Why Anna Flagg of the NYT is full of shit

Saturday, March 31, 2018 
A recent article in the New York Times by Anna Flagg called “The Myth of the Criminal Immigrant” proves just how right Mark Twain was when he said, “There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.”The article based on a collaborative study by three prominent (and clearly liberal) universities, is so stock full of inappropriate and distorted fact as to go a long way to discrediting liberal attempts to discredit GOP claims of criminal activities and illegal immigrants.Since the purpose of the New York Times is to serve as a propaganda machine for a liberal readership distortion of fact should be expected, and the story is less designed to convince objective readers of the liberal case, than to reassure liberals about how right they are when it comes to opposing Trump immigration policies.The studies the article is based on not only distort reality but hides their real agenda by the liberal media to promote open borders and expansion of the Democratic voter base. The story is designed to assure liberals that we are not plunging back into the bad old days of the 1970s when it wasn’t safe for us to stroll through Central Park at night.The article opens with an unfair comparison to crime stats from the 1970s to now, showing how crime has plunged despite a massive increase in immigration.The GOP with their own stats paints a more accurate picture because it focuses on specific groups of “illegal” immigrant groups, in particular which ones engage in violent behavior.Crime overall has plummeted since the bad old days. But immigration is not related to its fall. The most significant factor for the rise and fall of crime over the last four decades has to do with the baby boom – that massive bulge in the population that began near the end of World War II and petered out in the mid-1960s.Crime rose and fell with a demographic largely tied to illicit drug use, peaking in the 1970s and early 1980s when babyboomers began to age out their 20s and 30s. We were all at the right age at the right time. So as babyboomers aged, crime declined.The fact that immigrant, legal or illegal rose during the period is an unrelated statistic. The criminal element that the GOP claims came with illegal immigration could not make up for the vast drop in age related crime population.Other factors for the drop in crime including odious enforcement of the Rockefeller laws, earlier intervention by law enforcement into minor crimes, and a massive increase in fire power and man power by law enforcement agencies.Having grown up in a home full of guns and NRA member, I discount the GOP claim that individual gun owners also deterred crime. There is almost no real evidence to support this claim.Flagg’s story distorts facts in a number of areas because it fails to distinguish between legal immigration and illegal immigration and so inflates the told numbers upon which her argument depends. She and the study she quotes depends on total immigration percentages, not illegal, and, fails to address the particular population the GOP is concerned with.Flagg along with most liberal media against the GOP claims of an uptick in crime skew their results by inflating the total base population, failing to distinguish between legal and illegal immigration, types of illegal immigration or even the age-related groups that typically commit crimes.Liberals like Flagg tend to claim that the GOP attack on the criminal element among portions of the illegal immigrant population is an attack on all immigrants – and so pump up the total numbers causing percentage of crime to fall.While Trump and the GOP are clearly do not like immigration, they clearly have focused on a group when claiming an increase in violent crimes.Legal immigrants are the most unlikely to commit crimes since they are motivated to come to the USA by ambition and in pursuit of the American Dream. They also have to jump through so many legal hoops to get access that they risk too much to ever involve themselves in illegal activities.Many of these are sponsored some corporation for their skills, and so become economic slave labor to corporate greed, too scared that they might lose their job and their green card.But even illegal immigrants fall into different categories.Some of these are people who lost their jobs and so have no greed card. Others have extended their student or other visas – a group so desperate to find another sponsor, they have little time or inclination to engage in violent crime.The illegal immigrants to GOP is concerned with fall into another category, people who have come into the country illegally, many continuing criminal activities they have engaged in before arriving here.This is not much different from previous immigration groups since before the American Civil War, good and bad arriving on ships that would later hover under the shadow of the Statue of Liberty.While Flagg watered down the statistics and misrepresented the GOP’s arguments, the GOP has provided specific evidence of an upturn in crime, in particular, murder and manslaughter, focusing on specific areas of the country where these things show a significant increase among illegal immigrants with New York City one of the highest. While the Flagg story gives comfort to liberals that all immigrants are clearly not violent immigrants, it misdirects the GOP’s claim that a large portion of illegal immigrants in certain areas of the country are involved in violent crimes.Flagg’s article his dishonest because it incorporates unrelated crime trends to immigration as a way to dismiss the GOP’s case.This is not to say that the GOP’s policy towards immigration is good news for immigrants legal or illegal.The GOP wants to close borders to stop the expansion of the Democratic voting base.Democrats, who have largely abandoned white working class, see their future and control of the country by allowing more immigration to fill up their future voting ranks.The GOP by focusing on the increase in crime by a portion of the immigrant population hopes to scare its own voting base into supporting very restrictive immigration reform.The Democrats through media are desperate to quell this fear to keep Congress from restructuring immigration rules that would make it even more difficult for immigrants from specific countries to get into the United States legally.Flagg’s argument and her real agenda is not whether illegal immigrants bring in violent crime (GOP stats show this is true) but is a propaganda piece promoting open borders, and paints immigrants as peace-loving addition to America that pose no risk to people already living here. The Democrats argue that an attack on illegal immigration is an attack on all immigrants.This is largely dishonest, designed to keep legal immigrants from realizing that while they did everything right to get here, many of the illegal immigrants did not.The real issue is not about crime at all, but about revamping an immigration policy that is faired to all.Democrats want no restraint.The GOP wants to keep many people out.But what you get from Flagg’s article is propaganda. 

No news is good news

 Sunday, March 25, 2018 Let’s face it, most voters are dumb as bricks.And those people who actually know something about politics are either completely biased or corrupt.This combined with a completely unethical press makes for an extremely dangerous and explosive mix.So called intelligent voters – when they bother to seek out information at all – gather only information that supports their own preconceived notions.
Liberals cling to left-leaning media such as The Washington Post and The New York Times (others are so far left such as The Hill or The Washington Examiner as have no credibility at all). While on the right, talk radio, Fox and more recent Alt-right news outlets fill their needs for misinformation.Even then, most voters don’t even read beyond the headlines if they read at all, and media takes full advantage of this fact by framing news so that they don’t have to.Independent voters are just as bad, since most lean towards one side or the other, and routinely vote the way they lean, pretending they are more thoughtful than the masses, when they are generally less well-informed.Most voters don’t think – although they think they do.They are largely sheep, herded into the voting booth by party leaders or social leadership, voting the way all those in their social group vote, because it is expected of them.Party leaders maintain the fiction of an independent voter – such as with the recent nationwide anti-gun rallies that are supposedly a grass roots opposition to the NRA. Behind the scenes, liberal leaders pay for and manipulate people in order to curb NRA contributions to the GOP ahead of a critical national election Democrats are desperate to win.For most voters on the left or right, politics is about social identity, who a person thinks he or she is, and their need to be accepted in their social group – not about issues. They believe whatever the group believes, or risks being cast out. So, like sheep, they follow whatever policy the group supports, and the political leadership of each party, controls those groups, marshalling them to this cause or that.Individual members of these groups rarely if every expose themselves to alternative facts, or when confronted with facts that do not fit their beliefs, reject them as “fake news.”Intelligent voting is hard. It requires people to seek out alternate views which they are not comfortable with, and seek out more than propagandistic headlines media offers. An intelligent voter needs to take in both sides of any argument, digest it, and come up with his or her own opinion, even at the risk of being at odds with his or her social group.Since there is no such thing as an unbiased media – despite our claims otherwise – this task of finding legitimate views is made nearly impossible. It is easier to accept pre-digested slanted news from media than to actually think for ourselves.And frankly, most people do not want to hear anything that suggests their opinion might be wrong. They simply get angry, or worse, paint those with differing opinions as deluded or even evil.Of course, we might expect better from more informed voters. But in fact, the more informed about issues you are (studies show) the more biased you become. This is partly the problem with media which has become propaganda machines for one side or the other.The intelligent voter has even more obstacles to overcome than the unwashed masses. A college education already skews their world view as professors tend to sell their own agenda and so once in the real world, these voters are already rejecting information sources that might counter this mis-education, and they continue to fill their heads with the mis-information spewed by cultural magazines like The New Yorker (Mother Jones is a joke, and so it’s the Nation) or the National Review. These well-informed voters thus develop a system of internal fake news, even reshaping indisputable fact to fit their own beliefs.Those who manage to survive college with their thinking intact rapidly find themselves outcasts in social groups to which they might otherwise want to belong and over time, must choose between being accepted and accepting the preferred doctrine, or seeking out other points of refuge.Although The First Amendment does its best to protect free speech and media, it is almost impossible to use the first because so much has been labelled as unacceptable speech, and media has become a political power in its own rite using the First Amendment as cover just as the NRA uses The Second Amendment to protect its own political agenda.The founding fathers may have predicted slanted media when crafting The Constitution, but obviously believed some aspects of the Fourth Estate still clung to the scared scripture of objectivity, a scripture modern media has largely abandoned in its pursuit of power.In fact, these days all news is fake news, even when it is apparently backed up by fact, all of it framed in a way to manipulate people into supporting this side or that, slanted and filled with purple prose that does nothing to educate voters.Those people who don’t vote at all – because they could care less or because they have lost faith in a system where everything seems like a lie – cannot possibly rely on news media to provide them with “real news” since that’s no longer the function of media. Those of this crew who pay attention to what media says get confused by who they are supposed to vote for, so they don’t.For the rest of us (split between two political camps), media functions to sway us this way or that, mostly through frightening doom and gloom headlines designed to stir up panic or rage, so that this party or that can get us all to goosestep into the voting booth to get the media-approved candidate elected or to oppose the candidate media has come to condemn.In some ways, we have come back to that adage: “No news is good news.”But we mean it now in a whole new context.     

Why are Democratic gun policies dangerous?

Sunday, March 18, 2018 

In 2000 when George W. Bush was elected president by a few hundred votes and with the help of a large conservative supreme court, most people accepted the results as legitimate. So, we avoided the violence that would have naturally occurred had this been another country.But 2016 is different. Democrats started on a new path with the questionably unethical Mueller investigation, not merely to investigate Russia’s alleged role, but to challenge the legitimacy of the election itself.“Not my president,” created a whole new and dangerous dynamic that isn’t here aimed at bringing down Trump but eroding the system by which we elect presidents.Some people have accused Trump of being a fascist, and yet what we are seeing is the overthrow of an election through undemocratic processes, and something that comes close to a new left-wing politically correct fascism that allows thugs to tear down statues and alter history to their own liking.As cumbersome as the American electoral system is, it tends to protect small rural parts of the country from the mass tyranny of well-organized big cities.The election worked because it prevented large cities from imposing their views on small places – something that could not happen in Germany in the terrifying election of 1932 that allowed Hitler to rise to power.While people compare Trump to Hitler, the similarity of then and now more reflects the orchestrated mass uprisings that followed Trump’s victory, seeking to reverse the will of the people as proscribed by the results of the election.Instead of reevaluating their own policies, Democrats are pushing the boundaries and untying the basic threads that make America the most workable democracy in the world.This is dangerous territory since it suggests that the very fabric of what makes America the country it is, will become undone if you put enough people on the street and hire enough special prosecutors.This is not to say Democrats are deliberately creating a new fascist state. Their role is to send a message out to their constituency, especially the swing voters, who could support Trump or some Democratic surrogate in the 2020 election.But once you undo the protections that define what a legitimate election is, you make it possible for any election to be undone by the same process.What scares me is that the Democrats seem to sense some of this, even if there is no official policy and no one will openly say it.Tearing down statues and flags were dangerous enough actions, since they are symbolic of an intolerance that America is supposed to lack but promoting mass protest as an excuse to disarm a part of the population well-known to oppose the Democratic Party suggests a viable fear that if Democrats succeed in discrediting the 2016 election of Trump, well-armed groups may actually emerge.In some ways, Democrats seem to be creating a fascist state with their efforts, and feed into the fear that someone is actually out to keep Americans from having the ability to defend themselves.This is particularly true when it comes to the Parkland mass murders – where systems designed to provide protection for those children utterly failed, systems that are largely associated with Liberal policies such as school monitoring, and systems defended by Liberals such as the complete collapse of the FBI, or even liberal reliance on ordinary police – who were ordered not to respond.The effort to take guns from legitimate gun owners or even restrict them, not only feeds into the basic fears many gun owners have about the system failing them when they need it most and so must protect themselves, but also feeds on the perception that Democrats are seeking to disarm them for some other onerous motive, such as when they succeed in overthrowing Trump, or worse, when in 2020, some other candidate unpopular with the liberal left rises, and democrats seek some new way to make the election illegitimate.Each new cycle now risks bringing us to a real and violent civil war, since the Democratic policy here to win elections by destroying the accepted legitimacy of the election process.As with Sandy Hook, Parkland actually caused a spike in the purchase of weapons – this despite all the protests and the intimidation against legal arms dealers.The move to make some guns illegal will not stop people from getting them, it will only inspire greater mistrust, and will also feed the fear that Democrats are willing to do anything to win – and push us even closer to when even legal gun owners will feel threatened.Even as we speak, gun owners and others are stock piling weapons they believe will become illegal in the near future.I’m no fan of automatic weapons. But I’m more scared of a political policy that would inspire more fear than it cures and would erode the fundamental rights of Americans to not only bear arms, but to have confidence that once an election is over with, we will accept the results.Democrats implementing a dangerous strategy and using kids to do it.   

Propaganda poetry: the poet & the professor

 Tuesday, March 13, 2018 

If anyone needed to know how educated people can be just as deluded as the so-called “unwashed masses,” attending the poetry reading I went to this week where a poet and a professor would have provided them with a doctoral thesis on self-delusion.

We have all had our share of radical profession in college, people we ached to please in order to be accepted in their extremely popular classes, little realizing how such exposure would taint our world view later.For poets like this one who took her classes then, she had a profound affect on their lives, since she managed to get into their heads at a time when they were still vulnerable to persuasion, steering them up path – not just least taken, but from which it is nearly impossible to return.This may explain the political dribble the poet spouted, demonstrating how well he could ape his professor and how little he understood American history – and worse, how little he wanted to.For the most part, the poet issued watered-down platitudes gleaned from biased media such as NPR, The New York Times or still worse, the Washington Post, reinforcing the party line, grossly inaccurate, and grossly glossing over historical fact – something typical of political poetry in general, more propaganda than verse.The professor, of course, was batter at it, a real crafts person from decades of practice in the classroom, molding students minds on what to think, rather than teaching them how to think for themselves.This is no unique to poetry or colleges or even to left-leaning social groups from meetups to coffee clutches. From warehouses to Wall Street, from the NRA to MeToo, groups are groomed to specific beliefs or exiled.
Blaming the professor is somewhat unfair. Education is supposed to expose young minds to alternative views, even radical ones, only what transpires in academia hardly resembles what actually happens in the real world, and so explains in part the anti-Trump rhetoric the poet spouted, demonstrating more about how well indoctrinated he’s become than any real knowledge of political reality.This poet’s purpose, however, was to paint the president as unstable and to decry the political system that allegedly cheated Democrats of their own choice, the first self-serving drivel, then second factually incorrect.The poet doesn’t even know real politicians. His social set is a group of radicals who think and talk the way he does, and rarely disagree fundamentally with his views.He clearly did not study American history well enough to understand the terror the Founding Fathers felt, caught between mob rule and a fascist king, or how they set up the government in order avoid either extreme.The poet largely repeated the silly rhetoric the left has been spewing ever since Trump beat Clinton in 2016, that there is something wrong with an electoral college that gives the same voice to smaller conservative societies as it does to those mass city liberal cities.So naturally, when the cities poured out votes for Clinton, liberals like this poet and the professor expected to win and were frustrated by a system that helps protect minority communities – in this case, white conservative minorities who live far from the city and who would not have a voice in elected a president without electoral college to protect their interests. How different would the poet and professor sound if the cities were conservative and imposing their political views on small towns filled with people of color?America has been caught in the middle of two strains of political thought since its foundation. Small communities give more voice to individuals and so better reflect participatory democracy. But like all small social groups, liberal or conservative, they also tend to exclude people who do not agree with their point of view.Large government has a broader umbrella, so it can provide for a wider range of diversity, but individuals then to get lost in the crowd. Special interests groups from the NRA to Planned Parenthood have more influence, than individuals do, and we are often forced to accept a representational form of government that may not reflect or will often ignore individuals, especially small population centers which may have other issues that politically powerful cities might not or will not address.The forefathers set up a system that would allow senators to serve the needs of a national agenda, while having members of the House of Representatives serve more local needs.The electoral college also reflects this need to protect minorities whose geographic location make it more difficult to organize than in the cities, and whose interest are different than the mass population centers. The electoral college regionalized the selection process so that it doesn’t become skewed by a singular political agenda often generated in the city centers, protecting the right of a minority to have equal voice as the majority.But since the majority in this case is a liberal majority and have come to reflect a mob mentality not much different from that which the forefathers feared, the electoral college becomes the last refuge against political tyranny imposed by large liberal groups on smaller and scattered conservative ones.The poet and the professor, of course, being part of this new moral majority, clearly do not want small communities to stand in the way of their new Liberal agenda, and so promote the idea of abolishing the electoral college so they can push their views down the throats of people with opposing views.Poems by the poet and the professor were all about discrimination, and how unfair the system is, while their little poet society fully reflects the small community flavor they often call “red neck.” While this little reading on this particular day promoted diversity, they limited their diversity to what they agree with, and would exile anybody who decided maybe to read a poem that might sing the praises of Trump or raise questions about the morality of abortion.But the poet and the professor twist complicated issues into easily digested talking points, and their purpose in the world is to spread a particular gospel and to make certain that those who belong to that particular religious understand the scripture we are expected to follow – proving that propaganda is still propaganda regardless of how pretty the package it comes in.  

White people power

Sunday, March 11, 2018

 A number of conservatives believe that there is a new genocide being conducted by a liberal elite, an effort to do away with white straight men or at best emasculate them, creating a new breed of eunuchs that will allow women, gays and sexually undermined intellectual males rule the world.As farfetched as this sounds, conservatives may have found an issue around which they can rally, and as the left abandons working class whites and has become a party dedicated to the interests of gays, women, immigrants and people of color.
The fact is, conservatives appear to understand liberals far better than liberals do conservatives.
Much of what liberals believe comes out of their own prejudices and distorted myths about conservative culture in particular while straight men.Most liberals aren’t stupid, but often come off sounding that way when they rant about how so called racism of the conservatives.Liberal arrogance has the potential to derail the causes they most espouse and threatened to unravel their plans to retake control of government, not just this year, but in 2020 as well.Well educated, many normally non-political liberals are extremely ignorant when it comes to the dynamics of race in the United States, believing short-sighted lectures on American history that allows them to over react when it comes to dealing with conservatives – using racially charged terms to describe whites as “Crackers” or “hillbillies” in a disparaging and often mistaken notion of their own moral and intellectual superiority.The masses of liberals we hear ranting on the streets are largely being manipulated by a much savvier Democratic political machine, which fully understands its conservative enemies but needs to make use of the nativity of easily led liberal masses.Even those few movements that haven’t been orchestrated by a Democratic think tank risk increasing the power of conservatives, while under the illusion that are somehow righting some historic wrong.In many cases, liberals do not even know why they believe what they believe, and have created a world based on the myth of good and evil, mimicking what they hear rather than what they think for themselves, exposing themselves only to information to which they already agree.Politics, however, has very little to do with individual belief. Instead, it strongly resembles high school or college, where people’s membership in social cliques determine what they believe. The group you belong to determines not only what you believe, but who you are or even who you wish to be.God help the black or gay who admits to his social group that Donald Trump might have a good idea about anything. Your friends won’t be your friends long because blacks and gays and women are supposed to hate Trump, and so they do. A black who questions the ideology of black culture will quickly get the label “uncle tom.” Blacks are expected to support Democrats, just as women are, and gays.A gay who speaks out against gay marriage faces a similar fate. Just as a woman who opposes abortion does.People do not think for themselves, and their values are determined by the company they keep.This is as true for conservatives who are members of the NRA, certain churches, and anti-abortion group, family groups and such.But the two issues that most divide Americans are race and sexuality.And the left has clearly declared war on conservatives in both of these areas, determined to force conservatives to adopt a liberal agenda as far as race, gay marriage and access to abortion. But the campaign appears to go far beyond forcing conservatives to believe what liberals want them to believe, but to punish them when they fail to comply.For instance, many liberals come to believe that all southern white men are racists as is the case for anyone who is a registered republican.Oddly enough research shows that up until the 1980s, most southern whites were Democrat – although there has been a slow migration of whites from Democrats to Republicans starting in the 1950s, and some of these whites actually supported issues like integration and civil rights.But the perception that a southern white must be racist has become such a fixture in the liberal mythology that it has become accepted by media and others as fact.This is also true when it comes to feminism, and immigration, and the perception that if you are a working class straight white man, you sexually abuse women, want to beat up gays and hate immigrants when this may or may not be true.These myths have infected almost all of our mainstream society and so we get a media that assumes these assumptions as fact, and professors – such as one who I heard speak recently as a poetry reading – teaching young people this as if gospel. This myth making has scared corporate America into refusing to sell guns or to implement social policies that are in line with these questionable beliefs.Race, of course, continues to divide America like no other issue. It is the ultimate social club, whether you are white, black or in-between.Liberal males – especially those who wish to seem sophisticated or are ashamed of their blue-collar upbringing – adopt this unnatural orthodoxy even when they are straight and white to fit in with a social crowd they aspire to belong to, saying all the right things, even if they – despite their education – haven’t a clue as to what they are actually talking about.Studies done in the 1940s and 1950s show that people often claimed membership in a party even when they do not completely understand the reason behind the party’s beliefs. In some cases, they take the word of better politically educated people such as professors or media, and accept a short-hand version of truth that amounts to stereotyping.This need for liberals to belong so blinds them that they accept whatever media or the party tells them as truth, and become arrogant because they believe their education has provided them with a monopoly on truth or morality. For all their claims of diversity, their views are extremely simiplistic, a black and white, good and evil vision of the world, causing a knee jerk reaction when it comes to judging conservatives.These liberals assume that anyone who opposes their views are evil or bigots, and claim that anyone who voted for Trump is either stupid or corrupt. Anyone who opposed gay marriage, abortion or open borders for immigration is evil.This is part of a moral crusade that practically justifies any behavior.The election of Trump as president was a shock because it undermined the liberal belief that the country was inevitably becoming more liberal – and that the righteousness of their crusade would become self-evident at the polls when Clinton beat Trump.As a result of this intense disappointment, we saw what amounted to a temper tantrum by packs of spoiled brats taking to the street because someone denied them something they thought they were entitled to have.This fed into their delusion that Trump must have cheated – much in the way Clinton cheated to steal the nomination and later tried to do in her attempt to become the first woman president.But the tantrum was also flavored with Democratic think tank manipulation that allowed for the funding of the woman’s march and radical actions by groups such as Black Lives Matter.Selfish and self-righteous lunatics – believing their had moral high ground – started to tear down Confederate statues and burn Confederal flags to punish conservatives they believe stole the election from them.These deluded do-gooders claimed they were offended by icons that honored people such as Robert E. Lee and flags that celebrated the Confederacy, determined to destroy a culture they considered racist. This is a massive misconception of not only what those Icons stood for in the white culture, but the history behind them.In fact, such abuse of history didn’t stop with racism. These reverse bigots decided to remove all icons to all historic men they found disagreeable starting with Lee and Christopher Columbus, and most recently Winston Churchill – largely because these men are white and male at a time when it appears to be a politically correct crime to be either.One local professor even required his white students to write essays about why they should be ashamed to be white. Arts projects funded by federal grants such as The West by one of the Burns brothers flatly called white people evil.This attack on white culture and its icons is a complete but apparently deliberate misreading of history and the meaning of these icons.Liberals in waging these attacks clearly do not understand their enemy, and so do things that provide conservatives with more power, not less.Trump’s election – although tinged with extremist elements at times – was less about race, misogyny and hatred of immigrants that it was about resisting a wave of political correctness orchestrated partly by a desperate Democratic Party and partly by a skewed educational system that itself ignores facts to create myth.Many in the south see this new politically correct social order as akin to the carpetbaggers that preyed on the south in the aftermath of the Civil War, both seeking to punish white men for being white.While there is no denying racism exists in America, north, south, east or west, liberals mistake why many white people cling to flags and other symbols of a fallen confederacy, or why they need to have access to guns.This is not about being anti-black, it is about being pro-white, and there is a huge distinction.As the women’s movement, black moment and other liberal agendas appear to want to strip white men of their historic culture – regardless of how terrible it might be – the more white will seek to preserve them, elevating people like Lee to the position of hero (which he actually deserves) and waving a flag that is largely one big “fuck you” to the liberals who want to tear them down and tear down things conservatives believe.Many see the new liberal as a remade carpetbagger, and the more such radicals tear down, the stronger these icons become, because they become symbols of resistance to an oppression that has never ceased, a kind of social order being imposed from liberals far away living in an illusion.These attacks on Trump by a liberal media, these foolish acts by deluded radicals come off as a repeat of mistakes made by radicals in the past – such as the 1968 convention protest in Chicago that some historians believe helped get Richard Nixon elected.With each new attack by media or the liberal establishment on Trump and conservatives, the more a silent rage builds. But unlike liberal spoiled brats who rant and rave and take their rage out in the streets, conservatives will take it out in the voting booth – white people power striking back, not just for the midterm elections this year, but also in 2020.    

I had a dream about media

 Saturday, March 10, 2018 

When I woke up this morning, I remembered a dream I had:That the Washington Post had stopped printing anonymous sources all of which turned out to be Steven Bannon;That CNN – like a puppet – stopped repeating everything the Washington Post prints;That every story in The Hill was not bashing Donald Trump;That The New York Daily News had not turned into an east coast version of the snow flake LA Times;That Mother Jones had stopped ranting and raving and realized this isn’t 1935 anymore and there no longer is a Soviet Union to endorse;That the Nation no longer pretended to be an intellectual version of The National Enquirer;

That The New York Times ran out of purple ink for its purple prose to debase Trump with; 

That Politico was anything more than a political joke;

That Steven Colbert started acting like an adult;That Jimmy Kimmel had learned to tell the truth;That Alec Baldwin and the crew from Saturday Night Live actually watched their own show and realized they are not, never have been, and never will be funny;That CBS, NBC, and ABC had reverted back to real news stations;That Fox and Briebart News went back to seeming extreme;That MeToo stopped being a campaign against men;That Black Lives Matter really meant promoting blacks rather than tearing down statues and burning flags;That right wing and left wing realized they are all part of the same country;That the Washington Examiner was a real news organization;That MSNBC understood it really is only a mirror image of Fox News;That Kathy Griffin went on national TV holding up her own bloody head;That Hillary Clinton would learn to shut up;That Bernie Sanders would realize Democrats hate him;That Barack Obama admitted just how horrible a president he had been;But then, I woke up, had my coffee and put on AC/DC on the radio.   

email to Al Sullivan

Mad Dog Mueller

Thursday, March 8, 2018

Mueller is about as trustworthy as a foaming at the mouth mad dog.

Democrats might use him to bite Trump, but don’t expect him to deliver justice.

Prosecutors for the most part are political appointees and their total function is to prosecute. It is not in their nature to consider the idea that some people might actually be innocent.

People like Mueller might lie, cheat, steal, to get someone charged with a crime – since their only purpose is to build a case they can prosecute.

Grand juries are a joke because they are most often simply puppets for a prosecutor, a group of people who generally are sympathetic to the prosecutor in the first place, and always only hear one side of a case. There are no defense attorneys, no alternative sets of facts. Grand jurors hear only what the prosecutor wants them to hear.

Having a prosecutor like Mueller is like letting your daughter date a serial rapist. You don’t have to wait until she comes home in tears to know what will happen.

For the Democrats, Mueller is a hired gun, a Billy the Kid or Jesse James hired by the greedy cattle rancher to get chase the GOP out of the White House so that they can move their own guy or gal in.

Mueller is a prosecutor and has only one function in life, to prosecute. If you want justice, you would have hired a judge.

Mueller’s whole motive is to find someone he can pin something, anything on, innocent or guilty, as long as he can convince a grand jury that he has assembled enough to make the charge stick.

For those haunted by his ruthless campaign, this can ruin their lives, much the way Big Rig III did in New Jersey a decade ago where innocent people pleaded guilty because they could not afford the high-priced lawyers to counter the legal charges against them. Even some who proved their innocence lost everything they had doing so. So you understand why Flynn is broke.

But then, Flynn made the dreadful mistake of lying to the FBI. This is like lying to the Gestapo.

While you might argue with a cop about how fast you were going when he or she pulls you over for speeding, the FBI is a whole different matter.

When they knock on your door, you get to understand a little how the Jews felt when the Nazis came.

You cooperate or go to hell.

Mueller, of course, only acts like a Nazi.

He is simply a hired gun for the Democrats to bring Trump down, and will do everything he can to find anything he can use to accomplish this, even if it isn’t true. As long as he can find evidence enough to convince a Grand Jury and get headlines in a slanted media, he’ll do it, foaming at the mouth like the mad dog he is.

Media: self-appointed arbitors of truth

Sunday, March 4, 2018 

To quote Groucho, not Karl, Marx: “I wouldn’t want to b e a member of any club that would have someone like me as a member.”This pretty much sums up the current state of media in America, where membership re3quires that its journalists subscribe to a particular ideology or become outcasts.Sometimes mistakenly described as “The Fourth Estate,” media has taken on the erroneous self-perception that it somehow compares to elected office such as president or congress or appointed office such as the U.S. Supreme Court – when it is actually a self-appointed position with nearly no oversight or honored system of ethics.Journalism today has largely degenerated into (or perhaps always was) little more than a powerful special interest group, like the NRA, except instead of shooting bullets, it kills people with headlines and slanted news coverage.Unlike someone seeking to buy a weapon, a journalist rarely must go through a criminal background check or obtain a permit to operate in his or her lethal profession.In fact, until recently almost anybody could become a journalist with little more than a high school education but wielding unbearable levels of power with little restraint beyond their editor or publisher, who also equally have no oversight.Media has always sold itself as the checks and balance against government abuse with nothing to serve as check and balance of its own abuses.As with politicians, journalists a prey to corruption.I’ve known a number of corrupt reporters, some took up unholy alliances with the politicians they were hired to cover, even going to far as to sleep with and spy for, and sometimes work for the campaigns of the politicians.These, of course, are clear violations of journalist ethics and subject to termination, if you can actually convince their editors or publishers that such transgressions have taken place.But the media industry itself as a much deeper corruption, something not just tolerated by its membership, but promoted and protected by a brother-and-sisterhood of high priests who have become the religious leader of a liberal faith.Generally, reporters who do not subscribe to this orthodoxy are isolated and eventually driven out of the priesthood. There are some exceptions, token conservatives kept on to maintain the fiction of objectivity, but never part of the inner circle of faith.In my experience, I have met an editor with a feminist agenda, who flatly refuses to even play lip service to media’s façade of objectivity, actively and knowingly slanting stories to embarrass or humiliate conservative politicians she covers, going as far as to encourage fledgling reporters under her charge to do the same. In her mind, “conservative” is not a political choice, but position of evil that she feels responsible to expose if not destroy.Some editors do not even believe in objectivity at all, one-time journalists who have become advocates of a liberal agenda, reading all the proper slanted liberal journals, subscribing to all the proscribed liberal testaments of faith. The best these editors can hope for is to be “fair,” which means to make sure to get a comment from the subjected being gutted by the current news story.Still other editors hide their agenda behind their reporters, loading them up with loaded questions that ultimately produce the slant the editor wants in their first place, and then throw up their hands when someone accused the editor of being slanted. Such people are the first to defend media as objective, partly because they cannot have its lack of objectivity exposed without also exposing their own.There are, of course, conservative journalists, working for networks such as Fox. But mainstream media tends to dismiss these as journalists who have fallen from the true faith and have opted to adopt the dark side of the force. Conservative journalists may not be evil in themselves, but they serve an evil purpose.Part of the blame for the liberal slant in contemporary journalism must fall on the shoulders of American universities through which modern journalist must pass in order to take their eventual place in the priesthood. Mainstream universities have become so politically correct that when people talk about a liberal education, they mean it literally. Once indoctrinated, it is difficult if not impossible to become objective.But even old school journalists including some working as columnists on major New Jersey daily newspapers have sipped the Kool Aid, and use questionably objective sources such as The Washington Post as their scripture, in some cases, these newspapers actually reprint the original stories as if Biblical verse.Journalism is not and perhaps never was The Fourth Estate.It is simply another special interest group like the NRA or Black Lives Matters with true believers setting a particular liberal agenda in order to spread its liberal faith.Real independent reporters exist – even in the most corrupted media such as CNN, The Huffington Post or The Hill, but as with black lists of the past, such people do not dare speak out too loudly or too often against the liberal orthodoxy without risking loss of credibility or employment.There are varying degrees of true-believers just as there are varying degrees of sports fans. Not all tattoo their faces with the New York Yankees logo or inflict their inflated sense of self-righteousness on the unsuspecting public.But the tattoos are there on the faces of the major players, such as The Washington Post and The New York Times, spreading their agenda in the guise of truth, acting self-appointed arbitrators of truth, hiding their ill will behind the First Amendment the way the NRA hides its behind the Second – merely selling a news product a public that mistakenly accepts it as fact.    

email to Al Sullivan

Media as maggot infested zombies

Saturday, March 3, 2018

Liberal media is giving us a remake of “The Night of the Living Dead.”

We’re currently in the scene where the President and his family are trapped in the house with the zombies breaking in at the windows, looking for weaknesses in order to get at the real people inside.

But these are passive aggressive media zombies, and the general public is supposed to feel sorry for the zombies.

In fact, I do feel ashamed of myself for comparing media to zombies. In these days of political correctness, we’re not supposed to insult zombies like that.

Watching media work is like watching maggots swarming over some poor fool’s festering wound. We are assured that the maggots serve some noble purpose, but it makes us retch to watch them work.

Like the zombies in the old-fashioned movies – when zombies were still considered bad guys – media continues to probe for weaknesses hoping to provoke the president into an overreaction they can exploit.

This, of course, is a sign of desperation as we in media seek out every petty thing we can in order to cause the president and his family pain.

As I said, this is a noble profession, even one that Mark Twain might admire, we maggots turning eventually into disease-ridden flies that – when we finish our job – get to swarm on our dead victim’s eyes.

To strike back at media is as pointless as swathing at flies, too. We just land some place else to deposit more larva and start the maggot cycle all over again, creating some new wound of some new victim we can infest.

Media, of course, likes playing the part of victim, those noble settlers in a wagon train making its way to settle the Great American West.

After we have butchered the buffalo and humiliated the Native Americans, we circle the wagons to defend good and bad settlers against the inevitable back lash against our noble profession.

When someone like Trump screams “fake news” we in media try to convince ourselves that we are the innocent victims inside the house the zombies are attaching, and Trump and his political kind are the zombies.

This is what I mean by passive aggressive.

No matter how vicious media becomes, how unethical are reporters act, no matter how mean our motives are, we as people and our profession are the real victims, not the people we attack.

And so we see ourselves inside the house, looking through the broken windows at the hoards of savage faces outside, trying to convince the American public that that those brainless, unethical maggots are someone else other than us.

It is a weak argument at best, not quite fake news, but close.

email to Al Sullivan

Are Democrats are coming for your guns?

Thursday, March 01, 2018

PEW Institute estimates that there are between 270 million and 320 million guns in America. It also claims most Americans don’t own guns. Both of these are most likely gross under estimations -- an intellectual wet dream that guns might be eradicated from our society.

Liberals would love to do away with the 2nd amendment, part of their deluded belief that they can reshape the world into the rubberized always safe playground kids are forced to suffer though these days.

Many gun owners live in a different and perhaps more honest reality where nothing is safe and the presumption of safety is not merely an illusion it is dangerous.

Liberals have for generations sought to create a national registry for legal guns. This only feeds into the worst fears of gun owners, some of whom see a potential future of a politically correct hysteria when a liberal or fascist government might use that list to come collect these guns.

This is not as farfetched as might be thought considering the national liberal hysteria plaguing the nation after the Florida shooting.

The hysteria is being fed by political opportunists. Some of these hope to use the issue to undermine Trump. Others are traditional anti gun lobbies using dead kids to further their agenda.

These groups have steered the conversation away from the fact that school officials in Florida ignored clear warning signs and the FBI failed to act when warned. These groups even ignore the fact that cops were ordered not to engage the killer.

In changing the conversation to be about guns, these advocates have successfully scared politicians and retail gun dealers with this public hysteria.

More importantly they are scaring many gun owners who see their worst fears realized Democrats are coming to get their guns

Anti gun advocates like to claim the second amendment never envisioned contemporary weapons. They often misread the second amendment to claim our forefathers meant guns to be in the hands of the military not individuals.

Both of these assumptions are wrong. Weapons contemporary then or now are equally dangerous. One only has to read history of wars fought with those weapons to understand how lethal they were and how well forefathers understood this.

The second amendment was written at a time when there was almost no professional military. People and their guns were drafted to make up the military.

More importantly the amendment was written with distrust of oppressive government as well as fear of mob rule.  This wise distrust is just as relevant today maybe more so.

The 20th century has provided us with clear examples of the dangers of an unarmed public and how easily a liberal Society and turn fascist.

For instance Berlin in some ways more than Paris was considered the center of culture in the 1920s and within a few years became the Holocaust.

Jews and others were isolated, stripped of rights and eventually slaughtered.

At the height of resistance in the Warsaw Uprising, people lacked weapons as well as the knowledge to use them.

This was not an isolated event. People unable to fight back are easily oppressed and well-meaning liberals feed this fear of helplessness with the false notion that we have progressed beyond these things.

This is partly why PEW’s assessment is so screwy. Many will not say if they own guns for the very reason they don’t want a national registry.

This fear also generates the need for powerful weapons. Many of the weapons Jews in Polish ghettos did have were far inferior to those the Nazis had.

The biggest products offered by arms dealers are for the military. Trickle down through homeland security has made many police forces resemble military units.

Ordinary people armed with semi automatic weapons are as out classed as the Jews were in the ghettos were.

Worse still are the extremely well armed street gangs with illegal automatic weapons, increasing this perception of lack of safety.

No liberal think tank is going to make Americans feel safe by proposing gun control for law abiding citizens.

This hysteria will also produce a political backlash against Democrats in a midterm election in which they hope to steal seats from the GOP.