Posse Incitatus

About Those Illegal Voters...

Everybody's talking about President Trump's executive order to place a temporary moratorium on immigration from seven primarily Muslim countries. I guess I'll get to that as well as the George Soros- inspired demonstrations in a few days, but today I want to backtrack a bit.

A couple months ago, I somewhat casually declared that Hillary Clinton probably received several million votes from illegal immigrants. Trump himself said a few days ago that he estimated 3 to 5 million illegal votes were cast for Clinton, thus costing him the popular vote.

While it is true there is no hard evidence of voter fraud on such a large scale (recounts in several states did reveal some improprieties favoring Clinton, but the numbers were minimal), I wish someone would find out how many voters were allowed to cast ballots without showing a photo ID. In the first place, I want to utterly debunk the B.S. indignant cries of liberals who always allege voter suppression, but adamantly deny that voter fraud exists. Here is an example of voter fraud in Detroit, not reported by a right-wing blog, but by a mainstream newspaper. And this example of stupidity shows just how reckless and extremist some Democrats are -- a state lawmaker charged with voting in local and state elections in districts she did not live in! Do tell!

But back to the "no ID necessary" angle. Eighteen states and the District of Columbia do not require an ID to vote. One would have to be extremely naive to think that illegal aliens and convicted felons do not vote under such circumstances. Especially when activist left-wing groups offer incentives such as a ride to the polling place, and perhaps a few perks like food and drink. There are millions of voters in these "no ID necessary" states. Who really knows how many of them were illegal? It is extremely difficult to ascertain, especially when those who administer voter rolls and keep track of the ballots tend to be sympathetic to leftist causes and closely guard their information.

We are supposed to be a nation of laws, and a big reason for that is because it promotes a level playing field where citizens have an incentive to play by the rules, and penalties for violators are meted out in an even-handed, rather than arbitrary, fashion. If one state says possessing and using marijuana for recreational purposes is legal, it may end up with more serious auto accidents due to drivers operating vehicles while under the influence of THC. (Not that states with strict laws against marijuana won't have such accidents; just that they are likely to have fewer.) The same logic applies here: If showing a driver's license or other photo ID is required of all voters, there will definitely be fewer ineligible voters casing ballots than in the open voting states. Why is that so hard to fathom?

The truth is, we will never really know how many illegal voters cast ballots in 2016, or in any other election. But based on the Democrats' crooked activities of the past, which are numerous and well-documented (Remember Kennedy-Nixon in 1960 and Mayor Daley's Chicago machine?), it's a safe bet the number is substantial. So it is best for Trump not to obsess on the illegal voter issue, as it simply adds fuel to the conflagration of pile-on tactics by the corrupt media. The important thing is that Orange Julius won the Electoral College, and prevented our nation from incurring the kill-shot that Hillary surely would have inflicted.

Trump’s first week: a nightmare for leftists and the GOP Establishment

Was it only a few months ago that Never Trumpers were claiming that The Donald was a liberal Democrat in disguise?

“Just you wait!” they shrieked. “He’ll betray you all!”

Of course the paid mercenaries of Conservatism, Inc. know all about betrayal. They’re experts at it.

The routine goes something like this:

1. Campaign as a true conservative and heir to the sainted Ronald Reagan. Whip the grass roots into a frenzy that you will finally do big things like shrink government and appoint judges to overturn Roe v. Wade. Also, claim you believe in a strong national defense, protecting Western culture and defending our borders.
2. Upon getting elected, immediate do none of these things, and instead claim that the best one can hope for is “incremental change” which in practice means enacting Democrat policies a little slower than the Dems would if they were in charge.
3. Campaign on the same platform and say that if you just had a few more seats, you’d get it done this time for sure.

All during the transition, I saw Never Trumpers pointing out that the day of the Big Betrayal was on its way and we should have voted for True Conservative Egg McMuffin or Hillary.

And yet, here we are only a week into his term, and he’s doing pretty well.

That isn’t enough for the GOP Surrender Caucus. John Podhoretz actually argues that the Million Cat Lady March should be a wake-up call for Trump.

To do this, he has to ignore the fact that not one of these people voted for Trump and would never do so. They are the hard core of the leftist base. Reaching out to them is like putting your hand in a woodchipper.

This is exactly what Conservatism, Inc. does – come up with excuses to surrender. “Gosh, these women dressed like vaginas are really thoughtful, nuanced people who surely represent great swathes of Middle America. We should find common ground with them! How about taxpayer funding for abortion?”

Meanwhile, Mike Pence is the first sitting vice president to join the March ror Life. You know, that  core conservative issue? The one the GOP Establishment keeps wanting to put off until after the next election (and like tomorrow, the “next” election never actually gets here).

It’s strange to be proven correct so quickly, but Podhoretz has already validated my previous post. Like the rest of his Never Trump bitter-enders, he knows that if Trump actually does what he promised, the whole elaborate kabuki structure of Conservatism, Inc. will collapse.

Their only hope is to get Trump to sell out. So far, he doesn’t seem interested.

Unchained - Yeah You Hit the Ground Running...

A hat tip to Van Halen... That line from the 1984 tune "Unchained" sticks in my mind as I ponder Donald J. Trump's first few days as president.

Well, he never really was "chained" in a metaphorical sense, but that's by design. It's who and what he is. From the get-go, Trump decided to disregard the cautious advice of stiff, button-down advisors and consultants whose principles, if they ever had any, were diluted long ago by focus groups, polls and obsequiousness to the mainstream media. Trump was never going to be on a leash, or bound by the chains of political correctness. That's one of many reasons millions supported him.

But his two key promises -- to revive the economy, bringing back good jobs to the hard-hit middle class, and at the same time building a border wall and cracking down on the illegal immigration that is swamping our boat -- are what got him elected.

Now that Trump has begun his term as our nation's 45th president, he's not holding back. If any advisors or counselors cautioned him to go slow and be deliberate, he probably told them to go to hell.

In his first few days, Orange Julius has issued a series of executive orders and executive actions (part of a wish list, but not legally binding) to address major, serious issues upon which he campaigned. These include repealing Obamacare, building a wall along the Mexican border, cracking down on sanctuary cities and illegal immigration (including deputizing local law enforcement officials to act as immigration officers), and giving the thumbs-up to the Keystone Pipeline.

As an entertaining sideshow, Trump has dispersed the jackass mainstream media into a variety of diversions: the size of the inaugural crowd, whether several million illegal votes were cast in the 2016 election, dissing revered institutions such as NATO, the militant women's marches (replete with lunatic rants by the likes of singers Madonna and Ashley Judd)...

Could it be that Trump has outsmarted the dimwitted media? He has got them in a tizzy about inane issues like the size of the inauguration crowd and the rights of supposedly oppressed feminazis -- so much so, that they won't pay much attention to substantive issues? Who knows? Trump is a consummate showman. Like Ronald Reagan 30 years ago, Trump has a gift for communicating on television. He has the charisma and personality to cut across racial, ideological and generational lines -- to go over the heads of the media and connect directly with the America populace.

The mainstream media and left-wing drama queens may be atwitter about Twitter, and aghast about Orange Julius' bold and brash antithesis to the erudite Saint Obama. But tens of millions of Americans are ecstatic that meaningful and productive change is well underway -- imagery, idealism and emotion be DAMNED!

 

Trump has a very real chance to destroy the political establishment

Amidst the general rejoicing on the right side of the blogosphere, I noticed a current of deep unease bordering on hysteria coming from the dingy holdouts of the Never Trump movement.

Trump's blunt and powerful inauguration speech terrified them - not because of what he said, but because he might mean it.

Over the last two decades, it has been traditional for American political speeches to be utterly irrelevant.  The same tropes are trotted out, the same lies fed to the base and then the chattering classes amuse themselves by pretending it was in any way significant.

Republicans in particularly like to play this game.  Ol' Dubya and his daddy loved to give lip service to conservative principles, and certainly campaigned on reducing the size of government, restricting abortion, etc., but those were merely words to dupe the rubes in flyover country.  Everyone in Conservatism, Inc. knew it as well, which was why when an Establishment type would talk up border enforcement, they'd let it go.

Trump's speech wasn't like that.  He doubled down on his election themes, bluntly stating his plan and that it was going to happen.  His cabinet is clearly geared to enact it, and his team lacks the usual assortment of establishment hacks who excel at gumming up the works.

For years we've been told that conservative reform of government is simply impossible.  The best that could be achieved was incremental reform, maybe just slowing its rate of growth for a few years, plus some tax cuts for the hard-working and under-appreciated donor class.

Actual reductions in government power?  Sorry, it's just too big.  But look!  We did create welfare for churches!

If Trump actually flexes his executive muscle and tears into Leviathan, fifty years of conservative orthodoxy will collapse.  National Review and The Weekly Standard will be as exposed as full-on frauds and probably burst into flame.

It's funny reading some of their tripe.  They keep insisting that Trump is really a Democrat in disguise and will be just as bad as Hillary.

Funny, despite all the claims of his impulsive, disorganized nature, he's the first president in my lifetime to have an entire cabinet named before he took the oath of office. 

I think Trump is the political equivalent of Ulysses S. Grant.  Grant was a lousy president, but a superb battlefield commander and his great strength was his ability to take setbacks in stride.  Grant was never rattled, keeping his cool and meticulously plotting his counterstroke.

Trump has the same attitude to the political struggle.  He doesn't give a damn what the pollsters or consultants have to say.  He won election on a platform of massive reform and border enforcement.   Not only won't he back down in the face of bad polling, he will hold the GOP Congress to account as well.

That's the other difference.  He's in a position to tell his majority to get its shit together and actually pass conservative legislation.  They've run on it for years, offered show pony-style bills, but now they're going to have to deliver - or face the wrath of an already angry electorate.

Hacks like John McCain like to say they support strong defense, but DoD is rife with wasteful procurement policies that take needed funds from combat units and redirect them to politically-connected contractors.  Trump and James Mattis are a lethal combination to combat this corruption.

Basically, he will make them walk the walk.  If he does, the American people will be the big winners and Conservatism, Inc. will be extinct. 

I call that a win-win.

It's a new Don, it's a new day

...and I'm feeling good.

One of the most fascinating incidents captured on film yesterday was President Trump's signing ceremony. It was not particularly well-managed, but done in an practical way by a man with little patience for photo ops.

It is worth a look because it's so normal.  After months of being told that Donald Trump is a fascist, racist, hateful, would-be dictator and the second coming of Adolf Hitler, it's amusing to see Democrat leaders joking with him about who gets which keepsake pen.  Nancy Pelosi is clearly enjoying herself, and Trump maintains a fun banter with Chuck Schumer.

One of the best moments is when Paul Ryan cautions Schumer to make sure the cap is on tight or the pen will leak on his shirt.

CNN has called it "awkward," but it's actually authentic - a rare view of the political class that isn't stage-managed to death.

The key takeaway for me is how Democrats actually do want these keepsakes - there's a fair amount of haggling and trading going on over who gets which pen because of their historical significance.

Trump clearly could care less.  He just wants to get on with it, but Ryan and other establishment figures won't let him.   They are the ones who want the pens.

This small scene shows how the establishment still craves power and closeness to it.  They called Trump a monster for more than a year, but by God they want one of his pens!

It is a timely reminder that despite all the talk, Trump is not "beyond the pale," he's just a man like anyone else who managed to navigate a course into the White House.  Far from being an outlier, he's very comfortable with the ruling class, but does not identify as one of them.  He sees himself as part of the masses and regards politicians as hirelings, which is what they are.

Obama's Greatest Hits

I've been thinking for awhile now about what type of blog posting I would make to assess the eight years of Barack Hussein Obama. It is tempting to do a total take-down -- a no-holds-barred invective against a person I have been opposed to from the start.  I could type for hours with a rant against his wrongheaded policies, hypocrisy, narcissism and arrogance. But that stuff gets old. In the spirit of that old Shakespeare adage, "Brevity is the soul of wit," I am going to keep this brief.

I won't dwell on Obama's doubling of the national debt, the worsening of race relations, the horrendous cop killings occurring simultaneously with Obama's frequent hosting of Al Sharpton and Black Lives Matter in the White House, or the administration's absurd obsession with climate change as the largest threat we face. Following are a few of Obama's greatest hits -- "hits" meaning inflictions on Americans, as opposed to Billboard Top 100 tunes.

-- Obamacare - This convoluted program started as sloppily written legislation passed under dubious circumstances in the middle of the night back in March 2010. The roll-out was a disaster, and the program has resulted in millions of people facing exorbitant premiums, sky-high deductibles and restrictions on their choice of doctors. President Obama's lies to sell the program were multitudinous. And many of the newly insured people under Obamacare have simply been added to the Medicaid rolls, which in many states are unsustainable from a fiscal standpoint.

-- A sickly economy. Obamacare was a primary driver of a very anemic economic recovery. Obama will be the first president since Herbert Hoover to never have achieved 3 percent GDP growth in a single year. The supposedly 4.7 percent unemployment rate is highly misleading, since nearly 95 million adults are not in the labor force. And perhaps most damning, many of the new jobs created under Obama have been part-time, temporary, low-wage, and contract type positions. This is because under the so-called Affordable Health Care Act, a full-time job is considered one that averages just 30 hours per week. Companies with 50 or more full-time equivalent employees are mandated to provide healthcare coverage. Hence their reluctance to hire full-time workers.

-- An Orwellian sense of justice. Starting with a despicably partisan and corrupt Department of Justice but also including other agencies such as the IRS and EPA, this administration has bent over backwards to throw the book at political enemies and minor players who end up getting harsh sentences obscenely out of proportion to their alleged offenses. Two prime examples are the hapless filmmaker wrongfully jailed because an anti-Islam film he produced allegedly precipitated the attack on the U.S. consulate and four dead Americans in Benghazi, Libya (a heinous lie); and author/filmmaker Dinesh D'Souza's year of confinement, five years of probation, and mandatory community service for a minor campaign finance violation. D'Souza was also ordered to receive "therapeutic counseling." At the same time, Obama has commuted the sentences of hundreds of convicted felons, many of whom dealt drugs that resulted in deaths, violence and misery in the black communities Obama supposedly cares about. Additionally, Obama commuted the sentence of Chelsea Manning (nee, Bradley Manning), who was convicted of violating the Espionage Act for disclosing thousands of sensitive and classified documents to Wikileaks.

 -- Betrayal of Israel. It's pretty clear Obama is anti-semitic. He has treated Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu shabbily, and was undoubtedly behind the United States' decision not to veto a disastrous U.N. Security Council resolution that places the Middle East's only democracy in grave danger. The renowned historian Gisele Littman (pen name Bat Ye'or), calls the resolution "a victory for jihad."

-- Middle East Catastrophe. As if stabbing Israel in the back wasn't bad enough, the administration withdrew troops prematurely from Iraq, tearing asunder a nation that was well on the road to stability and facilitating the growth of Islamofasicst groups such as ISIS. Additionally, Obama's gang of incompetents tried and failed to support the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and also overthrew Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi, destabilizing Libya and turning it into a terrorist rat's nest. The administration's "policies" in Syria have been erratic and destructive, which also has helped ISIS thrive. The cruelty, suffering, starvation and inhumane conditions throughout the Middle East caused a mass exodus of refugees who have flooded Europe and torn at the fabric of nations such as Germany, France and England. Terrorism is on the rise in western Europe, thanks to the erudite Harvard Law grad with the uber ego and way too much self-confidence.

-- Iran arms deal. This horrible deal could easily fit into the betrayal of Israel or warped justice categories, but it deserves to stand on ts own. The administration is easing sanctions against the pariah nation, allowing it to sell oil on the open market, and has pumped $1.7 billion into Iran. We had our boot on Iran's neck for decades, and the nation weakening. But we not only let up, we are facilitating Iran's development of nuclear weapons, and naively letting the jihadists have their way with laughably weak monitoring protocols to ensure they keep their part of the bargain.

 -- The Bowe Bergdahl Trade. Time and again, Obama has demonstrated himself to be a lousy negotiator, and this case was certainly no exception. Bergdahl was a military deserter whose illegal actions resulted in the deaths of several of his fellow soldiers when they searched for him after he went missing. The administration saw fit to trade five Taliban war criminals for Bergdahl. This outrageous deal defies logic. There's only one thing that explains it: The strange mind of Barack Obama.

-- No to Keystone Pipeline, Yes to Green Fantasies. The administration put the kabosh on the Keystone Pipeline, which would have brought tar sands oil from Canada to American refineries and provided jobs. At the same time, the Department of Energy  pumped lots of money into ill-fated solar and wind projects that could not survive on their own without government subsidies. Solyndra was just one example of hundreds of millions of dollars squandered. Obama cronies got to line their pockets on the taxpayers' dime. But as is often the case, no one was indicted, arrested or convicted.

Well, I've had about enough. I wanted to keep this post brief, but it's almost impossible given the vast amount of mismanagement and failure to address. Suffice it to say, I think we've had about all of the hope and change we can stand. I am extremely pleased that our statist president is leaving. Best wishes to Barack Obama and his family, but thank God this man will no longer be president in a few hours!

The new monarchs

A common feature of monarchial government was a general amnesty upon a new sovereign taking the throne.  A new king or emperor could win much goodwill by judiciously offering pardons and restoring nobles back into favor.  It was a way to cement one’s claim to the throne at a time of uncertainty.

Isn’t it interesting how Democrat presidents do the opposite?  They issue pardons and clemency when they are completely unaccountable.   That speaks volumes about who these people really are.

Would candidate Obama have been elected or re-elected on a platform of clemency for drug dealers and traitors?  Would he have carried as many states by announcing his intention to make Iran the new hedgemon of the Middle East?

To ask the question is to answer it.

All politicians lie.  The GOP Establishment lies when it says it will actually do anything.  Sure, on the campaign trail they say they will shrink government, protect the right to life and so forth, but in practice they do none of that, they just issue news releases and ask for more corporate dollars.

The Democrats are worse, though, because they do the exact opposite of what they say.  One can give them credit for at least being active, but it always goes against what they say.

The sole exception to this is of course abortion.  Democrats always support abortion, but even here they lie about how far they war willing to go.  Remember Bill Clinton’s “safe, legal and rare” formulation?  He never meant it.

If Hillary Clinton was more honest about her support of abortion, like Obama she did not explain that she intended to introduce public funding coerce religious hospitals to performing the deadly procedure. 

The proof that this is the leading edge of Democrat thought can be found in the ACLU-sponsored lawsuits demanding Catholic hospitals murder infants on pain of being shut down.

The true danger of Donald Trump is not that he blusters and lies, but that he may actually follow through on his campaign promises.

Here's hoping.

Donald Tweet & the Demagogues

Enough already with John Lewis!

As far as I am concerned, Lewis is in the same category as Sen. John McCain: He deserves respect for the strength and courage he demonstrated while suffering greatly for a good cause a half century ago. But by god, the man is a bitter, partisan Democrat, through and through. He does not deserve the reverence he's been getting. In other words, his civil rights bona fides don't give him a free pass to engage in childish pettiness. He is a public servant, and thus ought to be scrutinized and criticized just like any of them.

If Lewis or his supporters think he ought to be immune to criticism, they are delusional. You can't be a public figure and spout off with invective and expect to incur no return fire. You can't have it both ways!

Lewis' declaration that he doesn't believe Donald Trump is a legitimate president, and that he'll skip Friday's inauguration, was the Left's latest spiteful slap in the face toward Donald Trump and his supporters. Now more than 50 left-wing Democrat members of Congress are joining Lewis in boycotting the inauguration. Lewis also skipped President George W. Bush's inauguration in 2001 because he was upset about the Supreme Court's ruling in Bush V. Gore.

Lewis has also gone off the deep end on other issues in the past, most notably his lunatic rant against welfare reform in 1996,  when Lewis compared Republicans to Nazis and wailed about how mean-spirited welfare reform was. (In fact, welfare reform was sorely needed, and ultimately proved successful.)

"They are coming for our children. They are coming for the poor. They're coming for the sick, the elderly and the disabled," Lewis thundered. Unhinged, just like so many of his fellow leftist extremists.

So, how should The Donald respond? Well, as I've said before, I have no problem with the fact Trump uses Twitter. I know he won't have so much time to fire out Tweets once he takes the oath of office, and that's a good thing. I just think Trump needs to realize he will go insane over the next four years if he doesn't develop a thicker skin.

Demagogues like John Lewis are a dime a dozen in today's Democrat Party.  And the hypocrisy is off the charts. If 50 Republicans had skipped Barack Obama's inauguration eight years ago for, say, Obama's friendship with terrorist Bill Ayers or his attendance for many years at the church of racist Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the press would have crucified them. And what of the Hillary supporters' empty slogan, "Stronger Together"? Come together my ass! These people thrive off of divisiveness.

News Flash to Orange Julius: Demagogues, grand-standers and hypocrites abound. The double standard is a fact of life. Get used to it and just focus on doing good things for America. You'll get more done, AND feel better about yoursef.

The Democrats' racist road to nowhere

I admit I haven't been following the confirmation hearings much.  I see some press accounts, recognize that they are false, and go do something else.

Trump's nominees will all likely be confirmed, and it is what happens next that interests me.

As expected, every single one of them has been denounced as a racists, sexist or homophobe.  This is because name-calling is all the Democrats had left.  It didn't work in the election, and it's even less likely to work now.

I must admit I'm getting very cynical in my old age.  When I was a kid in the 70s, there was lots of talk about racial healing, and it seemed very sincere.  All over the popular culture we celebrated racial integration.  I suppose there was a certain amount of race-baiting in politics, but the civil rights laws had been passed, the race-riots were over and people seemed happy to move on.  A bright future beckoned.

Now, I'm not so sure.  For whatever reason, the deep thinkers of the left have given up on a post-racial future.  This is strange, because the left traditionally was about class, not race.  In fact, old-school leftists were all about racial integration because they understood that national and racial divisions weakened the proletariat.

There's been much talk about the "top-bottom" coalition, which is kind of a misnomer.  The "emerging Democrat majority" hasn't come into being and I don't know if it ever will.  It seems predicated on creating a coalition of all minorities that will be led by wealthy white liberals against remaining whites.

Like all leftist ideas, it is completely unworkable over the long term.  Racial set-asides could only work in a time and place where the ethnic minority felt obligated to support them.  When the country was 90% white and 10% black and the civil rights movement was fresh in the mind, it was an easy sell.  Sure, some whites might lose out, but those were incidental losses in the road to racial integration and reconciliation.

Thanks in part to the left, we are now far more multi-ethnic, and the surging numbers of east and south Asians along with the growing Latino/Hispanic population have destroyed the consensus for giving blacks special treatment. 

The Democrats tried to co-opt all these groups based on historical grievances:  Chinese coolies built the railroads; Japanese were interned during World War II; the Philippines were occupied for decades; Vietnam was devastated by a pointless war; Mexico had its land and people stolen - and so on.

The problem with all these grievances is that they offset the sense of guilt over slavery.  None of these people feel any responsibility for the plight of black Americans.  In a racial-based spoils system, the losers are naturally going to break away from the coalition, which is what is starting to happen.

I think there is also a certain awareness among the black community that their position as the primary wards of the Democrat Party is also coming to an end.  Barack Obama was not one of them - he was half-white and lived a life of privilege.   He visited the black ghetto as a tourist and far from booting black America, his presidency has been an unmitigated disaster for his alleged people.

The other consequence of the Democrats' racial strategy has been to radicalize whites.  When you call people "racists" every time you disagree with them, the label eventually loses its taint.  The sorry display of Democrats castigating people they once praised as unrepentant bigots was only the logical conclusion of this strategy.

In fact, by hammering Republicans who worked for racial reconciliation as racists, the Democrats have destroyed any incentive to continue the work.  Why bother listening to John Lewis and cooperating with him when he'll denounce you anyway as soon as he sees political advantage in doing so?

Why cooperate with Cory Booker to help inner-city blacks when he'll happily launch into an unprecedented personal attack on you to further his ambition?

A rational person would say:  To hell with all of this.

The actions of John Lewis are dismaying and shameful, and an insult to the memory of Martin Luther King, Jr. 

Black America is shrinking and arguably worse off than it was in 1964.  One third of black children are aborted - in fact, in some jurisdictions, more are killed than born alive.  After years of progress, crime is surging and blacks are the overwhelming majority of both perpetrators and victims.  A clear majority of black children are born outside of marriage, which condemns yet another generation to lower incomes, and poorer opportunities.  Economically, blacks are falling further behind and black unemployment is at incredible (and unsustainable) levels.

Nothing the Democrats propose will solve any of this.

The only principle the Democrats have not betrayed is their faith in abortion.  If anything, they are doubling-down, trying to increase the number of dead infants in poor communities.  I can't help but wonder if their ultimate "solution" for the black underclass is to abort them out of existence.   That would fit nicely with the goal of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger.

As black families disintegrate, the state takes a larger role in their upbringing.  We've gone well beyond free school lunches - there are now free breakfasts and dinners as well.  These also continue during breaks and summer vacation.  A generation fo inner-city black children are growing up more dependent on the government than their parents.

The classic Democrat remedy to crime is strict gun control, but how would this be enforced?  Let us assume that the Second Amendment is repealed or negated in some way.  The only practical way to remove the guns would be stop-and-frisks or house-to-house searches, both performed by the police.

Given all the ire directed at law-enforcement, it is hard for me to understand why Democrats would want the equivalent of martial law imposed on Chicago, Detroit, etc.  If black incarceration is a problem, what will mass arrests do to improve things?

Educationally, there is no place for black Americans in the Democrats' vision of the future.  They want a world of global mega-tech firms, whose products are manufactured in Mexico, China and India.  The black working class is expected to die off while living on public assistance, the same as the white.

Sure, the Democrats make lip service about helping blacks get into college, but the Democrat-controlled inner-city public school systems are completely decrepit and corrupt.  Even the principals are on the take.

This is a far more pessimistic post than I wanted it to be, but the facts are what they are.  If Democrats had set out to ruin a people, they could hardly have done more to accomplish their mission.

Hopefully the next administration will be an improvement, because ultimately we are all stuck in this together.  There is no reason why all Americans can't share prosperity.  That was the message of Dr. King and why it still resonates today.

 

The Democrats' battle cry: "It's okay when WE do it!"

I'm old enough to remember when Ronald Reagan traded arms for hostages and that was regarded as a major scandal.

The waning Obama administration has done far more, but it's okay because their intentions are pure.

We see this double standard again and again, and - as my esteemed co-blogger has noted - it is particularly prevalent in the national security area.

President Obama claimed the legal authority to kill American citizens with airstrikes without any judicial review.  It will be interesting to see the liberal lawyers suddenly experience a change of heart as the days count down to Donald Trump gaining that power.

With the exception of abortion, the Democrats have demonstrated an amazing level of moral flexibility.  Earlier in the week, the White House was challenged over the response to the alleged "Russian election hack" vs China's proven identity theft of millions of security clearance files.  Why weren't Chinese diplomats expelled and sanctions levied in that earlier, far more serious data breach?

The official response:  "That's different."

Of course it was.

I don't have a twitter account, but I am glad the platform is out there because it lets us see just how transparently biased these reporters are.  Not only are they biased, most are strikingly ignorant.  They don't know the past and can't really understand cause and effect enough to shape the future.  All they know is the now, and they constantly try to shape it.

A great example of this stupidity is the alleged firing of the general in charge of DC's National Guard.  The Washington Post ran with this story like it was unprecedented and some sort of scandal.  How could they remove a general from command during the inauguration?!

Well, he's a presidential appointee and his term is up.  Just like all the other appointees.

One would think a newspaper based in the District of Columbia would know how this works - but one would be wrong, because liberal journalists don't know anything about anything.  That's why it is so easy for Democrat operatives to dupe them, which is what it appears this general decided to do.

Nothing in the story mentions the fact that it is highly unusual for any military officer to hold a position for over a decade.  This guy was appointed by George W. Bush, and it was high time for someone else to be rotated in.  Without that change, military command structures fossilize and the subordinate units become ineffective.  The organization becomes nothing more than a mirror of what the commander wants and groupthink takes over.

Remember when "Change!" was the big deal?  Now of course the Dems hate change - because it's only okay when they do it.