Mob Rule

Describing the feral left as a mob has been trending hard over the last week, and with good reason.  While most of the left contracted Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) 2-3 years ago it has moved into a more worrying stage the past few months.  Throughout the election cycle and all of Trump’s presidency the left has been violent.  Far more violent than the right.  As I mentioned recently the leaders of the left have even begun to call for mob rule and violence.  And their calls are coming to fruition.

This clip below surfaced from Portland, Oregon over the weekend.  They are trying to direct traffic and claim that it’s their first amendment right to do so.  I know you’re looking for a logical explanation of their thinking here but I cannot provide that.

These are disgusting people both inside and out.  The democratic party has shamelessly weaponized and mobilized these cretins and it’s going to blow up in their faces.  They’ve lost control.  And I think they realize it.  You can only try and group up so many disparate races, religions, and political ideologies before the obvious differences between them erupt into in-fighting and outward violence as well.  A large portion of their constituency has gone too far.  The leaders know they cannot win on a platform of abolishing ICE.  They know the childish behavior at the Kavanaugh hearings doesn’t look good.  But when you’ve encouraged this sort of behavior for so long it is hard to turn it off like a light switch.  Especially when the people you are weaponizing are heavily medicated and mentally unstable.

But no matter.  The Democratic leaders, mostly white, have created a monster that will eventually vote them all out of office anyways.  We’ve seen this in New York with Alexandria Octavio-Cortez and even stalwarts like Diane Feinstein face serious opposition from Kevin de León (born Kevin Alexander Leon but that doesn’t sound foreign enough to garner the minority vote).  The tricky balance is allowing the Democratic party to devour itself while minimizing the collateral damage to the rest of the country.  Thankfully, we have the only possible Commander in Chief strong enough and prepared enough to deal with it.

Planned Parenthood looking for new judicial nominations director

PlannedParenthoodJudge

It looks like Planned Parenthood is looking for a new judicial nominations director.  What does that entail, you ask?  For those interested in applying:

Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) seeks a dynamic and effective Director, Judicial Nominations who will report to the National Director of Legislative Affairs in the Office of the Vice President of Policy and Government Relations. The Director will be responsible for the development and execution of all related campaigns’ priorities and goals, the facilitation of internal cross-departmental alignment, the execution of all program components by both Government Relations staff and other PPFA teams, and the reporting process to internal and external PPFA audiences. The Director will also oversee the formulation and execution of critical programmatic work and be responsible for executing a strategic, intense campaign that educates members of the Senate on the harmful records of nominees, elevates for Planned Parenthood supporters and affiliates what is at stake for reproductive health and rights.

DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

  • Develop and execute year-long national and state advocacy plans focused on high impact, high priority judicial nominations in the lower courts.
  • Work closely with the National Director of Legislative Affairs, consultants, and team members to create a clear path for defeat and delay of targeted nominations.
  • Direct day-to-day work of key cross-team campaigns, including leading regular meetings with key staff and consultants, facilitating ally engagement, working with targeted states and affiliates, ensuring resource production, and capturing successes and lessons learned.
  • Ensure productive collaboration and broad integration between Government Relations, Organizing & Electoral Campaigns, Communications, Litigation & Law and other key PPFA departments and divisions.
  • Identify new areas of partnership on initiatives that will help further Federation-wide priorities.
  • Work with cross-functional teams to design and execute in-state 360 campaigns that hold Senators accountable for appointing judges that value and protect access to abortion.
  • Drive high-visibility efforts like phone calls, media, letter-writing campaigns, grassroots actions, storytelling, engaging grasstop influencers, etc.
  • Lead in-depth research in consultation with Litigation & Law including review and analysis of nominee’s case law and writings; interrogation of nominee’s personal and professional beliefs, associations, and memberships; as well as general opposition research in order to identify each nominee’s vulnerabilities and be able to drive a cohesive national narrative that informs in-state target Senator campaigns.
  • Create grassroots strategies that build movement and leverage the Planned Parenthood base to link the importance of judicial nomination fights to the security of the issues we value.
  • Develop tactics that tie harmful nominees to cross-movement issues, to the overall Trump agenda, and to the consequences of lifetime appointments of extremist judges to the future of progressive rights.
  • Maintain circuit court nominations tracker including the development of fact sheet and reference materials.
  • Develop a scoring mechanism to rate harmful nominations and draft public-facing oppositions.

So the Supreme Court nomination decision didn’t go their way and now they want to hire somebody new to lobby for judges that will decide in their favor.  As a friendly reminder, we as taxpayers give Planned Parenthood on average $500 million dollars a year, which is spent on who knows what.  Remind me again how it’s legal that a company that receives tax payer money can lobby like this?  Aren’t these supposed to be apolitical organizations?  We get zero choice in whether we give money to a company caught selling aborted baby parts for profit.  And now we get no choice in giving them money even though they very clearly have a political agenda.

Thank God Brett Kavanaugh was nominated.  He was the crucial Kennedy swing vote replacement in the conservative/liberal Supreme Court breakdown.  Hopefully President Trump can get in at least one more with Ginsberg shuffling off this mortal coil soon.  Make no mistake about this, the Supreme Court nominations were probably the single most important issue during the presidential election.  It shapes the country for decades.  President Trump, at least temporarily, has stemmed that tide.  It’s why they pushed so hard during this nomination process.  The Constitution is being attacked more now than ever.  Imagine what of it would be left if Hillary Clinton had been given the opportunity to nominate two Supreme Court judges.  The second amendment could’ve been abolished entirely in her first term, and that is hardly an exaggeration.

What’s next for the left?

Now that the Kavanuagh circus is over and they’ve lost yet another battle what is next for the left?  In the past two years of the stellar presidency of Donald J. Trump all they have done is obstructed.  Their only policy issues to date it appears are abolishing ICE completely and giving out free healthcare and education to everyone.  How this will be paid for is unclear.  How open borders will affect things like welfare and social security benefits is unclear.  You’re wasting your time if you ever expect to hear explanations from anyone on the left on how these things will rectify themselves.

What once started out as “simple” obstruction has turned into angry mob protests and violence.  What’s worse, the leaders of the Democratic party are encouraging this sort of behavior.  As always, they are projecting.  Here’s HRC recently:

Hillary Clinton says the time for civility is over.

After the bitter and partisan fight over the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the former secretary of State and 2016 Democratic presidential candidate declared that President Donald Trump has undermined the integrity of the nation’s highest court and that it’s time for Democrats to be “tougher” with their opponents, in an interview with CNN published Tuesday

“You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about,” Clinton told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour. “That’s why I believe, if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and or the Senate, that’s when civility can start again.”

Or how about Eric Holder?

“It is time for us, as Democrats, to be as tough as they are, to be as dedicated as they are, to be as committed as they are,” Holder told a crowd of campaign volunteers and candidates. “Michelle always says — I love her; she and my wife are like, really tight, which always scares me and Barack — but Michelle always says, ‘When they go low, we go high.’ No. When they go low, we kick ’em.”

We already know about the BS Maxine Waters was spreading not long ago either.

And the zombified left is reacting as they always do, obediently.  Their leaders will channel their lemmings to obstruct, protest, and get violent to push their agenda.  Scream, whine, and complain.  Because when you don’t have any actual ideas or policies other than expressing your disdain for the president, all you’re left with is screaming, whining, and complaining.

The Kavanaugh issue really hurt the left.  Anyone remotely closer to the political center found their reaction to be off-putting.  Too far.  The only concern is can the momentum be kept up until the mid-terms?  Will the right’s base remain charged up?

Don’t be fooled by the economy wavering here for a little bit.  The left will try and pounce on that for the mid-terms.  But the decline has largely been in the tech sector, which if you haven’t been paying attention is at odds with the president.  It wouldn’t even shock me at this point if they purposely absorbed temporary losses to make the President look bad in the leadup to the mid-terms.  Really, would any low ball dirty tactic surprise you at this point?

We shall see what direction they turn at this point.  The violence will only increase.  I’m sure Russia will come up again.  So will abolishing ICE.  And gun control.  The democrats haven’t demonstrated they’ve learned anything since President Trump was elected so I don’t expect anything new.  Just stay vigilant, take care of yourselves, and vote in November.

California forces boards to have women members

California continues its crusade to social engineer.  In their latest battle nobody asked for, they are now making it a requirement to have at least one board member that is female by the end of 2019.  Via Reuters:

The law would mandate at least two female directors by the end of 2021 if the company has five directors and three women if the company has six or more directors. Violators face fines of at least $100,000 and up to $300,000 for multiple violations of the statute.

“Given all the special privileges that corporations have enjoyed for so long, it’s high time corporate boards include the people who constitute more than half the ‘persons’ in America,” California Governor Jerry Brown said in a statement announcing the bill’s signing.

Silicon Valley tech companies started disclosing workforce diversity figures in 2014, but progress at the top has been slow, underscoring the challenge of transforming cultures that critics say are too homogenous, white and male dominated.

Yes, the ever dangerous and terrible position of having a board that’s too white and male dominated in a country that was founded and cultivated largely by white males.  Definitely can’t have that!

They aren’t even trying to hide it anymore.  They want to replace white men.  Period.  Not that is has to be said, but deliberately placing arbitrary quotas that have nothing to do with job performance or logic is a dangerous precedent, and ultimately fruitless and destructive.  And why is this only a problem in corporate board rooms?  I notice a rather large absence of diversity of NBA basketball teams.  Should we place quotas to require more white people on NBA teams?  After all, they are not proportionally represented on a NBA roster as compared to their proportion of the population.

No, of course that would never happen.  Nor should it.  The free market, or what small idea of the free market we think we have is, only works when it’s allowed to run naturally.  Which means allowing companies to hire whomever they want and put whomever they want on their boards.  If women feel so slighted, here’s an idea, how about start more companies?  Yes, I know, patriarchy.  Privilege.  Victim mindset.

This will not end at corporate board rooms, nor will it end with just a quota for women on corporate boards.  Eventually boards will need to be 20, 50, 100 people large to accomodate all of the requirements to have x amount of women, x amount of Native Americans, x amount of African-Americans, etc etc etc.  Micro-managing into oblivion.

The Judicial System in 2018

As we wait for the results of the 7th Kavanaugh investigation it gives time to reflect on the proceedings and the future implications going forward.  Without a doubt this has forever marred future Supreme Court Justice nominations.  Not surprisingly, only when a Republican president nominates a Supreme Court Justice is it ever this divided on party lines.  Once again the double standard reveals itself.  Consider for a moment that Ruth Bader Ginsberg, arguably the most extreme and liberal Supreme Court Justice ever and nominated by Bill Clinton, was voted in 96-3.  Only when a Republican nominates a justice is it ever this painful and close.  You can make arguments both ways regarding Garland but the decision seemed pretty reasonable given the timing of it.

A larger thought as the country becomes ever more divided and diverse.  Would you still want to be judged by a jury of your peers in 2018?  Consider the case of Kavanaugh.  He was accused without any evidence from a woman who can’t even remember the year that she claims this happened.  And yet, half of the country is completely okay with this kangaroo court fiasco.  Would you really feel comfortable with them if you were on the stand for a rape accusation and there was zero evidence whatsoever against you?  Could you be that confident that they’d rule in your favor when we know that half the country makes the bulk of their decisions purely based on feelings and not facts?

Or how about a case where a person of color is on stand for a crime where there is a lot of evidence supporting the accusation.  Would it be that far fetched to see a jury of mostly people of color vote on racial lines and claim something ridiculous like institutional racism for validation of letting him or her off?  Or even just a run of the mill immigration case.  Where half the country doesn’t even want laws or borders I wouldn’t be confident they’d judge the case dispassionately and purely rationally.

Diversity here, as pretty much everywhere else, is not our strength.  We’ve seen this even with those who are supposedly held to a higher standard.  How many judges of color made ridiculous decisions, usually politically motivated, which is supposed to NEVER happen?  President Trump was entirely justified in his travel ban in 2017.  Obama did a similar ban in office with little resistance.  How many times was Trump’s ban shut down on absolutely ridiculous grounds?  They held the country hostage on political motivations in decisions they should never have had the power to make in the first place.

As the country becomes more diverse these are serious issues that need to be addressed.  I honestly don’t know how to proceed going forward if we’re to continue diversifying our country into extinction.  I do not have an answer for how to fix this in those conditions.  I’m skeptical it can be fixed under those conditions.

The Kavanaugh Circus continues

President Trump late Friday called for a one week or less FBI supplementary investigation before the vote to make Brett Kavanaugh a Supreme Court Justice after a very divided 11-10 subcommittee and recommendation from RINO Jeff Flake.  If it hadn’t been abundantly obvious before this entire fiasco began, the feral left has shown their true colors more clearly than ever before to the ordinary citizen.

What’s most worrying about this entire charade is how divided the country is about it.  It is becoming increasingly difficult to communicate with the other side, or even agree upon what we are all seeing.  As Scott Adams has eluded to many times, it seems as if the country is watching two different movies at the same time, living in two different realities.  Where one side is incredulous that a man and his reputation has been attacked and destroyed so viciously with empty, evidence-less accusations, the other side cheers on the witch hunt demanding justice as if it were clear as day he did something wrong.  The basic tenets of the rule of law are at stake here.  Are we a country that believes one is innocent until proven guilty, or have we morphed into a Bolshevist style government that would rather unjustly punish 9 innocent people to catch 1 true criminal, if there even was one?

Consider too, for a moment, the unequal distribution of penalties and investigation doled out for one side versus the other.  An ordinary citizen can come forward, vaguely claim sexual misconduct 30 years earlier, and demand an FBI investigation days before a major vote without any evidence whatsoever, and the RINOs bend to her will.  Mountains of evidence can be presented against one Hillary R Clinton and it’s brushed aside with zero repercussions whatsoever.  Do they really think this will end well?  Do they really think ordinary citizens will tolerate this unequal balance of justice forever?  Do they really think ordinary citizens will continue to respect the rule of law when they see how carelessly it is treated and ignored at what should be the most respected level of responsibility in the government as public servants?

My only hope at this point is that when they don’t find anything they come down with hard justice against Ford.  False and empty accusations must be punished severely.  A false rape accusation can ruin a life.  Ask the Duke lacrosse team.  If we’re going to take an investigation seriously from a woman who can barely remember anything from the experience, and constantly confuse details and misremember things in general, then she should be justly punished.  Because one should not be rewarded for bad behavior.  For those asking “what possible reason would Ford have to lie?” I offer you exhibit A, just one of several gofundme pages opened on Ford’s behalf.

Screen Shot 2018-09-29 at 9.20.41 AM

Couple this with the inevitable book deal and national tour of interviews and she’s carved out a pretty lucrative charade for herself.  Is this the America we really want to live in?  Where one can make a fortune ruining someone’s life with zero evidence whatsoever?  I really hope this is the tipping point for centrists.  That they see the extent to which the left will go to sabotage and destroy any shred of decency or peaceful government proceedings.  Vote them all out.  They are tearing this country apart.

When this vote finally does go through, and Kavanaugh is actually confirmed, the silver lining here is he will never forget this experience.  I’m sure it will be in the front of his mind with every decision he ever rules on in the Supreme Court.  He will fight harder than ever to preserve the Constitution and hopefully undo decades of attacks against it from a left who has become increasingly violent and extreme in their actions.

The Perils of Pax Americana

Pax Americana, American Peace, was a term coined in the mold of Pax Romana and was the idea of civilizational peace amongst the more powerful nations under mostly American rule in the Western Hemisphere . The current Pax Americana is generally considered to have begun post World War II, where America was the dominant power that would act something like the world police. By and large it has worked somewhat okay, with major world wars being averted (so far) and “smaller” wars have been confined to mostly proxy wars with smaller main combatants.

But I don’t want to talk about the merits or follies of Pax Americana on the world stage. Instead, we look inward and ask how has this American peace molded society in America. Has this period of 70+ years of relative peace at least in America propelled America to ever greater heights? On the contrary, I think most people would agree America is not on an overall upward trajectory since World War II. Yes, President Trump is trying to turn that around, but there are many great dangers that continue to lurk and could continue the undoing of this great American civilization.

There are many aspects to Pax Americana that can be discussed, but today we mainly focus on how it has hurt the American people, and more specifically the American spirit. Too much of a “good” thing often ends up yielding terrible consequences. Much like a forest fire can sometimes be beneficial to clean out and make room for new growth, sometimes war or nefarious acts that directly affect us can have positive benefits. NN Taleb hammers this point home in his book Antifragile, and we see it everywhere in the natural world, especially in medicine and with our body. “That which does not kill us makes us stronger” as Nietzsche coined it. War, for all its downsides, does have many positive psychological effects as well. Usually it will unite a people. It puts into perspective what’s really important in life, and gives one more appreciation for what they have (or what they had before war) and for what’s worth preserving, fighting, and dying for. I propose that in our Pax Americana we’ve grown too soft, too comfortable, and taken our freedoms and liberties for granted for far too long. We’ve become complacent, presumptuous, forgetful, and misguided.

One of the main perils of a peace lasting too long is it’s easy to forget how and why we got there. The effect is even more pronounced when you have a failed educational system that often times barely addresses history, or changes it altogether. It is easy to take for granted one’s freedoms when it has been too long since they needed to be defended. One begins to think it is the natural order of things to be free, and consequently it becomes easy to take it for granted and assume it is easy to obtain. One could make an argument we’ve had plenty of wars since World War II that run counter to this. But the reality is all of these conflicts (save for 9/11) have been on foreign soil usually thousands of miles away. And in our modern economy we really do feel very little, if any, effect on our daily lives. If you didn’t take the time to watch the “news” you may have no idea at all that war is even going on. Contrast that to World Wars I and II, where citizens often had to ration food and fuel for the war effort. Factories were converted for military vehicles and weapons, new roles were created and women took over many duties usually saved for men. Curfews, bomb drills, and blackouts all serve as reminders on the home front that things are different, and it’s easier to appreciate what one had when it is in jeopardy. Tragedy and hardship unite people. Communities are strengthened when there is a need, and it fosters fellowship and camaraderie. These stresses to the system and daily life can have a very positive effect.  Again, I do not wish for these things, but they do give us a greater appreciation for what we have.  And unless we constantly educate and remind ourselves of what it “used to be like” during these difficult episodes, we’ll either forget them altogether or unfortunately only learn after another period of hardship.

USARationing

It’s hard to ignore the war when it hits you where you live.

Something else that comes out when there is lasting peace, at least in our civilization, is the focus turning to other social issues, often times with an over-emphasis. “Idle hands are the devil’s workshop” as the saying goes. So it is too in society. Could you imagine the current gender controversy going on during The Civil War or The Great War? You would be roundly (and rightly) completely ignored if you tried to spread the notion that there are 71 genders. The same goes with the transgender bathroom issue. Something tells me the 0.00001% of the population that is transgender wouldn’t have as much pull or have any sway towards changing legislation when hundreds of thousands or millions of people were dying yearly during a war. When there is peace, the minute comes to the forefront, and often times is overblown. And as the peace endures, it only gets worse. Again, we begin to forget why certain laws or practices were put into place in the first place, or the reasoning behind it. Today, we’ve gotten to a point where we can pervert the original intentions, as it was with fitness tests for women in the military, or the police force. Standards are changed, codes rewritten, to allow for greater openness and acceptance when the rules that were initially put in place had very rational reasons behind them.

The Immigration Act of 1965 is another example of irrational change because we forgot why it was there or undervalued its purpose. Pre-1965, America was a mostly homogeneous population, or largely consistent in its makeup since the country’s founding. It was never in doubt, never questioned. The benefits of a society of this sort were never fully appreciated or understood once the threat of war was lost. We assumed anyone could be an American, and that it wouldn’t have far reaching effects on our neighborhoods, educational system, or everyday lives. Like it or not, the majority, if not all wars, have started because of tribal differences. Whether they are racial, religious, or ideological, tribalism was at its root. Yet our hubris got the best of us and we somehow forgot this key fact. And once we opened the doors to anyone and everyone, we lost some of that unity and no longer is there a dominant population or religion to unite the people. One can harp on and on about how diversity is a strength, but the fact remains the less people have in common with each other the less likely they are to congregate or get along. Do you really think you have a better chance becoming friends with your neighbor if you speak English and they only speak Spanish or Arabic?

Approaching_Omaha

Would these men be proud of what our country has become?  What they fought and died for?

Which raises another point in that we’ve completely lost our sense of self. We no longer have the pride in being American that we once had, and in fact are often times made to feel guilty to have any pride in the first place. Further, we’ve lost our sense of unity. With the blatant disregard for our immigration laws, and the agenda of pushing multiculturalism, there is no longer a push towards integration when one becomes an American. Assimilation seems to be a thing of the past. And because of this, we are losing any sense of unity as an American people. Observe a crowd watching the World Cup, or how people identify when asked where they are from or what is their background. “I’m American” is hardly ever the first answer. “I’m Mexican” or insert-race-here-with-a-dash-and-American, Mexican-American, Italian-American, etc etc. Multiculturalism in general has destroyed communities and led to civil unrest. Because we no longer try to assimilate newcomers, we’ve become more tribal than ever. Identity politics became the de facto position since Obama came into office, dividing the country on racial and religious lines. The notion of bringing in unchecked numbers of outsiders from all over the world or not seriously policing our borders during a time of war would be ludicrous and absurd. In peacetime, it’s somehow thought to be okay, as if there would be no ripple effects or changes in the fabric of society as we know it.

It’s interesting to observe that this effect isn’t uniquely American, but seems to only affect countries living under this Pax Americana. We see a crisis of identity and deterioration of society and its values in the UK, Germany, France, and most of the Western world. Contrast this to Russia or Japan. They are still proud of their country and their people. They’ve by and large preserved their sense of self. Like us, they have black marks on their history as well, but they don’t let themselves drown in guilt and self-flagellation and are still proud of who they are. Perhaps the fact that World War II was fought with a very heavy cost on their own soil has served as a longer lasting reminder to their people.

So the question remains, are we better off for Pax Americana? In 2018 we are as divided as we have ever been perhaps since 1968 or the Civil War. I am in no way advocating for some kind of war just to refresh our society. Far from it. But if we are to sustain peace and survive as a country we cannot forget our past, the values we fight for, or how and why we arrived at where we are. I’m sure many of these social fights and stands people have made in this peacetime have been with the best of intentions. But there is definitely some iatrogenic effect at work here; we most certainly seem to be doing more harm than good by intervening at all in many of these arenas. The shock and outrage of a baker not wanting to bake a cake for a gay wedding would seem a bit more petty and inconsequential if we were fighting for our way of life though, wouldn’t it?

No, I do not think we are better off. It has torn up our society, completely changed the demographic landscape, and led to a loss of American pride, which cannot be understated. Looking outwards for a moment, America as World Police has hurt our standing both in our own eyes as well as that of the world. Inserting ourselves into unjust or unnecessary wars, or wars that just plain have nothing to do with us, have left many Americans jaded, feeling guilty, and ashamed of what their country is doing. I have no doubt this is another contributing factor into why we’ve opened our doors to everyone (aside from the nefarious objectives of others in power too). Guilt, or perceived guilt, is a powerful motivator. A Vietnam or Iraq War can completely change how a country’s people view themselves.

USMarineTankinBaghdad

Are we any better off for having been in the Iraq War?  Oh right, WMDs…

Pax Americana has hurt our standing on the world stage and had deleterious effects on society on the home front. Most Americans, neo-liberals and neo-conservatives aside, would be happy if the United States re-adopted our pre-World War I foreign policy of staying out of other people’s business. It may not completely solve the problem, but it would be a start. A smaller military and global presence would have obvious benefits to our budget, and put the onus on other nations depending on us (without paying their fair share) to take care of themselves. Having skin in the game is beneficial to everyone.