FBI Director James Comey for reopening the investigation into her email scandal just weeks before election day.  That dog won't hunt, either.  Comey has stated that not saying something - even at that late date - would have been an “act of concealment,” and that he was faced with two choices: speak or conceal. Concealment would have been “catastrophic.”  So our gal Hillary gets caught in dealing in classified information, and she blames the discoverer of that fact, along with the investigator of that fact.  But she never blames herself for engaging in that act. Nope, it was the Russians, Comey and the fact that she's a woman in a misogynist America that gave Trump the White House.

No pro-lifers need apply

So as the Democrat Party goes down in flames with the crooked and exposed Hillary, who stands to lead the progressives?  The best and brightest, of course.  Take Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez for example.  (The last time I saw a mouth full of teeth like his was on a moray eel under a reef in the Cayman Islands.)  Speaking at the communist-inspired May Day celebration, Perez told the crowd that the Democrat party recognized and welcomed illegal aliens, further asserting that the Democratic party and the immigrant community share the same values, centered around diversity.  Immigrant community?  Yep, that'll sure win the hearts and minds of the ignored white middle class in America. Not to mention elections.  But hey, the Dems can count on that illegal vote to make up for alienating all those real and legal Americans.  Or so goes the thinking at the highest levels of the DNC.  At least they had the foresight to not nominate Keith Ellison, a radical Muslim from Minnesota, to the post.  They do have standards, after all.

As the disgraced party leaders Clintons, Weiners, Braziles and Wasserman-Schultz all exit stage left, stepping carefully over the dead bodies that always seem to surround democrats, the party rolls out its new crop of leaders, sliding ever further to the radical left.  As they vainly try to be all inclusive with Black, Hispanic and Muslim leadership, they are deliberately alienating the white American middle class in the process.  

Just when you think it can't get any worse, it does.

Sorry. Not Sorry

What is the fascination with human homogeneity that drives the social justice warrior mentality?  What must the enlightened ones think who insist that we all must be the same in word, thought and deed?  One struggles to find a logical rationale for such a belief.  It seems that it is a religion in of itself; that is, a belief system with little or no basis in fact.  Let's explore the phenomenon.

It would seem to anyone who has a nodding acquaintance with anthropology, historically speaking, of course, will understand that mankind, in general, is essentially tribal.  Whether by "tribal" we mean race, ethnicity or community, it is a natural fact that we humans best enjoy association with folks who look, think and behave as ourselves.  That is not to deny that we, as tribal humans, dislike or are "phobic" around those who are not like us, it's just that similarities attract.  Take Arabs and Jews, for example.  That conflict is three millennia old and continues today.  So why then, must we all conform to whatever the shrill and vocal left determines is politically correct?  Forcibly categorizing people into an unnatural homogenized group is nonsense.  We are not only different according to our individual race, ethnicity or community, but individually unique, as well.  Separate, but alike.  And that's not contradictory.  But to the left, diversity means homogeneity.  And homogeneity isn't something for which to strive.

Let's take for example this recent example of erasing any and all history that is considered politically incorrect.  Well, not so recent as erasing - and/or revising - history been going on for centuries.  But recently the City of New Orleans has decided it's politically expedient to remove all statues relating to Confederate heroes.  Why?  Simply because some Northern limousine liberals and a handful of black activists were offended.  By what?  By history.  The Confederate States of America was a sovereign nation, and New Orleans was a part of that nation.  Louisianans, both black and white, volunteered and fought for that cause.    Why should that offend anybody?  One could argue that the "offense" has been manufactured so that there will always be a racial divide in America.  Horrors!  The 1860 War of Northern Aggression was fought over many things, slavery being only one of many issues in contention at the time. And if one were to concentrate on slavery as a sole issue, which has been successfully accomplished by fourteen decades of revisionist history, one would readily stipulate that the American experiment of self government was one of the most free systems that has ever existed.  Consider the historical entirety of slavery, and the USA and CSA  aren't even among the honorable mentions.  Consider Rome.  As a nation-state, it enslaved the entire known world of white, brown and black skinned peoples.  As did the Greeks and Macedonians before them.  Japan has a sordid history of enslaving what is now Korea.  Africans kill and enslave their own people even to this very day.  The Muslim world is no better.  Slavery in the Ottoman Empire was a legal and significant part of the its economy and society.  Selling slaves was good business.  And one of the worst examples of cultural annihilation can be found in Spain's ruthless conquering of and enslaving the indigenous brown skinned peoples of South and Central America.  By comparison, America's hands - both north and south - are blood free.

So why the brown-shirt rush to erase American history?  The removal of the statues of Lee, Davis and Beauregard took place in the dark of night, with workmen literally wearing helmets, Kevlar vests, and face masks.  Does that sound like it was well supported by the city's residents?  Or does that smack of Stalinesque style tactics?  But those of us who may recall George Santayana's observation that  those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it know why.  Erase the past, and control the future, as paraphrased from George Orwell's famous observation.

It's to instill a divide between those who do not seek human homogenization and those who do.  We are all one.  Rubbish.  We're as different as cows are to horses.  Blacks have their own culture and that's fine.  Hispanics theirs as well.  Asians bring their culture, too.  And all of this is celebrated as it should be.  So why can't white, Southern WASPs have their culture and history?  There's only one reason and that's the left's hatred of centuries of Caucasian cultural accomplishment.  

I, as do millions of others, identify as a Southerner.  And April is Confederate History Month.  Some of my forbears fought for Alabama in that terrible war.   Others wore blue and fell at Gettysburg.  And one landed on these shores from the Mayflower.  This is all true.  That line - my line - which goes back far beyond that landing in 1620, all the way to the Scottish Highlands, is White, Anglo-Saxon and Protestant.  WASP.  Why can't I have my heritage?  My genealogical history?  My family anthropology?  Why do a handful of liberals along with some misinformed, angry blacks get to overwrite my heritage?  Because of slavery?  Nonsense.  If that's the case, these folks need to get a history book, and get over themselves.  And I have nothing even remotely close to white guilt.

So sorry.  I'm not sorry.

One Hundred Days

What can I say?  I would have liked to have seen, like millions of other voters, more progress coming from President Trump.  And, like those other supporters, I wanted to see a brutal and final death to that obamination known as Obamacare.  That didn't happen.  Yet.  I wanted to hear the sweet sounds of heavy diesel machinery digging the foundations of the border wall, but, alas, that hasn't happened.  Yet.  And I would like to have seen the resignations of all the Kenyan's appointed vermin, and see them sent slinking out of the DC swamp and into the harsh, cleansing light of day.  But that hasn't happened,  Yet.

But I, like millions of other voters, realize that it would require divine intervention for one man to accomplish all these Herculean tasks in the first hundred days of his presidency, especially give the level and intensity of his opposition.  From all sides, I might add.  And realizing this this, I'm more than willing to cut the man some slack.  Fighting the New York Times and Chuck Schumer and Paul Ryan, et al, all at the same time, can't be easy.  So I, and millions of other supporters, will watch.  And wait.  And take copious notes.

Realistically, however, the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court in of itself was worth the election.  Chances are good to excellent that there will be one, and most probably two, vacancies on the Court within the next four years.  And if those nominees are as constitutionally oriented as is Justice Gorsuch, I am encouraged to believe the nation can be saved.  Hallelujah and praise be!

But most concerning of all is Trump's adherence to a big tent philosophy in his administration.  By that I mean that, while recognizing Trump is not an ideologue, he does recognize that he is where he  is - that is, that he won the election - because he promised to rid us of the entrenched political elites and their continuing mismanagement of the government.  By keeping these philosophically misaligned operatives on board, he risks having his agenda sabotaged, neutered and rendered moot.  The people won, so why should we include the losers in our policy making?  We shouldn't, of course, and these DC swampers must go.  Immediately.  In that vein, and not to put too fine a point on it, but Ivanka and Jared have exactly NO role in making administration policy.  While they're pretty and successful, and all that, it remains true that they are young, politically inexperienced and deeply rooted in their New York, liberal upbringing.  Which is exactly what the American voters voted against.  I understand nepotism to a degree, but this ain't a monarchy.  

Concerns about these issues are heard when one puts one's ear to the ground.  Others are commenting in similar ways, as well. He's got an uphill fight, and we are behind him.  Understanding Trump, it may be part of an overarching plan to quell the left simply by having them sit at the table.  That's a big and bold - and possibly dangerous - plan, but if anyone can pull it off, it's Trump.  He's told us time and again, deal making is an art form.

Let's hope that is the situation.  And that it works.   

Fat Ugly Chicks Win One

What happens when natural biology is weaponized . . .

If ever there was a compelling arugument for tort reform, the recent and ongoing drama at Fox News would come up as Exhibit A.  And the genesis for that drama is the illogical and insane adherence to political correct feminist dogma.  

Here's the rub.  Television, and especially cable TV, is a visual medium, and producers have come a long way in market savvy since news anchors were exclusively old white men.  Think Dan Rather, Walter Cronkite, Chet Huntley.  TV back then was in black and white, so all that was needed was a talking head.  With great hair.

Today we have high definition, mega-pixels television in vivid color, and news management knows its customer base wants to see pretty.  And cable delivers on pretty.  Does it ever.  So nowadays we get babes.  Hot babes.  Beautiful, voluptuous, buxom hotties with great legs.  And yes, we viewers get to see legs. Sculpted, shapely and long legs.  Remember Megyn Kelly's glass desktop?  Yeah, me, too.  Bear with me here, I'm not going soft core on you. There's a point to this.

In light of modern news technology, we now have a plethora of hot babes reading the evening news to us.  In vivid and high def color.  Consequently, downstairs at human resources, female job applicants get the unmistakable message that fat, ugly chicks need not apply.  Not for on-air talent positions, anyway.  It's simply a fact of life.

So then let's say we have a universe of hot babes wandering around the offices and studios, interacting with male counterparts in all departments.  And as males will, they notice that there's a sea of very attractive ladies milling about.  The copy boy, who has all of $17 in his checking account, may greet one of the hotties and admiringly say, "If I told you had a fabulous body, would you hold it against me?"  What do you think would happen? He'd get the extended middle finger, or a curt but to-the-point castrating rebuff, and that would be the end of it.  Yet let a famous man who is also a news anchor, and who earns $20 million a year, leer or possibly lick his lips or engage in some other demonstration of appreciation of a particular woman's appearance, what do you think would happen in that case?  Right.  Lawsuit.  And that severe legal assault on a completely innocent and normal biological reaction is wrong on so many levels.  And we have the fat, ugly feminists to thank for it. 

Here's the natural biology of men and women.  Normal women want to be attractive to men.  Normal men want women to be attractive.  But the fat, ugly feminists want everyone to suffer as they believe they have suffered.  They believe they've been left out of the accessibility pool of desirable females.  They probably have been, but for reasons other than lack of physical attractiveness.  No matter, they want to wreck the natural biological process.  End attractiveness.  End male response to attractiveness.  So to that end, to court we will go.

The definition of "tort" for the purposes of this discussion is a civil wrong or wrongful act, whether intentional or accidental, from which injury occurs to another.  Now in the context of torts, an "injury" describes the invasion of a legal right, as opposed to "harm," which describes a loss or detriment in fact that an individual suffers.  But what right is assailed?  What injury is sustained?

What this means is that feminists have essentially weaponized the natural act of a man noticing a woman and commenting on it.  It's unlikely that any real sexual assault occurred, like the guy grabbing her in the hall and having his way with her.  Nope, this is simply verbal commentary - no touching - we're talking about.  But insurance companies and defendants' attorney teams don't want to go to court and fight, citing court battle costs may exceed any settlement awards.  So they settle.  Worse, if the accused does settle the case, he is still guilty - not because he did it - but because, being male, he simply could have.  Think about that.  Legalized extortion is still alive and well.  Just like the scams the racist shakedown clowns Sharpton and Jackson still try to pull off.

What is the inevitable outcome of the fat and ugly harpy feminists winning this battle in the so called war of the sexes?  For one, sleazy attorneys like Gloria Allred and her ilk getting rich beyond their courtroom abilities.  For another, it sets a troubling cultural precedent.  And it only punishes men.  Women still show lots of skin, cleavage and leg to attract a man's interest.  But men are not supposed to notice, let alone comment.  But far beyond that, we're seeing a cultural reaction backlash to this feminist bullying.  Ever heard of MGTOW?  Follow that link.  A seismic shift in male-female relationships is under way, and it ain't good.

And for this unnatural extortion we can thank the fat and ugly harpies who brought us modern feminism.