How Will Black Lives Matter Move the Goalposts After Milwaukee?

I’ve never been sympathetic to the grievances of modern Black people. They have the same access to the same opportunities as any other American segment. They’re not barred from buying specific products based on race. No one stops them from applying for jobs because of their skin color. They have the same opportunity to attend the same schools as everyone else. And if they don’t do well in school, then that is a personal failing, not a racial one. I never believed that, as a group, Black people somehow learned differently than the rest of society. All of the Black kids I was friends with in high school I had met in honors and AP classes. They took standardized tests just fine.

So when Black Lives Matter washed ashore in the wake of the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner as a public rebuke of White police brutality against innocent Blacks, I thought the “movement” would shrivel in the sun and die quickly. As a society, I thought we could all realize that bad outcomes are a result from bad actions, which stem from bad decisions. Bad outcomes didn’t happen because of “The Man”.

But BLM didn’t die. Instead, it was fueled by misplaced sympathy or opportunistic support from the political Left. And now we have to live with this obnoxious nuisance, at best, and domestic terrorism, at worst. And while I would never emotionally support BLM, I could intellectually understand why Blacks would be angry at police. It’s human nature to not accept the consequences of bad behavior and instead place the blame on an external force. But I never believed that Black people who support or partake in BLM actually believe – in their hearts – that the problem is White cops.

The intelligent few in BLM are probably using the group for its political influence. The non-intelligent many in BLM are probably using the group either to promote lawlessness so that they can break the law and not be punished or they’re using the group as a fig leaf excuse to riot at the next event that can be spun into a perceived racial slight. The White allies of BLM live such comfortable lives that they have to take up causes that don’t affect them in order to experience strife. But I don’t think any of the members actually believe that White cops are just hunting down Blacks.

And then we had Milwaukee.

An armed Black man with a gun fled police and was ultimately shot and killed. The shooting police officer was also Black. And yet, Milwaukee still burned. So what gives? Is BLM really not about White police brutality? Do its followers just use BLM as an excuse to riot and pillage? As of now, I don’t think any BLM leaders have stepped forward to condemn the violence and destruction.

So how does BLM square this? Can they? And if not, then can the rest of society finally turn its back on this “movement” and recognize it for it is?

Arguing with Liberals

Those of us who don’t agree with most views associated with liberals can take comfort in a simple but reliable method of gauging how factually correct one’s divergent opinion may be.

For the most part, liberals don’t defend their beliefs with fact or reason but with opinion and emotional rhetoric. When someone says something that challenges a belief held by liberals, their response is often ad hominem, insults, denial without facts or sources, sarcasm, claims to the high moral ground, and a wide array of responses that do everything but actually refute the challenge in a meaningful way.

If the first response by a liberal is emotional or sarcastic, this is a good sign. If it’s followed by a slur about one’s character or intelligence, it’s even better. During all this, liberals will rarely provide actual, i.e., accurate, information in support of their argument.

What information they use to support their opinion will often be in the form of frequently-repeated but easily disproved statistics, “studies” that never actually took place or had their conclusions misrepresented, or “historical” events that never happened, and other spurious forms of misinformation. Often it’s a fraudulent argument made by a leftist organization that consists of half-truths and outright lies but has been repeated so frequently that it’s accepted as true by uncritical thinkers.

People who argue leftist arguments most frequently go directly to the personal attack. Never fall into the trap of defending one’s self. You lose the very moment you let them change the subject. Stick to the argument. If it becomes ad hominem, turn it back to facts, not personalities.

Never let the argument escalate into emotional debate. If you can’t support an argument without becoming emotional or engaging in name calling, the argument has no substance.

Keep pointing out where the other person’s argument fails to provide actual facts, and provide actual, correct information in the place of misinformation. Remind them frequently that if they have to make the argument personal, they have no argument.

The most useful tactic is to use the other person’s inability to keep calm as a shield — smile, be happy, and show that you’re enjoying that person’s lack of self-control because it means they can’t support their argument, and you both know it.

They know they can’t refute your reason with their rhetoric, which will make them all the angrier.

Is “Anti-War” Still a Liberal Value?

I grew up during a time when the Vietnam War divided people, since generally, conservatives supported the war and liberals vocally condemned it. Since then, support for wars the US has engaged in has often been used as an indicator for whether one was conservative or liberal.

Unfortunately “conservative” and “liberal” are rather fluid in their meanings to the point where most people only have a generalized idea of what they mean, with most people saying they have mostly left of center or right of center values with a couple of outlier opinions that are usually identified with the other side of the spectrum.

But opposition to war, since the 1960s, has been consistently considered a liberal value.

Consistency, however, has never been a liberal value, and liberals’ opposition to war seems to depend on which party currently occupies the White House.

We have to give President Obama as a war-time president credit for making good on a campaign promise. He was not an anti-war candidate. He was very clear that he would continue the US military’s presence in Iraq for an indefinite period and would increase our presence in Afghanistan.

George Bush received, correctly I think, criticism from the left on invading Afghanistan without sufficient justification. The Taliban has never been either a direct or an indirect threat to the US and our continued belligerence there has only made the accusation that US troops are there to protect a future oil opportunity – or the CIA’s opium trade — more credible.

But what was once a “war for oil” under the Bush administration has now become background noise, an afterthought when it comes up in conversation. The anti-war rallies that used to protest war in Iraq and Afghanistan before 2008 are gone. Liberals no longer protest war.

They no longer protest because it’s now Obama’s war. He inherited it and pushed for its continuance, and not a peep was heard from the liberals. Apparently, war is immoral when it’s waged under a Republican president.

Since the 1960s, liberals have taken the moral high ground on war, that war is immoral. The left has been unambiguous about this as a moral value. War is wrong, they say. We do not need to engage in war.

But here is where liberals show their inconsistency. For liberals, war in Afghanistan under George Bush was immoral, but it is no longer immoral, when thought of at all, when it’s waged under Barack Obama.

Clearly, being anti-war is not a liberal value. If that were the case, liberals would condemn both the war and the president in the same breath as a needless and immoral waste of human life. If the moral high ground was actually what liberals valued, they would condemn all war, not just selective wars. Ideology, not morality, is what drives liberalism. Being anti-war to liberals is nothing more than partisan posturing with no moral value attached to it at all.

An Honest Moment in the State of the Union 2015

I was driving home from work when the 2015 State of the Union started, so I don’t think I caught all of what President Obama said as my AM tuner fought a losing battle between the State of the Union and a Mexican station. Fortunately, like all State of the Union addresses, the opening remarks are typically full of the same empty rhetoric, narrowly or incompletely defining success and then patting oneself on the back for having achieved said success. I did, however, manage to get home in time to stream the rest of the address on YouTube. Unfortunately, the rest of the speech wasn’t much better.

I’m spitballing here, but it sounded like the ideas we’ve been hearing throughout this presidency. Rich people: pay more. Poor people: here’s free stuff. I did enjoy President Obama’s call to raise the minimum wage and how he described the impossibility of raising a family $16K and change a year. First, minimum wage jobs aren’t meant for people who are trying to raise families. Second, President Obama unhelpfully didn’t say what the minimum wage should be raised to. How much should we pay an individual so that he or she could raise a family? C’mon Mr. President; put a dollar figure on it! I suspect you won’t because raising a family is actually quite expensive and will probably put the minimum wage into the salary range that college graduates usually get. Not only would a lot of businesses fold under these new demands, but there would be even less reason to avoid college.

Anyway, I’m not really interested in arguing the President’s State of the Union address point for point. I just wanted to highlight my favorite part of the evening:

Mr. Obama issued a broad call for “a better politics” that began with common principles, and said his agenda isn’t political, pointing out “I have no more campaigns to run.”

That drew rousing applause from the GOP side of the aisle, which had sat on its hands as Mr. Obama had ticked off partisan proposals he wanted to see, and threatened vetoes of bipartisan bills Republicans are trying to pass.

The applause was too much for Mr. Obama, who punctuated his declaration that his campaigns are over by saying, “I know, because I won both of them.”

Democrats roared with delight, while red-faces Republicans grimaced.

I liked this part the best because it was an honest moment in government. The Republicans applauded because for them 2016 can’t come fast enough. And, of course, President Obama couldn’t let the slight go without a riposte. But it’s that look on his face after he utters his rejoinder. It just says, “Screw you.” If he could have flipped them the bird on national television, then he would have. Nevertheless, this was naked aggression from both sides. The pure hatred between parties was laid bare for these few, fleeting, perfect seconds.

Unfortunately, the magic was quickly dispelled and President Obama went back to his written speech (which the video below doesn’t show), and he talked about actively pursuing Republican ideas.

Yeah, right! Watch the video and tell me you believe him.

Amnesty and Accelerated Destruction

I’m not one to wallow in self-pity for long. While I’m not completely emotionless — losing this presidential election did bum me out — I try to look at everything through a logical lens. So, if I value my country, if I value how I believe this country should be, if I value the life I want to live, then I have shed the weight of depression, disappointment and everything else that doesn’t help me achieve the things that will get what I value most back on track.

The country isn’t lost — not yet.

But that might be the problem.

First, a quick thought about amnesty. The illegal Latino community is growing. Every day their anchor baby children are getting that much closer to voting age. So long as the Democratic party keeps offering more and more safe harbor gimmicks, like the DREAM Act or driver’s licenses for illegals, then the Latino community will always vote Democratic. In ye olden days we could probably count on religion to keep Latino Catholics from voting for the party of abortion, but not anymore. For Latinos who vote Democratic, immigration is probably their biggest concern. One Hispanic group has been emboldened by this recent victory to demand amnesty.

As Conservatives, we understand that illegal immigration cannot be tolerated. Unfortunately, we can’t deport these people fast enough. In some cases, immigration law enforcement is instructed not to deport these people. And with our porous border, illegal immigration and immigrants are not going away. Therefore, Republicans have to consider amnesty if we’re going to win the Latino vote.

Taking amnesty to its logical conclusion, however, only means that we’ll be created 11 million Democratic voters. Illegal immigrants are not people who are well-off or have respect for law or have any prospects here that wouldn’t put them in the needy column. Why would we expect them not to vote for any legislation that offered more government handouts? So basically, I don’t think we can win Latinos anymore — at least not the majority. But maybe that doesn’t matter if we can win the majority of other demographics. Unfortunately, as Obama has shown us, his pandering pretty much has each major demographic bought.

So what is the answer here?


It’s obvious that the country has reached a tipping point where there are more people want handouts and big government than there are people who want the opposite. Case in point: Have you ever tried to dissuade someone from illegally downloading MP3s or movies? If they never feel any kind of threat of repercussion, then it’s nearly impossible. You can impress upon them that stealing is wrong, but it will fall on deaf ears if they know they can get something they want for free without any legal action against them. This is the political Left in a nutshell. They know they can get something for free so long as they keep voting for it.

America is split in two groups: the takers and makers. If the makers are dying off because they’re older or simply can’t succeed in this economic climate, and the takers keep expanding because their young, then this dynamic will never equalize. Fighting it will only delay the inevitable. That’s why we need to consider swinging hard to the left and just giving them what they think they want. We need to bankrupt the nation, destroy the work ethic and the country sink into the mire of poverty as everyone becomes a taker. We need to show the Left exactly how shitty of a world their utopia is.

If we do this, it has to be done now while this current generation of Conservatives is still young enough to pick up the broken pieces afterward when the rebuilding starts. Yes, it’s going to be a long, bleak existence. All of our hopes and dreams and plans for our lives will be put on hold, if not completely forgotten. But either we deal with this now, or we deal with it in our golden years when we’re too weak and tired to do much about it. Or we leave it to our kids, which is just irresponsible.

On the upside, I’ve always wanted to visit Greece, and it looks like Greece is coming here. How soon it arrives depends on us.

Election Autopsy and the Virtues of Being Closed-Minded

As an adult, I’ve never been one to advocate for avoiding content as a matter of ideology. As a lover of entertainment, I only skip certain things out of taste, not because the performance/subject/piece espoused thinking that was contrary to mine. As such, I’ve never been into boycotting something just because I didn’t agree with it. Sure, I might not buy the product or frequent the establishment anymore, but I wouldn’t go around and convince other people to do the same. Yes, it’s every American’s right to boycott something, but it also smacks of totalitarianism.

“Man, these chicken sandwiches taste great! What’s that? You think marriage should be between a man and woman? Oh, in that case, I’m going to make sure no one eats here ever again!”

After today, I think it’s time to give boycotts a second look. Beyoncé (wife of rapper Jay-Z) tweeted this image after Obama was reelected:

The New Civility

Her husband had done the same in a performance the night before.

Liberals are insufferable. They can’t even win graciously. At the end of the day, even if we can’t come to terms with our political opponents, we must always remember that they are still Americans and deserve the modicum of respect that comes with being countrymen. To essentially call them “bitches” because they disagree with you is a new level of low. It’s time to stop giving these people our money. They don’t respect us and they despise what we stand for and believe in.

This is yet another reason why this election was so important. Ever since 2000, the Left has slowly become more and more emboldened into revealing the assholes that they are. Yes, it was mainly the comedians who went after W. By and large, that was expected. But now we have A-listers like Morgan Freeman outright calling TEA Partiers racists. We have Samuel L. Jackson railing against God that the GOP was spared by hurricane Isaac. Now Beyoncé calls half the country “bitches”. These entertainers are not D-listers. They are still relevant. They don’t have to sink to the depths of Roseanne Barr or Cher and blast hateful screeds to get attention. The fact that Freeman, Jackson and Beyoncé feel completely safe in their careers to behave this way is very telling about the mood of the country.

That brings me to my final point. As much as it pained me to sift through the political sites today, I decided to read a couple of the Conservative blogs for words of wisdom that might make sense of this insanity. One pundit suggested that the Right needs to reach out to minorities more, like Latinos. I don’t know what the hell that means — at least in practical terms. If the Latino community said all we care about is amnesty, then is the Right prepared to give that to get their vote? If women say all they care about is abortion, then is the Right prepared to give that to get their vote? If so, why bother having an opposition political party? If the only way to win is to give away more stuff than the other guy, how does that make us any different than the other guy? How does that not make us worse than the other guy?

As Rush Limbaugh said today: In a nation of children, Santa Claus wins. I don’t know how you can beat Santa Claus by being the Workshop Elf who tells the child that if they study well and work hard that they too might be able to build these wonderful toys, when the child can simply go to Santa and demand the toy the Elf made.

United Prison of America

I’m usually not one to adopt defeatist attitudes, but after tonight I’m not sure that Conservative values will ever rule the day again in the United States. There are too many single-issue voter groups on the other side that are easy enough to please. Latinos? Easy; don’t deport their families. Gays? Evolve on gay marriage and repeal DADT, even if that means they become IED fodder in Afghanistan. Women? Here’s abortion on demand and free contraceptives. Blacks? What are you gonna do? Obama’s Black; that means you have to vote for him no matter what, even if you suffer the most under his policies and he supports issues you find abhorrent, e.g. gays.

The biggest unifier of the Left, however, and probably what all Leftist single-issue voters want when you boil down their causes, is “free stuff”. The economy could suck. The unemployment rate could be stuck at 10% for four years. We could be in more wars in the Middle East. We could be four years closer to a nuclear Iran. We could have more spying on American citizens. We could be executing America citizens without due process. We could be leaving American ambassadors to die in foreign countries. We could be prosecuting American citizens over their Free Speech. The Left would still rally under the banner of “free stuff”.

That kind of unification just doesn’t exist on the Right. There are too many divisive factors, like religion and level of Conservatism. In this last election, Romney faced an uphill battle on both those issues. “He belongs to a weird religion. Isn’t it a cult?” The Left unifies under godlessness. “He was the architect for universal healthcare. How can he be a Conservative?” The Left doesn’t scrutinize their candidates in the same way. Liberal bona fides are attained simply by giving away free stuff.

The Right cannot compete with that.

Moreover, Liberal messaging is impossible to escape. It’s in our education and entertainment. By the time a person enters the place where merit is the metric — the workplace — it’s too late; they’ve been indoctrinated into believing they deserve the free stuff. In the last 20 years Conservatives have somehow become the prisoners in the country they built.

And there’s nowhere to escape to.

It may be time for all of us on the Right to give a collective Shrug. Starving the parasites might be the only solution left.

Update: It’s time to bust up the union.

The Way I See It

This week has been an undeniably good week for Mitt Romney.  But, I do know that there are people out there who are still very worried about the results of this election (rightfully so since the stakes are so high), especially if you read the more “math” driven sites like Intrade or  After a stint of uncharacteristic negativity, I have become very bullish on Mitt Romney’s chances.  Romney is now ahead Nationally according to RCP but we all know that it’s the battlegrounds that will decide the election.  So, I try to balance the “math” with some observations I made reading about the election and it is because of these observations that I believe.

Here are some:

Let’s start with FL.  For whatever reason, FL tends to poll more Dem than it actually votes. This happened in 2004 and was +6 O at this same time in 2008.  Despite that if you’re reading RCP the 2 established polls taken the day after the debate resulted in +2 and +3 R. The NBC poll taken 4 days before the debate was +1 O taken at a time when R was admittedly not doing as well nationally. There is one poll by UNF +4 O was taken over a 10 day period both before and after the debate is most likely an outlier and doesn’t even publish its methodology. If you remove that one poll and considering the history of FL I believe that it will break Romney.

NV goes Romney.  Other than the one Dem poll, the most recent polls (including post debate polls) have shown this state as neck and neck. Considering the terrible economic shape NV is in and the large Mormon population this is easily a toss up but advantage Romney.

WI I put in the Romney category for three reasons: 1. The post debate polls have shown a tightened race.  2. Scott Walker survived a very negative recall there and 3. I believe that tomorrows VP debate will enamor R&R in the eyes of the WI voters.  In fact I believe that unless O stems the tide this state will ultimately go R.

OH is trending R right now in my opinion.  Another state that O needs to try to stop the momentum.  Post debate this is a solid tossup, three things make me believe that O is in trouble here.  1. Early voting started right around the first debate.  2. Early absentee requests have shown a +9% change towards Republicans, since McCain actually won the vote on election day this is a huge development.  3. Registered voters are down approximately 300,000 from 2008.  Considering the polls showing a much higher enthusiasm on the Rep side most of this loss (if not almost all) is on the Dem side.

VA is a little tricky traditionally a red state that went blue in 2008. Polls all over the place here in the last couple months.  Definitely trending red in the last week but I mostly have it Romney because it traditionally a red state.

Using my map and my observations on the race there are quite a few scenarios that result in a R win. I suggest that if the election were held today R would be the winner.  Here is my Electoral map.  Please let me know where I am wrong I love a challenge…

Wow that’s a Big Bird!

I like PBS. I love Big Bird. I actually like you, too.

Mitt Romney — First Debate, spoken to Jim Lehrer

Desperation is in the air, the most obvious indications of this are the crazy memes that are making the rounds in the social network universe and are being disseminated by the Obama campaign.  After Obama’s now infamous debate performance the campaign first tried the “Liar, Liar, pants on fire!” meme on Romney.

I was more than a bit amused when it was pointed out that Obama made just as many “fibs” as Romney.  And, that it didn’t matter anyway since the most glaring difference between Romney and Obama Wednesday night was that Romney looked Presidential and that he had the gravitas (balls) to actually get the country untracked.  It almost didn’t even matter what he said… Obama looked beaten and not up to the task.

So on Friday, some good news for Obama… finally an unemployment rate under 8%.  So another new meme was unleashed.


It seemed odd to me that the administration was celebrating a number like this when there were still 20 million out of work.  But, once the talking heads started debating the truthiness of the number this meme seemed to fizzle as well.

So this bring us to the newest, most outlandish and seemingly most desperate meme yet (Oh and my favorite too by the by)… Romney wants to KILL Big Bird! (gasp)

This afternoon I was surfing the news channels and I stopped for a second on The Rachel Maddow show and she was just so upset that Romney wanted to end the subsidy for PBS and that she thought that Romney had made a huge gaffe by bringing up the yellow fowl.  She actually made the case that Obama was right to keep bringing out the supposed gaffe and that it was the one thing that people remembered about the debate and was talking about.  Too bad for her that her following guest E.J. Dionne didn’t support her thoughts and then proceeded to detail a different attack on Romney… Oh well just when I was enjoying a meme.  I’ll be looking forward to the next ridiculous attempt…. Here’s to HOPING it’s a good one…