There’s a disconnect between Democrats’ approach to deadly illegal aliens and their approach to the NRA and guns, especially the AR-15.
I want to help inner city residents and minorities learn that the Democrats are not their friends — and that Trump is. I’ve tried to do so in this letter.
If you look at economic numbers for the years from 2008 through 2016 (when Democrats-controlled Congress or when President Obama was making rules without running them through Congress first), you will notice a few very clear trends:
Conclusion: Democrat policies are great for Washington bureaucrats and Democrat rich people and not so great for inner city residents, blacks, and Hispanics.
In the year since Trump became president, there have been a few more very clear trends:
Conclusion: Democrats don’t care about you. If they did, they would embrace President Trump’s policies because those policies are benefiting you in ways Americans haven’t seen since the 1980s. Instead, they care only about themselves and this is true no matter how often they insist that they, and not Donald Trump, have your interests at heart. [Read more…]
If you’re looking for racism in the immigration debate, look to the Democrats who are projecting against Trump’s race-free words their own vile race hatred.
Donald Trump disputes that he used the word “shithole” when referring to countries the citizens of which do not confer a benefit on America when they immigrate here. He did, however, acknowledge that he used strong language to say that America does not have an obligation to take in immigrants that harm her. Outside of Blue enclaves, in which residents live behind high walls with alarm systems and security guards, ordinary Americans knew precisely what he meant — and were grateful to him for saying so.
As with all other debates (abortion, war, unions, etc.), Democrats are stuck firmly in a pre-modern past. In their mind, immigration is perpetually about the era from 1860 through 1910. Back then, in a pre-technological age, with a population half what it is now, America needed bodies and lots of them. We needed factory workers and street sweepers and house cleaners and tunnel diggers and bridge builders and horse drivers and, during the early 1860s, bodies to be thrown into the Civil War.
Nowadays, America’s needs are different. While there will always be a place for physical labor, the reality is that technology is (a) doing away with brute force labor, whether in farms, factories, or fast food and (b) making literacy a necessity for most aspects of American life.
Moreover, modern America has limited (to no) tolerance for people who can’t use toilets; who murder women for “dishonoring” the family; who murder gays just for being; who espouse murdering Jews as a central tenet of their faith; who murder and dismember albinos for good luck charms; who mutilate little girls by cutting off their external genitalia; who support general slavery or sexual slavery; and who have a disproportionate predilection for rape and pedophilia.
Does this mean that every person from those cultures holding those values is going to commit acts that are anathema in America?* Of course not! But if you’re calculating the odds that one person will be more simpatico to American culture than another, countries of origin matter. Some share our values or at least are not opposed to our values. East Asian immigrants have very different cultural practices from those in America, but their work ethic is in sync with the American work ethic and their cultural practices enrich, rather than attack, the American way of life.
It’s worth noting here that it’s not just countries mired in violence and corruption that give birth to values we don’t want in America. If I had a say in the matter, I’d also argue that, as a Constitutional country, we should have less tolerance for people from socialist countries who, having destroyed freedom on their shores, seek to import their socialism to ours. As far as I’m concerned, we should shut the door on Sweden and large chunks of Western Europe. Meanwhile, Poles and Hungarians are proving pretty damn stalwart.
I’m also hostile to people who advocate legitimately insane positions, such as, for example, those at Google who claim that they are simultaneously animals, people, and buildings. In their own way, these people are just as destructive as the rapists and murderers. And perhaps it’s not a coincidence that some of the loudest SJWs at Google seem to have come from outside of America. . . . [Read more…]
Give yourself a gift this weekend and read my Illustrated Edition. You’ll laugh, you’ll cry, you’ll wonder what the heck is going on in America!
Posters for my illustrated edition have been hard to find lately, as smart people get worn down by media malevolence. What I can find, though, is great!
By popular demand, it’s back — the Bookworm Room illustrated edition! You’ll enjoy these pithy images showing all that’s right or wrong with America.
Letting the losers in a war write the history causes fake histories, such as the one claiming that a 1960s switch turned Republicans into the racist party.
In the context of world affairs, victory doesn’t always belong to the side that won the actual battles; it really rests with the side that writes the history. Viewed in that light, the last shot fired in the Civil War didn’t take place on the battlefield. Instead, it took place in 1936, when Margaret Mitchell’s Gone With The Wind hit the shelves.
GWTW took the South’s mythology and nationalized it. The epic 1939 movie was a force multiplier. Suddenly, the South, rather than being the losing side in a war fought primarily to end slavery, a foul institution in its own right and one made especially awful in America because it betrayed the promises in America’s founding documents, was a romantic entity, built upon unending charm and graciousness. Moreover, thanks to Margaret Mitchell, readers were well-schooled in two facts that perpetuated black subordination: (a) good slaves loved their masters and (b) bad slaves were evil and/or stupid.
The hold that Margaret Mitchell’s dynamic, romantic, fascinating narrative had on the popular consciousness probably started weakening during WWII, when Americans outside of the South got to see blacks in action, in factories and on battlefields. Truman’s executive order integrating the military, causing black and white troops to serve side by side further educated white Americans about their black fellow citizens.
The final rewrite was the Civil Rights movement. Thanks to television, Northern whites got to see a different side of blacks. They were no longer Margaret Mitchell’s plaster saints, grateful for the chance to serve their white masters or Topsy-esque fools. Instead, they were people of immense dignity, led by a man of God whose words burned themselves into American souls.
People understand the outlines of the Civil Rights, but too many do not know that, in the 1950s, it was the Republican party that drove that train. And it was the Democrat party that fought tooth-and-nail against any effort to remove the legal and social impediments imposed upon blacks, mostly in the South, but also throughout America.
This political division was unsurprising to people at the time. The history of the Democrats from their founding to the Civil Rights movement was as a slavery party, dedicated entirely to ensuring that blacks remained subordinate in America. It was open and proud about its status as the racist party. Meanwhile, the Republicans came into being as an abolitionist party, with Abraham Lincoln becoming their first standard-bearer.
Why then, are Republicans tarred as the racist party today? After all, Republicans won the Civil War, freeing blacks from slavery, and the Civil Rights war, freeing blacks from Jim Crow and the myriad other discriminatory laws in America. Shouldn’t they be viewed as the non-racist party? [Read more…]
Insiders and observers are giving good advice to the Democrat party, but it all avoids the obvious: Democrats cannot tell the truth about their goals.
Several articles in the news recently combine to highlight a salient point about today’s Democrat party. The first is from Dan Balz, at Wapo, the title of which succinctly states Balz’s points: “Beyond opposing Trump, the Democrats are still searching for a message.” Balz identifies what is slowly becoming obvious to Progressivs — after four special election losses, while opposing Trump is enough for them, it is not enough for everyone else, including people who voted for Trump in 2016. You’d think they would have been quicker to realize that constantly telling voters “I hate you and everything you stand for” is not persuasive. Still, it’s a sign that Progressives can learn that, as Balz notes, at least some are calling for an emphasis on the economy.
For those looking to make a sale to Trump voters and undecided voters, though, a Democrat party emphasis on the economy is going to be a hard sell. It’s only the base that’s honest enough to admit that, from the top down, the only economic goal the modern Democrat party has is full frontal socialism:
For progressives, the answer to this problem is clear: a boldly liberal message that attacks big corporations and Wall Street and calls for a significant increase in government’s role in reducing income and wealth inequality. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has been aggressive in promoting exactly that, as he did during the 2016 campaign, with calls for a big investment in infrastructure and free college tuition at public colleges and universities. He has said he intends to introduce legislation he calls “Medicare for All.”
The other article, which comes from The Hill, notes that some Dems, seemingly those not on the hard Left, are pushing their congresscritters to stop talking about Russia all of the time.
Taking these two articles in conjunction, there is little doubt that, subject to a small (and easily ignored) subset of semi-sane Democrats, Progressives (aka the Democrat Party) see talking about Russia as far more edifying than the economy. One can’t help but be fascinated by what the Democrat Party power brokers mean to do if they “turn towards the economy.” How does one push socialist ideas while denying their socialism, even as the base is screaming “We love you, Karl Marx”?
The hard reality that the Progressives face is that Obama pulled us hard Left, with higher taxes and a tsunami of regulations, and he did so with the Democrat Party’s enthusiastic support. At the end of the day, of course, nothing that the Dems did “created jobs.” Indeed, the Dems are currently hoping that nobody notices that, in just the first five months of his presidency, the Trump effect elevated black employment to heights not seen for the last 17 years. So what exactly would their turn to the economy be? [Read more…]
Impeachment is a Progressive, GOP, #NeverTrump pipe dream. On known facts, there’s no basis, so here’s a slap in the face to snap you out of your fear.
I see it all over my Facebook feed: triumphant Leftists, certain that we’re on the verge of impeaching Trump and weak-kneed conservatives, egged on by ever-hostile #NeverTrumpers, certain that the Progressives are correct and that it’s all over now. Well it’s not all over.
The only reason Progressives think they’re in the catbird seat is that Trump voters are allowing the media to live in their heads. As for #NeverTrumpers, I suspect that they imagine a halcyon future in which a dignified, refined President Pence presides over a dignified, refined Republican golden age. As if!
I don’t care how wonderful Pence is (and I think he’s awesome). The reality is that, if the Democrats can bring Trump down, no Republican will ever again be allowed to occupy the White House. If Trump goes on the shoddy, fake grounds currently asserted, so goes our republic.
Russia? So what if people, including Trump people, talked to Russia? Russia may be a geopolitical foe in the larger sense, something that’s theoretically true for every nation in the world, but during the entire Obama administration, Russia was not the enemy. Remember this? [Read more…]
I’ve promised myself not to tag any more posts until I clear those already cluttering the spindle — and they’re too good to let slip away.
It’s time for government to get off its moral high horse. Victor Davis Hanson hits another home run with an article reminding Democrat leaders that they’re not doing anyone any favors by focusing on such exciting things as climate change, transgender issues, and exerting control over the minutiae of every person’s life, even as real infrastructure crumbles at their feet.
When they [these Progressive moralists] are unwilling or unable to address pre-modern problems in their jurisdictions — crime, crumbling infrastructure, inadequate transportation — they compensate by posing as philosopher kings who cheaply lecture on existential challenges over which they have no control.
In this regard, think of Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel’s recent promises to nullify federal immigration law — even as he did little to mitigate the epidemic of murders in his own city.
Former president Barack Obama nearly doubled the national debt, never achieved 3 percent economic growth in any of his eight years in office, and left the health-care system in crisis. But he did manage to lecture Americans about the evils of the Crusades, and he promises to lower the seas and cool the planet.
Arnold Schwarzenegger, the former governor of California, likewise ran up record debt during his tenure, culminating in a $25 billion deficit his last year in office. Schwarzenegger liked to hector state residents on global warming and green energy, and brag about his commitment to wind and solar power.
Meanwhile, one of the state’s chief roadways, California State Route 99, earned the moniker “Highway of Death” for its potholes, bumper-to-bumper traffic, narrow lanes, and archaic on- and off-ramps. During California’s early-February storms, the state’s decrepit road system all but collapsed. A main access to Yosemite National Park was shut down by mudslides. Big Sur was inaccessible. Highway 17, which connects Monterey Bay to Silicon Valley, was a daily disaster.
Schwarzenegger’s successor, Jerry Brown, warned of climate change and permanent drought and did not authorize the construction of a single reservoir. Now, California is experiencing near-record rain and snowfall. Had the state simply completed its half-century-old water master plan, dozens of new reservoirs would now be storing the runoff, ensuring that the state could be drought-proof for years.
Instead, more than 20 million acre-feet of precious water have already been released to the sea. There is nowhere to put it, given that California has not built a major reservoir in nearly 40 years.
Preet Bharara — good riddance to bad rubbish. Some people had made noises about Preet Bharara maybe staying on as a U.S. Attorney in New York because he was going after corporate corruption. Except he wasn’t. He was engaged in corporate shakedowns — threatening corporations with lawsuits unless the corporations paid big bucks to Leftist organizations. Bharara was also the one who went after Dinesh D’Souza for a small dollar campaign violation that is ordinarily ignored even when big money is involved. It was payback for D’Souza’s exposes. And of course, when asked to resign — as is normal when a new government moves in the White House — Bharara did some grandstanding so that he could get fired. All of which, says Glenn Reynolds, proves that Trump was right to fire him. I think Trump should fire every single U.S. Attorney. I have no doubt but that they’re all tainted.
Naughty, naughty refugees. The grandstanding is that refugees from the Middle East are pure souls, escaping from a genocidal Hellhole. Putting aside the fact that all majority Muslims are genocidal Hellholes, this is crap. Most of the refugees are escaping economic stagnation, and the war and starvation that come with that, all of which results from the pre-medieval mindset controlling their nations. They are poor things insofar as they were unlucky enough to be from Muslim nations, but the reality is that they bring the pathologies with them. They don’t come here to start a new life; they come here to live on infidel welfare until they can take over. That’s the reality of Islam. It just is. That’s how they’ve been raised. It’s what they are.
Oh, and of course, a disturbing number of them are terrorist wannabes. That was not a problem with the Jews escaping Hitler’s ovens or the Vietnamese escaping the Viet Cong.
Of course, refugee antisemitism is a Democrat selling point. One of the worst pathologies that comes into a country with Muslim refugees is a burning hot, violent antisemitism. Islamophobia is an imaginary condition, except for those Shia Muslims getting killed by Sunnis or vice versa. Attacking, mutilating, and killing Jews is the real deal. (And no, I haven’t forgotten the Christian genocide throughout the Muslim lands; it’s just that this particular squiblet is about antisemitism.)
Unfortunately, what American Jews, who hew Left, haven’t figured out is that this antisemitism, rather than being a reason for the Left to reject the Muslim refugees is a reason that the Left embraces them. As Daniel Greenfield points out in a scathing article, today’s Democrats actively embrace antisemitism and then, when called upon it, rather than admitting to their bias, make all sorts of craven statements in their defense:
The Democrats care about anti-Semitism.
They care so much that they had a presidential candidate and convention speaker who led an anti-Semitic riot through a Jewish neighborhood. “If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house,” he had taunted his victims.
He became a close presidential adviser whose endorsement is sought after by every Democrat running for the White House.
They care so much that they had a presidential candidate and speaker at two conventions who had used racial slurs against Jews and declared, “I’m sick and tired of hearing about the Holocaust.”
They care so much that the new deputy DNC chair, who had also spoken at a convention, has a long history with anti-Semitic hate groups.
From Al Sharpton to Jesse Jackson to Keith Ellison, there’s a safe space for anti-Semitism on the left.
John Kerry should have been on Greenfield’s list. John Kerry is, to state it plainly, a despicable human being. Well, that might not be accurate. I’m sure he’s despicable, but I have doubts about that human part. He’s like some swamp creature who crawls through rich Democrat habitats preying on stupid heiresses. He’s also an antisemite who did everything in his power — undoubtedly with Obama’s approval — to destroy Israel.
What’s the sign that President Trump’s great speech trolled the Progressives? The Left fell headlong into vulgarity and rudeness to show their disdain. (That vulgarity earns this post a NSFW warning.)
First of all, it was a GREAT speech. Don’t believe me? This is from Trump-Haters CNN:
Guess he won Hollywood back, huh? Not really…
There is a new petition on Change.org asking Obama to become House Speaker in 2018. Not only is it almost charming in its lack of awareness, it is also a reminder that the Left never gives in or gives up. When the personal and the political are the same, when even brushing your teeth is a political act, you’re going to be committed to political activity 24/7.
The petition opens by reminding potential signers that they’re now living with the horror of total Republican control. Worse, Leftist activity, including “protests and lawsuits are not going to be enough to stop Trump, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, Sam Alito, and company from rolling back decades of progress virtually overnight, particularly if rank-and-file Republicans feel no pressure to dissent from Trump’s party line.” That reference to “decades of progress” is a funny one, because as best as I can tell, Trump is determined to roll back only 8 years of “progress,” which doesn’t even equal a single decade.
What you’re seeing here is something I’ve written about frequently, which is the Lefts’ belief that the 1950s are always lurking just around the corner with Jim Crow (a purely Democrat initiative), back alley abortions, gays deeply closeted and, perhaps worst of all, men and women playing their assigned gender roles. The fact that Trump was considered a benefactor to the black community before he ran as a Republican or that his initiatives towards gays and sex roles seem to be limited to blocking the federal government from telling schools to ignore biological gender or forcing nuns to buy birth control seems to have eluded J. Q. Adams, the petition’s author.
Panicked at the thought of all these inchoate horrors, Adams asks, “What can be done?”
Well, Adams has a “long-shot” idea. We know it’s a long-shot not only because he says so, but because, after accusing the GOP of gerrymandering Democrats out of federal existence, he admits that it may not have a lot of momentum after what he calls, with magnificent understatement, “the Democrats’ recent difficulties in midterm elections.” Those “recent difficulties” see Republicans with the greatest hold over America at both the state and federal level in more than ninety years.
Adams is a man of faith, however. He believes that, Democrats can block Trump’s momentum, if they can just pick up “24 seats to win the House and 3 to win the Senate.” To do this, after failing in 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016, all that Democrats need to do is create “a powerful national message” letting Republicans know that they’re on the hook for everything from “Trump’s bigotry and misogyny, to his trampling of cherished freedoms and democratic norms, to his dangerous foreign policy, and to his plans to privatize Medicare, cut taxes for the rich, take away 20 million Americans’ health insurance, abolish workers’ right to organize and women’s right to choose, and allow climate change to continue unabated.”
With that kind of agenda, Adams concludes that there’s only one man for the job: Barack Obama!
When it comes to Progressives, even if they’ve been forced to back down on all other issues, they will take their stand and die on the hill of unlimited, legal abortion. As Nancy Pelosi said of late-term abortions — the ones done on a viable, sentient fetus — the fact that she is a practicing Catholic gives her the right to say that such abortions are “sacred ground.” On the Left, unlimited abortion is a right so inviolable that nothing should derail its legality — including God.
One priest, the Very Rev. John Lankeit, has had the courage to stand up and say what all faithful Catholics know intuitively: abortion is inconsistent with Catholic doctrine and morally wrong. Furthermore, once you accept this doctrinal truth, you have to accept that you cannot vote for the political party and the presidential candidate who will not only preserve abortion but will expand it and make taxpayers fund it.
Father Lankeit does more than just invoke God’s Word. This is important because it means he reaches out to those who are not Catholic, or Christian, or even believers. He tackles the arguments that pro-abortion people routinely raise against those who oppose abortion and shows how hypocritical and shallow their arguments are. These are words that everyone should hear. And once having heard them, people (Catholic or not) need to decide whether they accept that Father Lankeit is speaking the truth. And if they decide he is speaking the truth, they need to ask themselves whether they can still support the Democrat party and the Democrat candidate:
My dear friend Lulu has something to say about the latest attacks against Donald Trump:
So I happened to look at Buzzfeed today, that Internet site that gives millennials a mixture of entertainment and distilled news all made in easy reading packages and animated with gifs. There were 8 “news” feeds about horrible octopus groping Trump. Eight. All essentially saying the same thing. In case you missed the point with the other seven. Oh yes, and one link about wonderful Hillary getting a major Latino endorsement.
Also, in case you haven’t been following Wikileaks, it turns out that the DNC and the Clintons have had a Pravda-like partnership with the media. They colluded to get rid of Bernie and succeeded. They colluded to give Hillary the debate questions before the debates. They colluded to attack Trump in the debates and go gently on Hillary. They colluded to promote Trump as the candidate figuring he was the easiest to defeat. They colluded to simultaneously release smears about Trump’s alleged groping, all coincidentally by Democrat party hardcore supporters.
So permit me to say that whatever the media says now affects me very little any more. Every Republican candidate, even a Mormon Boy Scout like Mitt Romney, has been characterized as evil incarnate. You know, a dog torturer, a cancer a victim murderer, etc. The charges make a mega mountain out of a miniscule nothing-burger molehill. They exaggerate, imply, create innuendos, report rumors as facts (remember the fabricated story about McCain having an affair with a lobbyist as BIG frontpage NYT news?).
So who cares anymore? It’s like the endless accusations of triggering or racism. Repeated ad infinitum. It’s meaningless. It loses its power. Whatever. Shut up.
Just look at this picture of Leo diCaprio (and E News’s enthusiastic caption):
Fifty years of data show that Democrat policies harm American blacks. All the promises of the post-Civil Rights era have failed. Worse, America’s Democrat leadership, especially its black Democrat leadership, no longer makes even a pretense of serving the needs of the American Black community.
Democrat elites, both white and black, are just like the European Union’s elites: serving themselves — their values and their bank accounts — without no regard for the people they ostensibly represent. Both the Democrats and the EU leadership ride roughshod over ordinary people’s values and ignore their needs. It’s high time, therefore, for American Blacks to have their own Brexit moment — call it a “Blexit” if you will — and turn their backs on the Democrat Party that has served them so badly.
In 1964, you had to give the Democrats credit for adaptability: After spending the late 1950s and early 1960s fighting desperately against the Civil Rights Movement, once it was a done deal they surveyed the landscape and realized that they could use the movement to their advantage. By attaching African Americans firmly to the government teat, Democrats figured that they could rely on a pacified black voting bloc to achieve perpetual political power. Indeed, LBJ is alleged to have made the politically incorrect boast that the Civil Rights act ensured that “I’ll have those n*****s voting Democrat for two-hundred years.”
Sadly, the Great Society legislation that LBJ and his Democrats instituted, while it has ensured those reliable black votes, has continued an American pattern: Every bad thing that has happened to blacks in America has been the result of government forces. Slavery lasted because the Southern legal system brutally supported it. Likewise, the Jim Crow era lasted as long and as virulently as it did because, again, the Southern legal system brutally supported it.
It’s almost certain that, without rigorously enforced laws separating facilities, criminalizing “miscegenation,” and foreclosing education and work opportunities, the free market would have improved black lives in the South. As Milton Friedman explained, in Capitalism and Freedom: Fortieth Anniversary Edition, the free flow of wealth, without legislation and regulation impeding non-violent, non-fraudulent conduct, is the single best and fastest way to end just about any type of discrimination: