The purge that will be televised: the Regressive Lefts in home drive by

What we are witnessing is something out of those radical 60's. It was that “new” Left that caught the establishments eye and took notice before Nixon was elected and before Woodstock was even an idea. It was that threat to the establishment that propelled those in power to take measures to curb their growing influence. Color, creed, veterans were no longer a divide. It was based on their unification of ideas. Ideas transcend all divisions. It shows up in the voter's booth. Hence now, the unification to Make America Great Again is a tent so unique and diverse it presents a similar threat to the establishment.

Blacks are starting to vote less Democratic.

Hispanics doubled their vote for a Republican President than they did in 2012.

Evangelicals and Christians strongly supported the MAGA movement

As did Independents

As did Libertarians

Even prominent gays are coming to the fold.

This coalition isn't the 40% you hear about on ‘the News’. It's everywhere in between coast to coast. When you present people with the issues it's not identity politics people identify with it's their country, their jobs, their security. This new loose collection of voters comprises the “new” Right. They don't show up in your polls and you cannot pigeonhole them anymore with usual terminology that divides and conquers. The game is changed. Ideas are starting to win again. And because of this its this “new” Right that is public enemy no. 1. We have seen many declassified operations over the years come to light, Operation Mockingbird comes to mind. But none were as frank and direct as the secret and now declassified FBI operation: COINTELPRO.

COINTELPRO was the catalyst to destroy the “new” Left. Without getting into the histrionics of its entirety, I will just cut right to the chase. This was from an FBI memo from 1968:

“Through counter-intelligence it should be possible to pinpoint potential trouble-makers and neutralize them…”

You can find those words show up here in the Rage Against The Machine song “Wake up” from their 1992 debut or maybe you remember it from the end of the first Matrix movie.

In 1976 the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities of the United States Senate findings:

“Many of the techniques used would be intolerable in a democratic society even if all of the targets had been involved in violent activity, but COINTELPRO went far beyond that ... the Bureau conducted a sophisticated vigilante operation aimed squarely at preventing the exercise of First Amendment rights of speech and association”

Any and all obstructions of the 1st Amendment are these most serious threats to our Republic. But curiously it's happening at an alarming rate to “new” Right voices. You don't need isolated examples as the examples are pretty direct and in your face. Look at your cell phones news content. Listen to educators who teach your children and their union overlords. Flip on your television. Go to Burger King and watch CNN. You're being inundated with propaganda 24/7 if you don't know any better.  Now about targeting specific voices...

We have seen Milo being banned from Twitter for calling a Black lady “an ape”. Yes, that Milo, a gay-Jew who happens to be a Conservative. Mind you any child with a Twitter can view hardcore porn. Even known pedophiles aren't barred from Twitter. Weird huh? We have seen the riots take place banning him from speaking (mind you as an invited guest) at a very liberal college campus.

Speaking of a child, a few weeks ago we saw him lose his book deal because he talked about men being attracted to 13-year-old boys. Not him but men. Was he advocating it? I did not think so, neither am I. Was it out of line or not tasteful, yes no question. However, there is a push by some in the MSM over the last few years publicizing an advocacy for pedophilia while simultaneously and curiously aren't reporting on all these sex trafficking busts under Trump.

As far as that ape goes… Leslie Jones had a few things to say at her recent stand-up act…

"If I see another 45-year-old white woman from Williamsburg saying ‘black lives matter,' I'm going to punch you in the mouth. Stop doing that."

Are whites support welcomed or not? Can't keep track anymore. Depends on the day and the person I guess.

"I want to be in love. I want to do that, but it's 2017, and we got a pig in office. The world is about to end."

So, it's OK for her to call a White POTUS a “Pig” and her not be called an “Ape”. If we are getting into race territory a Black Ape is equal to a White Pig. Imagine if someone said the reverse while BO was in office? We would have riots in the streets.

Last year we had Gizmodo’s Michael Nunez break Facebook's not only bias but it’s outright thought control via its trending news team a team described as “a small group of young journalists, primarily educated at Ivy League or private East Coast universities, who curate the “trending” module on the upper-right-hand corner of the site”. And what about Google?

This isn't just here in the states either, recently Piers Morgan, an outspoken and unlikely supporter of Donald Trump was forced to step down as host of the Royal Television Society Awards, because of a campaign against him and his support for MAGA.

Gavin McInnes? Another “new” Right Conservative/Libertarian who supports Trump. He was assaulted and pepper sprayed for accepting an invitation to speak at NYU just a few weeks ago.

Now we have Tommy Sotomayor. He too, a “new” Right Conservative. A Black man who supports Trump and openly calls out Black hypocrisy. Now he might do it rather viciously but as Sotomayor says all the time “you play stupid games you win stupid prizes”. He was banned from Twitter last week.

This is a problem. This is targeted. That fact that we have this happening at the same time as seemingly uninformed “news” pieces coming from the establishment/legacy/authoritative/MSM media outlets is concerning. Whom seem to be in legion with one another. An entire media outlet, now the most influential medium now that Newspapers are dead is network news, Yet, a completely barren bench of Conservative voices or 90% of it anyway (hat tip to Bill O'Reilly).

This isn't hyperbole: free speech is dying. It is slipping away. It's been happening for a while but only the last few years has it become this obvious. Then we elected Trump and the media and the left are at DEFCON 5. Liberals are the PC champions; this erosion of the 1st is at their feet. Its their media, the traditional established/authoritarian/MSM media who is agenda/ratings driven is putting a megaphone to this nonsense.

All the while the Liberals are in self-destruct mode and embarrassingly racing one another to the furthest left trash heap fueled by identity politics and fringe social issues. It's the blind leading the blind and THEY’RE THOSE ONES DICTATING AND CONTROLLING OUR SOCIETY? Or maybe there is a bigger agenda here. Maybe the media and the liberals are pawns in a much bigger game? But that's another conversation for another day.

Unless you're advocating illegal violence, “hate” speech is still free speech. Regardless if you like it or not. Despite your sensibilities and fuck your feelings. Like the song says…WAKE UP!

How to fix the economy: throw your wife back in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant is optional (Part 1 of 2)

This is a two part blog entry regarding how to fix our rigged economy despite 200 or so detractors at every avenue of every corner at both the micro and macro economic chess game. Enjoy.

Recently, I was at an ACL lab here in town waiting to have a routine blood panel. It’s been about four years since I have been to my family Doctor. I’ve been relatively healthy outside of a cold virus here and there so I have had no reason to go. This changed about two weeks ago when I got a letter from my doctor reflecting my noted absence.  Being a proactive individual (yet a habitual procrastinator) I figured it would be a good time to go and get a check-up.

So, a week later, there I am surrounded by CNN and an orgy of magazines. As I work my way through the titles I stumbled onto this Time Magazine cover-story, entitled:

The Richer $ex: Women are overtaking men as America’s breadwinners. Why that’s good for everyone.

This article was penned by Liza Mundy, whom also wrote the book: The Richer Sex: How the New Majority of Female Breadwinners Is Transforming Sex, Love and Family.

 
Now, it wasn’t until the last page of this piece before I realized it was from March 26, 2012 (mornings after a 12-hour fast is cruel and unusual punishment to this 6-1 235lb frame). With that being said, the article brought up a great point: women are becoming more assertive in the work force and in board rooms all across the country. And me being of the freedom of choice mindset; god bless.

Although the article did a decent job of pointing out the gains of women and the subsequent natural losses of men; I felt a bit empty inside however after finishing it up. This could have been due partly to my empty/gurgling stomach but nonetheless, it made me think and ask myself; while this is obviously great for one sex, is this really great for America as a whole? Are we all really 'better' for it? The short answer, I would say is this: it’s complicated. The long answer... its even more complicated.

On the surface, superficially, it’s obviously great. Nobody should be not hired based on anything but the ability to live up to, if not exceed, expectations of said job. Now, from a true Libertarian mindset this could get complicated because business owners should be able to decide what’s best for their business regardless of what is considered 'fair' but that’s another topic for another day.

What you and I consider to be the ingredients for functional/prosperous economy is always going to be different. From my viewpoint it’s simple. Sound money, home ownership, strong middle class & strong families are a cornerstone to a strong, free economy for all. We can scratch sound money off the table (thank you Federal Reserve, complicit banksters, elected and unelected political whores). What about Home ownership? We have seen that to a mixed bag at best, especially of late.

How about strong families?

According to this article, in 1960, five-percent of children were born to unmarried mothers; in 2010 there was 41%. Now social factors have to be taken into account. For example; people do not always marry before or after having children today, when in 1960 it was culturally looked down upon to not be married before hand. With that being said, the numbers are staggering. In the black community alone those numbers of children born to unmarried mothers are almost in the seventy percentile (67%).

Once these baby’s are born, more times than not, they are sent off to some form of childcare and with more and more women having children unmarried; it’s often out of the home in the hands of strangers.

May Saubier who authored: ‘Doing Time: What It Really Means To Grow Up In Daycare’ says in her book:

“A baby who spends five years at one center will lose one-third to almost half of her caregivers every twelve months or so.”

Not only do you lose the one on one relationship that comes with one parent at home to classes with sometimes a 10-1 child to caregiver ratio you also have to factor in the fact that 40+ hours a week that baby is out of the home not bonding with loved ones. If it wasn’t for weekends, you would have strangers raising a child as much as the parent(s).

This is not to say having your child in childcare outside of the home makes you a bad parent. Without work and income there is no stability. However, to say its “good for everyone” as the author of this Time article suggests in the subtitle, is incredibly shortsighted.

There was also an English study, released in 2009, that centered around 12,000 British schoolchildren. The study determined: mothers who worked full-time had the unhealthiest followed by those who worked part-time. The study published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health went on to state that:

“Currently, approximately 60% of women with a child aged five or younger in the UK or USA are employed. For many families the only parent or both parents are working.” 

Now you might look at this study and say what does 12k students in England have to do with the 315 million people here in the states. Statistically the sample size is small but I would also think, just based on common sense, that a parent in the home as opposed to a parent not in the home just works better. It would more often than not, lead to better choices all across the board.

There was also a revelation regarding Head Start, which is primarily a low income based program for pre-school aged children.  A Congressional mandated study of the Department of Health and Human Services (that fund Head Start) found that there was no benefit to the program for kids. In fact, in some cases it was actually a negative influence. But don’t allow those facts get in the way of this 8 Billion dollar job’s program. Don’t take my word for it either; this column by Mary Katharine Ham (Hotair.com) neuters this failure quite efficiently enough.

 Do we see a connection yet?

We have more and more mothers not marrying at alarming rates. However, we still have a healthy birth rate. We also have more women entering the workforce, more so than ever before and the kids home alone or in daycare are at a sided disadvantage versus kids with one parent who is always at home. Yet, it’s said to be “good for everyone”? I must confess, from the kid’s standpoint – I would emphatically disagree.


Part 2 tomorrow centering on the economic impact.

Piers Morgan: dont let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

I was going do something on our out of control debt and the "looming" fiscal "cliff" but I was distracted reading this piece written by Piers Morgan of CNN published 12-29. The heading states he may deport himself if "America won't change its crazy gun laws". Now given such a heading filled with hyperbole you can expect the rest of his viewpoint will be littered with more attention whoring exaggerations and boy does he not disappoint. 

He starts out with his experience with guns. This, being a singular event, was a trip to Prague where he and some friends shot targets for a few hours and he said afterwards that the experience "quite demonstrably guns are killing machines".

I find that rather meaningless. For I, have never owned or shot a gun at any point in my life. I grew up in a single parent house with my mother and three sisters. Hunting is something I have never done either. But I don't have to hunt nor own a gun or to even have shot one to know guns are killing machines. After all, I have watched thousands of movies and played call of duty until the wee hours of the night (I’m just sticking with the meme). 

After setting up his "experience" he then proceeds to name drop his relatives who are employed in England with exposure to weapons as some type of twisted street cred:

"Well, I do know a bit about guns, actually. My brother’s a lieutenant colonel in the British Army and has served tours of duty in Northern Ireland, the Balkans, Iraq and Afghanistan. My sister married a colonel who trained Princes William and Harry at Sandhurst. My uncle was a major in the Green Howards."

I find this rather humorous. I have an Aunt & Uncle who both work in one of the biggest state universities in Pennsylvania in science. Both have their PHD's. I have three other Aunts who are teachers. I have a grandmother who retired with an MBA in accounting and a step father who has worked in a foundry for 35 years. I have a brother in law that is a barber. Do you know what i know about what they do?? Jack-shit. I would also find it disrespectful to assume that i know about what they do, in what, conversations over Sunday dinner at Nana & Papa's house? Please. 

 Mr Morgan demonstrates his arrogance and obvious agenda to make the world England when he uses the reasoning for owning the AR-15 Bushmaster (used in Newtown)  

"The only apparent reason anyone seems to offer up is that using such weapons is ‘fun’. One gun-rights guy I interviewed last week even said admiringly that the AR-15 was ‘the Ferrari of guns’."

When you see someone cite "One guy I interviewed" as backing you know to take that not with a grain of salt; but probably a quarry. Because the bullshit meter is broken. And if you say the "only apparent" reason "anyone" seems to offer up is 'fun' without any evidence, it just compounds the fact that you are basically making it up. What’s next, an "anonymous quote" from a “high ranking official” in the NRA doesn't “really like guns”? Wasn’t  'ol Piers an editor at a newspaper one time in England? 

Well, that doesn't surprise me. Have you ever read a newspaper from England? Look at the link for his piece; it’s plastered in 'tabloid-celebrity' nonsense. Hard news does not exist over there. How do I know? The paper 'has ads for other story's'. It 'apparently' must be devoid of hard news because I cant find a paper in England that doesn't cater to 'tabloid-celebrity' nonsense... see this subjective, make it up as see fit game can be fun and effective!

So, we have established Mr. Morgan's experience and his relatives with guns are bunk or meaningless to the discussion and probably just a cheap way to fill a word count commitment. We also know he has no reasons why people own guns, other than he says, they said: 'its fun'. So there is no opposite side in this piece with relative viewpoints, just his opinions.

Pictured in this article is a picture of a gun show. It also has statistics with gun sales exploding after these last few instances. It has a picture of a man at a gun show holding an AR-15. There is also the statistics that Americans own more guns per person than anywhere in the world outside of Yemen. Do you see the link? These gun sales are going to create more crime. But is that really true? 

According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -

• a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
• a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
• family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%     

During the offense that brought those offenders to prison, 15% of State inmates and 13% of Federal inmates carried a handgun, and about 2%, a military-style semiautomatic gun.

This whole piece written by Mr. Morgan is centered on the use of semi-automatic weapons. So we are talking about 2% of felons using these types of guns. Two must be the magic number because only 2% of felons using a gun - get said gun, at a flea market or gun show. Talk about living on the margins? Maybe Mr. Morgan should spend some time in Switzerland where households pack fully automatic rifles and experience less crime than England, where he says there are only 35 deaths per year due to handguns.

Which I find odd considering this article written in the Wall Street Journal the day after Christmas by Joyce Lee Malcolm, a professor of law at George Mason University Law School - who has written several books on the subject including: "Guns and Violence: The English Experience" 

In this article Ms Joyce points out that: 

"Within a decade of the handgun ban and the confiscation of handguns from registered owners, crime with handguns had doubled according to British government crime reports. Gun crime, not a serious problem in the past, now is. Armed street gangs have some British police carrying guns for the first time. Moreover, another massacre occurred in June 2010. Derrick Bird, a taxi driver in Cumbria, shot his brother and a colleague then drove off through rural villages killing 12 people and injuring 11 more before killing himself."

 

If that wasn't enough Mr. Morgan points to a recent Gallup poll showing that: "58 per cent of Americans now support new gun-control laws, up from 43 per cent in 2011" He then says "that's a big jump"? 

You think? Does he even understand that his network is one of many that help perpetuate these acts by these deranged nut jobs and fears of the public by sensationalizing them at every waking minute to push their filthy ads? Mr. Morgan even takes aim at video games and movies... does he have no culpability in this? No of course not, because you're on television, dummy. Sixty million people watch you every night of the week, Monday through Friday. You make the news. You're God. 

Now allow me to weave this all together all nice and tight for you, using Mr. Morgan’s own words:

"This gun debate is an ongoing war of verbal attrition in America – and I’m just the latest target, the advantage to the gun lobbyists being that I’m British, a breed of human being who burned down the White House in 1814 and had to be forcefully deported en masse, as no American will ever be allowed to forget – Special Relationship notwithstanding. It’s no exaggeration to say that America’s unique fondness for guns pretty much got cemented by hatred of us Brits and the War of Independence. But the main reason the more fervent gun-rights activists give is a fear of their own US federal government using its army to impinge on their freedom"

Americans don't hate British citizens or look at them with disdain nor reject them simply because of their birthrights. We do have a problem thou with someone from another country telling us how we should change our laws and be more like the country that we fought from our independence from some 200+ years ago. Americans had to use guns to fight off tyranny in the form of the British government. Now you supported using guns to fight tyranny before:

" I’m not a pacifist. Guns win necessary wars and defeat tyrannical regimes like the Nazis"

I find it ironic you do not see the British government circa 1770 a "tyrannical" government. We agree the Nazi regime was just that. This, being the same Nazi regime that took the US and her (gun loving) involvement to keep England from being bombed into oblivion? You know what they say about history don't you, Mr Morgan? If its written by the victors and while we know who won WW2 and the Revolutionary War; maybe you're in need of a history lesson, chap?

Now i saved the best for last:

"Obama should follow up by launching a Government buy-back for all existing assault weapons in circulation (as worked successfully in Los Angeles last week). I would go further, confiscating the rest and enforcing tough prison sentences on those who still insist on keeping one. He should also significantly increase federal funding for mental health treatment for all Americans who need it."

Piers... lets scrap the history lesson, instead lets do a real quick American Civics primer. "He" is just a President, nothing more than a mouth piece for the corporate elite, like the guy before him and the guy before him and the guy after him and so on and so forth. We may elect lackeys and "yes men" but we don't elect Kings. Here all men are created equal; we don't value one person’s blood more than another.

You claim to "love" this country, despite the fact that it’s obvious you don't understand our financial situation as you are directing for "King Obama" to start "buy backs" and additional spending of revenue via mental health (has he not heard of Obama Care), when we are facing two trillion dollar deficits annually. You don't respect our history or even understand it. You want prisons sentences for people wanting to uphold their Bill of Rights. Your views are based on fringe ideas and failed data from England, the country you left - to obviously pursue something better for you and your family. 


 Let me offer you some parting advice courtesy of one, Mahatma Gandhi:

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."(Gandhi, An Autobiography, p. 446 Beacon Press paperback edition)

Jesse Jackson at his best - the spinning never stops.

Last night Chicago seen its 500th homicide for 2012, its highest total since 2008 and up from 435 last year according to the Associated Press. Out of these homicides 87.5% are via the gun which i find curious because Chicago, Illinois has some of the strictest gun laws in the country.

After all this is a place where you can own a handgun (1) but it has to be in your home. It has to be broken down when transported (forget the right to carry) yet even after the modification of its laws in 2010 via the Supreme Court the murder rate is on the rise. Before 2010 it was illegal to own a handgun period in Chicago and the murder rates were through the roof. We are seeing the murder rates back at that level despite the fact that bill in 2010 was aimed at encouraging self defense allowing the right to own a firearm in your home, how so?

Simply put, the bad guys don't live in your home. They are out on the street or in the alleys, where its illegal to carry a weapon. Imagine that, a criminal not minding his local authorities and respecting its laws... why the good citizen does, unarmed.

This morning "Reverend" Jessie Jackson was on CNN discussing the murder rate in Chicago, his hometown. Now normally, when he opens his mouth, hes on the offensive, spitting out venom, bigotry and lies but here the Rev was on the defensive as he tried to make sense of hate crime rates in areas with strict gun laws. When he was asked why Chicago, despite her tough laws, still have exorbitantly high murder rates his first response:

“I think about Newtown, for example, they have three or four gun ranges. There are no gun ranges in Chicago”

Now, he also addressed socioeconomic reasons, and while those are contributing factors for the high murder rates, it doesn’t change the fact that gun laws restricting law abiding citizens to carry them only create more gun deaths. When asked again the same question regarding the gun laws on the books that don’t work, Jackson replied:

 “The guns are not coming from Chicago”

Well pull me up a chair, good Rev. So you are actually acknowledging that even despite strict laws severely restricting gun ownership and forbidding the right to carry; weapons are flowing into Chicago beyond the city limits resulting in spiked homicide rates? But i thought they were illegal, how can this happen? Where have we seen this before? Sounds a lot like the Federal governments "war" on drugs, doesn't it? As I asked yesterday, how is that working out?

Prohibition doesn't work because it does nothing to address why people need or want things others feel is too dangerous or destructive to own. Its simply one person (in a form of a bureaucracy) telling another person they know better than they do. It not only infringes on freedom of choice, prohibition also dissolves the natural existing relationship between supply and demand by simply chocking off supply. Again, nothing is done about the demand. This is how people like Al Capone became legends.

Now, if I could just take a minute to clear up one tidbit of misinformation courtesy of "Revered" Jackson. I did a quick search and found at least three gun ranges in the Chicago area. Remember, when Chicago City Council voted on the new ordinance back in 2010 after they were neutered by the Supreme Court, one of the requirements before owning a firearm is:

One hour on the range and four hours of training in the classroom

Maybe, someone would be kind enough to point out to Reverend Jackson the location of these firing ranges. But, he doesn’t need it. Why would he? He has bodyguards. Funny isn’t it? Kind of like the irony of the Pope Mobile. Where’s the faith Reverend?