If you read Bernie’s 1972 “rape fantasy” essay, you realize he was protesting both violent porn and emotional gender inequality, not promoting rape.
At PJ Media, the always-excellent Matt Margolis writes that it’s time to ask “hard questions” about Bernie Sanders’ infamous rape fantasy essay. I’d like to suggest that Bernie won’t mind those questions because he’ll have a good answer: His ugly opening paragraph wasn’t intended to promote sick sex but to protest it and to demand emotional equality between men and women
If you can make yourself read through the entire muddled thing, which veers between philosophy and cheap literature, you’ll realize that Bernie’s making a point and, much as I hate to say it, a good one. The point is that human history had created an unhealthy dynamic between men and women which needed to be corrected, but that feminism was turning into man-hatred, which destroys relationships.
Here’s the essay in its entirety. It is execrably written, in part because Marxists are always bad writers and in part because Bernie specifically was a horrible writer.
Most people never get beyond the opening paragraphs, by which time they assume that those ugly words represent Bernie’s own sexual fantasies, all of which center around women being abused and liking it:
A man goes home and masturbates his typical fantasy. A woman on her knees, a woman tied up, a woman abused.
A woman enjoys intercourse with her man – as she fantasizes being raped by 3 men simultaneously.
The man and woman get dressed up on Sunday – and go to Church, or maybe to their “revolutionary” political meeting.
However, if you keep reading, what you realize is that Bernie was trying to create a powerful, eye-catching lede by repeating the common currency in the hardcore men’s magazines and in ordinary newspapers:
Have you ever looked at the Stag, Man, Hero, Tough magazines on the shelf of your local bookstore? Do you know why the newspapers with the articles like “Girl 12 raped by 14 men” sell so well? To what in us are they appealing?
That was Bernie’s premise: Americans in 1972, on both the right (church-going) and the left (revolutionary meetings), were being sold a vile view of sex, whether in underground literature or in the mainstream media.
From that starting point, Bernie wrote paragraph after paragraph of free-form waffle that, once boiled down, seems to be saying that men and women should be equal partners:
Women, for their own preservation, are trying to pull themselves together. And it’s necessary for all of humanity that they do. Slavishness on the one hand breeds pigness [sic] on the other hand. Pigness on one hand breeds slavishness on the other. Men and women – both are losers. Women adapt themselves to fill the needs of men, and men adapt themselves to fill the needs of women. In the beginning there were strong men who killed the animals and brought home the food – and the dependent women who cooked it. No more! Only the roles remain – waiting to be shaken off. There are no “human” oppressors. Oppressors have lost their humanity. One one hand “slavishness,” on the other hand “pigness.” Six of one, half dozen of the other. Who wins?
Maybe I’m misreading the above paragraph (and that’s easy to do considering the truly awful, junior high school quality writing), but it seems Bernie was saying that women’s past dependency on men for food nurtured both men’s belief that women liked being dependent and women’s belief that men should be dominant. He was then trying to say that these sex roles were bad and needed to stop.
I’ll interject here and say something about woman’s romance literature. My beloved Jane Austen’s books are so delightful because her male and female characters are equals. They each need and learn something from the other, but neither is subservient and neither views the other through a veil of gender stereotypes. The same is true for Louisa May Alcott’s characters. Dorothy Sayers also falls in that tradition. (And yes, there are dozens of others, but those are the ones that spring to mind.)
However, there’s long been a genre of women’s writing that relies heavily on the dominant man sweeping away the woman. Although Charlotte Bronte’s Mr. Rochester and Jane Eye ultimately were equals (and she even proved to be the stronger character of the two), her book provided another template, one of powerful, brooding, domineering men. In many women’s romances from Charlotte Bronte on until the mid-1960s or so, this quality was represented in men seizing women and kissing them violently. That was as far as social acceptability could go. Men’s writing also traded on this “good, but incredibly dominant man” notion, which you can see in Ian Fleming’s The Spy Who Loved Me. In the book, James Bond is something of a brute but because he’s a righteous brute the woman willingly takes him to her bed.
By the late 1960s and early 1970s, romance novels started to take on a “rapey” feel, something that continued through the 1980s. The problem for romance writers was that good girls weren’t supposed to have premarital sex. By then, though, actual sex, not just implied sex, was selling, so the authors had to get the women into bed. The answer was to have “willing rape.” The “hero” forced sex on the woman, but it wasn’t actually rape (or as Whoopi Goldberg called it “rape rape”) because the woman secretly wanted it.
This was not a good era for the more graphic romance novels. Eventually, that whole icky rape fantasy idea went out the window when it became acceptable for women in romance novels to engage willingly in premarital sex. In a funny way, writing in 1972, Bernie seemed to have been honing in on this up-and-coming “rape fantasy” romance novel genre.
Having established that there was an unhealthy sexual dynamic at work in 1972 America, Bernie turned to gender roles. He wrote about women’s need to retain femininity while being strong. Ironically enough, this is the part of the essay that could actually hurt him today, not among conservatives but among strident feminists and those who deny that sex has anything to do with behavior:
Many women seem to be walking a tightrope now. Their qualities of love, openness, and gentleness were too deeply enmeshed with qualities of dependency, subservience, and masochism. How do you love – without being dependent? How do you be gentle – without being subservient? How do you maintain a relationship without giving up your identity and without getting strung out? How do you reach out and give your heart to your lover, but maintain the soul which is you?
In 2020, those are the real fighting words – to leftists, for they assume genuine gender differences.
Moreover, Bernie seemed to be aware that the rising tide of feminism in 1972 was predicated on man hatred:
And Men. Men are in pain too. They are thinking, wondering. What is it they want from a woman? Are they at fault? At they perpetrating this man-woman situation? Are they oppressors?
The man is bitter.
“You lied to me,” he said. (She did.)
“You said that you loved me, that you wanted me, that you needed me. Those are your words.” (They are.)
“But in reality,” he said, “If you ever loved me, or wanted me, or needed me (all of which I’m not certain was ever true), you also hated me. You hated me – just as you have hated every man in your entire life, but you didn’t have the guts to tell me that. You hated me before you ever saw me, even though I was not your father, or your teacher, or your sex friend when you were 13 years old, or your husband. You hated me not because of who I am, or what I was to you, but because I am a man. You did not deal with me as a person – as me. You lived a lie with me, used me and played games with me – and that’s a piggy thing to do.”
Even as Bernie recognized that men could feel women’s oozing hatred and contempt, he noted that, at the dawn of modern feminism, women had a legitimate complaint, which was that too many men didn’t view women as equals:
And she said, “You wanted me not as a woman, or a lover, or a friend, but as a submissive woman, or submissive friend, or submissive lover; and right now where my head is I balk at even the slightest suspicion of that kind of demand.”
In his awkward way, Bernie realized that men and women were at an impasse, staring at each other over an unbridgeable chasm:
And he said, “You’re full of __________.”
And they never again made love together (which they had each liked to do more than anything) or never ever saw each other one more time.
I am second to none in my deep dislike for Bernie Sanders’ politics. (I set up an entire little blog to challenge Bernie’s pernicious ideology.) I think he’s a genuinely evil man to promote Marxist socialism, something he does even while he stands on the unmarked graves of its 100,000,000 victims, most of them killed during Bernie’s lifetime. Everyone says Bernie is honest but he’s not. No one can be honest when peddling the world’s biggest lie, which is that socialism benefits people.
Still, despite’s Bernie’s being evil, this 1972 essay is not the way to attack him from the right. It may be poorly written, but he was trying to make a valid point and there’s no use allowing him to expand on that point to his benefit.
A corrupt politician, a communist, a “government by expert” guy, and a pro-American iconoclast are running for president. This is 1920 all over again.
The presidential election in 1920 was a very interesting one. At the end of the day, the race boiled down to a contest between the Republican Warren G. Harding and the Democrat James M. Cox. However, in the lead-up to the election, a more interesting field was in play. Here were four of the candidates:
Woodrow Wilson, the current president, wanted to run again despite the fact that he had been felled by a stroke. For obvious reasons, the Democrat party didn’t want an ailing man who was, by then, quite unpopular.
Eugene V. Debs, a hardcore socialist, made his fourth run for president, something he did from inside a prison cell.
Warren G. Harding, a former U.S. Senator, was the quintessential “smoke-filled room” candidate.
Teddy Roosevelt, a colorful character who had been president from 1901 through 1909, also wanted to run again.
That’s the short version about those men. Here’s the longer version, along with a little bit about their modern political cognates in the presidential race.
Woodrow Wilson was America’s first progressive president. He represented the culmination of an upper-middle-class movement that believed in better living through expertise. Not just any expertise, though, but government expertise. An academic who was certain that he knew best, he believed that the Constitution was a limiting document that prevented him from micromanaging the American people for their own benefit.
Wilson was convinced, in no small measure by his admiration for prominent late 19th century German social scientists, that “modern government” should be guided by administrative agency “experts” with specialized knowledge beyond the ken of ordinary Americans — and that these experts shouldn’t be unduly constrained by ordinary notions of democratic rule or constitutional constraints.
So, in his seminal 1887 article, “The Study of Administration,” published in the same year that the first modern regulatory commission, the Interstate Commerce Commission, was created, Wilson explained that he wanted to counter “the error of trying to do too much by vote.” Hence, he admonished that “self-government does not consist in having a hand in everything,” while pleading for “administrative elasticity and discretion” free from checks and balances.
Wilson well understood that his notion of Progressive governance by “fourth branch” administrative experts was constitutionally problematic. In 1891, he wrote that “the functions of government are in a very real sense independent of legislation, and even constitutions.” Regarding this view that the Constitution was an obstacle to be overcome, not a legitimate charter establishing a system of checks on government power, Wilson never wavered. He complained in 1913 as president: “The Constitution was founded on the law of gravitation. The government was to exist and move by virtue of the efficacy of ‘checks and balances.’ The trouble with the theory is that government is not a machine, but a living thing. No living thing can have its organs offset against each other, as checks, and live.”
Once Wilson decided that America needed to be the world’s policeman (because, again, Wilson knew best), he created the Wilson doctrine that has dominated American politics right up until the Trump presidency (even, in a screwy way, the Obama presidency. I’ve written about it here and won’t repeat myself. It’s enough to say that Wilson used the excuse of war to expand government power beyond anything seen before in America, reaching a point almost equal to martial law.
Wilson’s heir in the 2020 election is Mike Bloomberg. Like Wilson, Bloomberg believes in better living through government micromanagement. He trusts his own judgment about all things is better than the judgment of the American people. He believes that his expertise will make Americans so happy that they won’t notice the loss of their freedoms (especially the Second Amendment). Unlike Wilson, Bloomberg comes out of the business world, not academia, but his approach is the same. Incidentally, despite Bernie’s win in Nevada, creating momentum, don’t count Bloomberg out. Bloomberg believes (probably correctly) that Bernie can’t win. Moreover, he loathes Trump so much that he’ll throw any amount of money at defeating Bernie either before or at the Democrat convention.
As an aside, Adolf Hitler greatly admired Wilson’s approach to governance, including his racial and eugenic policies. After all, once you’ve set yourself up as a bureaucratic, administrative god, you start to see yourself as unconstrained by mere conventional morality.
Eugene V. Debs was a deeply committed socialist and, indeed, was one of the founders of the Industrial Workers of the World, an international labor union you may remember from your high school history class known as the “Wobblies.” It pretty much tells you everything you need to know about Debs that Howard Zinn greatly admired him: “Debs was what every socialist or anarchist or radical should be: fierce in his convictions, kind and compassionate in his personal relations.”
Bernie Sanders is Debs’ heir in this election. Indeed, Sanders has always been a Debs’ acolyte. In 1979, he made a documentary dedicated to Debs. (The Stanley Kurtz article from which I’m quoting, by the way, is from 2015.)
It’s true that this is a documentary about Debs’s socialism, not Sanders’s. Yet in his 1997 memoir, Outsider in the House, Sanders proudly invokes his Debs documentary and declares that Debs “remains a hero of mine.” Sanders himself plays the voice of Debs in the film. Sanders’ documentary lacks any hint that Debs might have either made mistakes or taken positions that may seem troubling in retrospect. Debs is Bernie’s hero and Bernie clearly wants Debs to be your hero too.
Nowadays, Sanders points to Scandinavian welfare states as the embodiment of his democratic socialism. I don’t doubt that Sanders would like to see America move in that direction, and that is troubling enough. Yet the Debs documentary suggests that Sanders’s ultimate goal lies beyond even European social democracy. The man who made this documentary was pretty clearly a classic socialist: committed to relentless class struggle, complete overthrow of the capitalist system — preferably by the vote, but by violence if necessary — and full worker control of the means of production via the government.
There’s plenty of continuity with Sanders’s current rhetoric here, like his controversial remarks decrying the number of deodorants consumers get to choose from in capitalist society. These days, Sanders calls for a “political revolution,” and the Debs documentary clearly admires labor unions and politicians who seek to bring about revolution by peaceful democratic means. Yet just as clearly, Sanders admires Debs for saying that, in the last resort, violent revolution remains an option.
Sanders’ treatment of Debs’ support for Russia’s communist revolution of 1917 is particularly striking. Here, at least, you might expect a bit of distancing or criticism from a truly “democratic” socialist. Yet Sanders obviously admires Debs’ decision to give “unqualified support to the Russian Revolution which had just taken place under the leadership of Lenin and Trotsky.” When Sanders turns to explaining the decline of Debs’ Socialist Party after 1917, he attributes it to the party’s opposition to World War I and to fear of persecution. Nowhere does Sanders suggest that the Russian Revolution and its aftermath may have raised legitimate concerns about socialism. Sanders’s honeymoon in the Soviet Union and his trips to Cuba and Nicaragua make a lot of sense in light of his documentary on Debs.
I recommend reading Kurtz’s entire article. It explains a lot about what Sanders is hiding in this election cycle, especially with his pretense that Denmark, a capitalist state with a strong welfare sector, is what socialism looks like.
Incidentally, I believe that both Buttigieg, the son of an open Marxist college professor, and Amy Klobuchar, a true daughter of leftist Minnesota, hope ultimately to achieve Debs’ goals from 1920. They’re Fabians, though, believing that slo-mo socialism is more palatable than a rush into total socialism.
Warren G. Harding was the establishment favorite. An amiable, corrupt dunce, the Republican party put him in place because they knew they could control him and because his fuzzy politics and his willingness to say whatever it took to win aligned generally with Republican party goals in 1920. Eventually, his corruption caught up with him, ending in the famous (or infamous) Teapot Dome Scandal.
One hundred years later, and the amiable, corrupt dunce is Joe Biden, who entered the primary season as the Democrat establishment’s favorite. Nobody expects much from Joe Biden, other than to just do whatever leftist initiative the backroom boys and girls tell him to do. In the unlikely event he becomes president, his inevitable corruption scandal will easily eclipse anything attached to Harding. Moreover, while Harding may have been a pawn, the Hunter Biden story says that Joe Biden is an actor, not a pawn.
And finally, there’s Teddy Roosevelt. From the first day he hit the American political scene, Teddy Roosevelt was a happy warrior — a truly larger-than-life character. He had a ferocious love for America, was brash and blustery, came up with innovative ideas, and was a fierce warrior against corruption and monopolies. He also had a big, colorful, successful brood, including (by his beautiful first wife) his brilliant, charismatic daughter, Alice Roosevelt Longworth. He was an American original in every way.
We currently have such an American original in the White House in the person of Donald Trump. He too is a happy warrior — a brash, blustery, larger-than-life character who loves America ferociously and has a big, colorful, successful brood, including (by his beautiful first wife) his brilliant, charismatic daughter, Ivanka Kushner. And Trump, of course, is nothing if not an American original.
[T]he president was a profound supporter of Jews and their needs and interests, both at home and overseas, and he was much beloved by the Jewish people. Roosevelt had visited Eretz Yisrael, then under Ottoman rule, in 1873 as a teenager and written about the trip in his diary, including a description of Jews at prayer at the Kotel.
As regimental commander of the famed Rough Riders leading the charge up San Juan Hill during the Spanish-American War, he developed great admiration for the bravery of the 17 Jews under his command. Praising them, he said, “One of the best colonels among the regulars who fought beside me was a Jew. One of the commanders of the ship which blockaded the coast so well was a Jew. In my own regiment, I promoted five men from the ranks for valor… and these included one Jew.” The first of the Rough Riders to be killed in action was a Jew, 16-year-old Jacob Wilbusky of Texas (and the first to fall in the American attack on Manila was also a Jew, Sergeant Maurice Joost of California).
As police commissioner, Roosevelt developed a special relationship with Jews, praising them for their dedicated service to New York City. In one celebrated incident, the bravery of a Jewish policeman racing fearlessly into a burning house convinced Roosevelt that Jews could make outstanding contributions to America and that discrimination against them could not be tolerated.
In his autobiography, he tells the amusing tale of a Pastor Hermann Ahlwardt, a German preacher who had embarked on an anti-Semitic crusade against the Jews of New York; Roosevelt specifically assigned 40 Jewish police officers to protect him, writing that the “proper thing to do was to make [Ahlwardt] ridiculous.”
(Do read the whole article from which I quoted because it’s a fascinating look at the last president before Trump who supported Jews and the State of Israel — although Israel was only an idea, not a state, at the time.)
Roosevelt famously believed in speaking softly and carrying a big stick. Trump has changed that a bit. In dealing with America’s enemies, he speaks jovially, even in a very friendly fashion, but he makes clear that he has a big stick. Remember how, while dining with Chinese President Xi, Trump excused himself to order a missile strike on Syria. Trump has also rebuilt the American military, decimated by eight years of Obama policies. Trump makes it clear that he prefers peace but is ready for war.
Naturally, there are differences between Roosevelt and Trump. The most substantive is that Teddy’s crusade against corruption was against corruption in the private sector. Trump, of course, is waging an equally fierce war against corruption within the government itself.
But back to the 1920 campaign season. In 1919, Roosevelt died right as the campaign season began and Wilson was rejected by his own party. In 1920 itself, Debs got less than 4% of the vote, and Harding won.
This time around, things are different: Trump, the Roosevelt cognate, is thankfully not dead but is thriving in the White House. Bloomberg, the Warren cognate, is falling in the polls. Biden, the Harding cognate, almost certainly won’t win the election because he’s cratering in polls and primaries. And Sanders — the Eugene V. Debs of 2020 — is soaring to wild success in the Democrat primary.
In 1920, American voters did not choose wisely. Harding went on to become one of the least successful, most denigrated presidents in American history. Had he not died in office, leading to Coolidge’s hands-off, constitutional presidency, there’s no telling how far off the rails America might have gone.
Now, in 2020, Americans have another chance to choose wisely. As matters are shaping up, they can hand the presidency to our 21st century Teddy Roosevelt or they can give it to the 21st century Eugene V. Debs. We are being reminded that, while history may line up the same playing pieces, voters do not have to make the same moves.
With Bernie rising in the polls, getting closer to controlling our government, note how he has started to demand dangerous, anti-liberty gun control.
The website I Like Bernie, But… seeks to address concerns that voters might have about Bernie Sanders, and to assure them that his plans work, that he’s electable, and that his vision his sound. Previous posts on this blog have addressed the I Like Bernie take on his socialism (yes, he’s a socialist, not a Democrat) and his tax and spend plans (which are great if you want to kill the economy). This post takes on the I Like Bernie discussion about Bernie and guns.
The question asked at I Like Bernie is “Isn’t he too weak on gun control?” The I Like Bernie team then hastens to assure readers that no, he’s not. The Brady Campaign loves him and the NRA hates him.
The Progressive concern about Bernie and gun control arises because of Bernie’s long-ago Second Amendment friendly votes on various gun control initiatives during his years in the Senate:
Voted YES on allowing firearms in checked baggage on Amtrak trains. (Apr 2009)
Voted YES on prohibiting foreign & UN aid that restricts US gun ownership. (Sep 2007)
Voted YES on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse. (Apr 2003)
Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)
As you can see, barring Bernie’s “no” vote on decreasing waiting periods, that’s a pretty gun supportive record, which is definitely off-putting to Progressives. However, by 2013, Sanders was allying with the Progressive caucus on gun issues when he supported banning assault weapons and universal background checks. These votes left Second Amendment proponents dubious about Bernie’s trustworthiness on gun rights.
It seems Sanders, for his part, ran afoul of the organization [NRA] in 1994, when he voted for a bill that would have banned 19 varieties of semiautomatic assault weapons. According to Richard Feldman, a former NRA lobbyist, voting in favor of banning any kind of firearm is, in the eyes of the NRA, unredeemable. “Unless you vote the other way later on,” he adds.
But since 2016, Sanders, who’s now running for the presidential nomination in 2020, has taken a different tack on guns. He’s reiterated the need to expand background checks and ban assault weapons. He’s pointed to his broader support for gun control, and co-sponsored several Senate gun violence bills. In public appearances and social media, he’s highlighted his own past remarks, going back to the late 1980s, in which he called for a ban on assault weapons.
Sanders emphasized the issue in his campaign announcement speech: “I’m running for president because we must end the epidemic of gun violence in this country. We need to take on the NRA, expand background checks, end the gun show loophole, and ban the sale and distribution of assault weapons.”
For those wondering why Bernie’s increasing urge to grab guns is a bad thing, let me explain.
An armed government aimed at a disarmed citizenry is a recipe for tyranny and death
Data proves irrefutably that citizens are never in greater danger than when their government is armed and they are not. To prove that point, this analysis looks at the world’s most successful murderers over the last century or so. To do this, I break killers down into three categories:
Non-government actors without guns,
Non-government actors with guns, and
Killer governments (acting with guns, of course)
The numbers may surprise you.
First, here are the facts about the worst mass murders committed by people or corporations acting without guns:
The worst psychopathic individual mass murderer who killed without a gun: Gameel al-Batouti. On October 31, 1999, he cried out “Allahu Akbar” as he piloted a plane full of passengers into the Atlantic Ocean, killing 217 people.
The worst ideologically driven collective of mass murderers who killed without guns: The 19 al Qaeda members who, on September 11, 2001, used box cutters to hijack four planes, crashed three of those planes into three buildings and one plane into a field, killing 2,996 people in a matter of hours.
The worst corporate mass murderer without a gun: In December 1984, the Union Carbide India Limited pesticide plant in Bhopal, India, accidentally released toxic gas from its facility, killing 3,787 people.
CONCLUSION: When dedicated or negligent mass murderers use something other than guns, they’re able to achieve deaths that range from a few hundred to a few thousand.
Second, here is information about people or corporations that committed mass murder with guns:
The worst psychopathic individual mass murderer who used a gun: Anders Behring Breivik who, on July 22, 2011, shot and killed 69 people in Norway – mostly teenagers. This rampage came after he’d already set off a bomb, killing 8 people. Norway has strict gun control.
The worst ideologically driven collective mass murderers who used guns: Given Islamists’ tendency to use all weapons available to shoot as many people as possible in as many countries as they can, this is a tough one to call. I believe, though, that the Mumbai terror attack in 2008 is the largest ideologically driven mass murder that relied solely on guns. Throughout the city of Mumbai, Islamic terrorists engaged in a coordinated attack that killed 154 people. The unbelievably bloody and shocking mall shooting that al Shabaab staged in Kenya killed only 63 people, and the Paris Massacre in November 2015 claimed only 130 lives.
The worst corporate mass murder using guns: I can’t find any corporation that slaughtered people with guns. To the extent that numerous workers died during 19th century labor disputes, those deaths occurred because state government, siding with management, sent out the state’s militia to disperse the strikers. For example, in November 1887, in Thibodaux, Louisiana, the state militia killed between 35 and 300 black sugar plantation strikers. The 20th and 21st century did not offer such examples.
CONCLUSION: When individual killers or small groups of killers rely on guns, their effectiveness is limited, compared to those who use planes or bombs. In addition, corporations (outside of crazed Hollywood movies) drop out of the running entirely.
Before moving on to those entities that rack up the highest body counts with guns (that would be governments), let’s summarize the above information and make a few additional points about murderous individuals with guns: Individuals and corporations can and do kill. However, even when given optimal killing situations (e.g., acts of terrorism or corporate negligence), the numbers stay in the low thousands – and actually sink significantly lower when guns are involved.
Of course, there’s an obvious hole in the above data, and that’s the most common gun-death situation in America: Small killing events (a murder here, a murder there), that over time result in a lot of dead bodies. Believe it or not, though, those numbers (a) are not as bad as you think; (b) mostly fall, rather than rise, as legal gun ownership increases; and (c) are driven more by urban culture than gun ownership.
Let’s start by adding up America’s annual murder statistics from 1960 through 2018. Over that 58-year period, the total number of Americans killed was 1,019,167. (This number encompasses all murders, not just those with guns, but we’ll still use it as the most extreme illustration of Americans’ alleged propensity to violence.)
For those who like averages, that’s an average of 17,572 murders per year – which is, of course, a nonsensical number, because the data shows that murder rates are variably and always bear some relationship to America’s growing population. (Regarding the variability, note the sudden spike in murder beginning in 2015, a date that coincides with the Black Lives Matter movement attacking policing.)
Just for fun, let’s pretend America had 17,572 murders per year every year since 1776, when she declared her independence from Britain. That’s a ludicrous notion, of course, given that America’s population was then only around 2.5 million, compared to today’s 330 million. Still, I’m going to extremes to make a point. If we multiple 17,572 by 243, we get a ridiculously high total American murder rate (by all methods, not just guns) of 4,269,996 over a 243 year span.
Ridiculous or not, I’m going with that 4,269,996 number because I want to make a point. As you’ll see, 4,269,996 individual murders over 243 years is chump change compared to the numbers armed governments acting against disarmed citizens can kill in anything from a year to a decade. Here is the damning data showing what happens when armed governments are able to turn on their own citizens or engage in genocidal attacks against specifically selected religious, cultural, or racial groups – all of them unarmed and defenseless.
Turkey: In 1915, the Turkish government ordered and carried out the slaughter of 1.5 million Armenians.
Soviet Union: From the 1920s through mid-1930s, the Soviet government under Stalin declared war on the independent Ukrainian farmers known as Kulaks. Through government engineered starvation, deportation, and execution, enforced with Soviet gun power, the Soviets are estimated to have killed approximately 7 million Kulaks.
The Kulaks were just one group who died off in a specific mass killing. In fact, nobody really knows how many of its unarmed citizens the Soviet Union killed, whether using starvation, outright execution, or deadly penal colonies. Estimates range from 7 million to 20 million people dying due to the Soviet government’s policies and purges.
China in the 1960s through 1970s: When it comes to a government killing its own citizens, the Soviets were pikers compared to the Chinese. Current estimates for those who died during the Great Leap Forward due to government engineered famine, executions, and slave labor, range from between 23 million to 46 million unarmed Chinese. Some estimates (outliers, admittedly) posit even 50 million or more Chinese dying to appease Chairman Mao’s statist vision. (No pictures here, because China was then a closed system, much like North Korea today, and managed to hide what it did.)
Nazi Germany, from 1933-1945: You knew I’d get to the Nazis, of course. Not satisfied with purging their own country of Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, and handicapped people, the Nazis conquered Europe from France to Poland to Denmark and embarked upon a purge in those countries too.
Without exception, the civilians that the Nazis targeted were already unarmed (voluntarily or involuntarily), losing their weapons either before the Nazis came to power (Jews in the Pale, the large area between Russia and Poland, were never allowed arms) or ended up disarmed when the Nazis achieved power.
With their pick of helpless victims, the Nazis killed 6,000,000 Jews; 250,000 gypsies; 220,000 homosexuals, and, through slave labor, executions, and starvation, as many as 10,000,000 Slavic people in just six years. (The number of handicapped people killed is unknown.) As an aside, when the Nazi gun-control gang got the bit in their teeth and went to war, the war itself resulted in the deaths of almost 20,000,000 European civilians who weren’t targeted because of race, religion, sexual orientation, or disability but who were, instead, just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Cambodia: Following the Cambodian Civil War, Pol Pot rose to power in Cambodia. Once in power, in the years between 1975 and 1979, his government killed between 1.7 and 2.2 million of its own unarmed citizens, out of a population of around 8 million people. Were the U.S. to have a Pol Pot moment today, that would be the equivalent of having the federal government kill 66 million to 85 million people in four years.
North Korea: Nobody knows how many North Koreans (none of whom are allowed arms) have died since the murderous Kim regime came into power. One estimate is that 1,293,000 North Koreans have died at their government’s hands. That number, of course, is entirely separate from the hundreds of thousands of North Koreans residing in concentration camps throughout that hellish little nation. We know something about what goes on those camps because of the small number who have escaped to tell the tale:
The above are the government-engineered mass murders that spring most readily to my mind. I’ve obviously left out many that properly belong on the list, everything from Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, to Cuba, to just about every tin-pot dictatorship in Africa and Latin America. So far as I know, we don’t have an official ISIS death toll but it’s easily in the high five figures.
If you would like a fuller look at the government-engineered mass murders in the 20th and 21st centuries, I recommend R. J. Rummel’s Statistics of Democide, which examines the kill rate of 214 regimes. I’ve picked my way through some of this opus and, even though Rummel’s writing is scholarly not scintillating, I was able to catch the depressing gist: governments kill and, given the chance, they kill often, in staggering numbers.
Think about this: Progressives are worried about leaving guns in the hands of individuals who can manage in a single incident, and only with spectacular effort or negligence, to kill people in fairly low numbers. At the same time, Progressives, who currently look to Bernie as their leader, desperately want to hand all weapons over to the government, leaving the population unarmed, despite compelling evidence showing that armed governments with an unarmed population at their mercy kill in the millions, with a few million dead here and another fifty million dead there.
Stalin spoke from personal experience when he said, “The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic.” It’s fine to cry over the tragedies, but Progressives really should to direct their energy to avoiding the statistics. (And of course, there’s always the argument to be made that Bernie, who was alive during the post-WWII Soviet purges and gulags, the Maoist Great Leap Forward, and the Cambodian Killing Fields – all statist attacks on their own disarmed citizens – is untroubled by government mass murder.)
The Founding Fathers ratified the Second Amendment because they understood the dangers government poses.
Looking back at the American Revolution, it’s easy to assume that the result — an American victory — was a foregone conclusion. In fact, right up until the bitter end, the outcome could have gone either way. After all, the colonists had taken up arms against the most powerful military in the world. Anyone placing bets in 1776 or 1778 would have been smart to wager against the revolutionaries.
Indeed, if the revolutionaries had lived in the home country of England, it’s likely that those placing bets against the revolution would have been correct. England, an old, stable culture that had weathered a devastating revolution slightly more than 100 years before, was not much given to having individual citizens bearing arms. (The American rebellion began in part because the British sought to disarm the colonists.)
It was only in the Americas, far from “civilization,” that guns were a necessity. One does not go into the frontier unarmed. Too many people had untamed forests pressing against their fragile communities to manage without at least one musket, rifle, or pistol in their possession, not just to hunt for food but to protect themselves from both human and animal predators.
Because of their circumstances, the American colonists didn’t just possess arms; they knew how to use them. While George Washington despaired of turning his volunteers into a well-drilled, spit-and-polish military, the one thing he didn’t have to worry about was weapons training. His rag-tag army knew how to load, aim, and shoot (especially those Tennessee mountain boys). If the Continental Congress could provide the bullets, many of the colonists willingly provided their own guns and know-how.
The Revolutionary war had been over for eight years when the Founders enacted the Bill of Rights. It was in that context – the aftermath of a small colony’s successful revolution against the most powerful nation in the world – that the Founders determined that American citizens would never again be subordinate to, rather than in control of, their government.
For this reason, the first ten amendments to the Constitution do not define government power; they limit it. And more importantly, they limit it, not by having the government graciously extend a few privileges to America’s citizens, privileges that the government can as easily revoke, but instead by stating rights that individuals automatically possess without regard to the government’s powers.
The second of these stated rights – and that only one which is dedicated exclusively to a single principle, rather than a blend of related principles – refers to every citizen’s inherent (not government-granted, but inherent) right to possess arms:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
If the Second Amendment were written in modern English, the Founders might have phrased it this way:
The only way citizens can defend themselves against a tyrannical government is to create their own army (which, obviously, is separate from the government’s army). The people therefore have an overarching and innate right to have guns, and the government may not interfere with that right.
For those stuck on the phrase a “well regulated militia,” history irrefutably establishes that this does not mean that our Second Amendment rights exist only if each gun owner gets together with other gun owners on a regular basis to create an army, complete with drilling and officers and such-like. That is, back in 1791, when the Founders ratified the Second Amendment, they were not imagining an America dotted with “People’s Armies.” Instead, even though the federal government was small and weak, the Founders still worried that American citizens might in the future need to rebel against a government that had grown too powerful.
The revolutionaries’ own experience had shown them that citizens don’t need to have a standing militia that is always ready to fight. Instead, the citizens must only have the ability to come together as a well-regulated militia on an “as needed” basis (the need being the necessity to secure individual freedom against government). This ability to transform from peaceful citizens into an effective militia when needed requires a citizenry that, on its own initiative, is both well-armed and competent with those arms.
What’s important for us is that the Founders understood that every government has the potential to become tyrannical (although they couldn’t have predicted in their wildest dreams the mad scope of worldwide government killing in the 20th and 21st centuries). They therefore embedded in the Bill of Rights the ultimate barrier against tyranny: an armed population that, if needed, can instantly transform itself into a citizen army.
Yes, some of those armed citizens will do bad things with their guns, but even at their worst, they are insignificant killers compared to rogue governments. As a matter of principle, supported by data, an armed citizenry is safer than an unarmed one when it comes to the biggest, most blood-thirsty, most deadly predator known to man: Government.
Legal guns, in honest citizens’ hands, are the best defense against race-based murder.
Every black person knows that there is one American subgroup that dies more from gunshots than any other group in America: blacks, especially young black males:
According to the US Department of Justice, African Americans accounted for 52.5% of all homicide offenders from 1980 to 2008, with Whites 45.3% and “Other” 2.2%. The offending rate for African Americans was almost 8 times higher than Whites, and the victim rate 6 times higher. Most homicides were intraracial, with 84% of White victims killed by Whites, and 93% of African Americans victims were killed by African Americans.
In 2013, African Americans accounted for 52.2% of all murder arrests, with Whites 45.3% and Asians/Native Americans 2.5%. Of the above, 21.7% were Hispanic.
Blacks account for the majority of gun homicide victims/arrestees in the US while Whites account for the vast majority of non-gun homicide victims/arrestees. Of the gun murder victims in the United States between 2007-2016, 57% were black, 40.6% white (including Hispanic), 1.35% Asian, 0.98% unknown race and 0.48% Native American.
Non-gun homicides represented about 30% of total murders in the time period. Blacks were still overrepresented although only by about 2.5x their share of the general population. Of the non-gun murder victims in the United States between 2007-2016, 61.5% were white (including Hispanic), 32.9% black, 2.29% Asian, 1.89% unknown race and 1.43% Native American.
Progressives respond to these tragic numbers by citing socio-economic factors and racism, and then demanding ever greater gun control and claiming that anyone who opposes gun control is a racist. Then, when they achieve that gun control (as they have in Chicago, Washington D.C., Los Angeles, Detroit, etc.), they are perplexed that black youths die in ever greater numbers in the cities with the most gun control. The only fix they can imagine is more gun control on an ever greater scale.
I’d like to suggest that the answer lies with the simply stated NRA principle that, “when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” Real-time data shows that, when law-abiding citizens in black communities are also armed, the bad guys quickly start slinking away. Basically, most human predators are lazy, cowardly opportunists and they will not attack if doing so is dangerous.
The following paragraph sounds like a non sequitur, but it’s not. I’ll explain in a minute.
In 1991, Americans killed each other in the greatest numbers ever: 24,700 Americans died that year at the hands of other Americans. Since then, the numbers have declined steadily. In 2011, only 14,661 Americans were murdered, a 40% crime drop that reverted America to murder numbers last seen in around 1969, when 14,760 Americans were murdered. (There has been an uptick in urban murder rates in 2015, which may have had to do with police becoming passive in the face of the Black Lives Movement, but that’s a subject for another post, with its own analysis.) As John Lott has pointed out with almost mind-numbing repetitiveness, what happened since 1991 and today is that law-abiding Americans armed themselves in ever greater numbers.
What do declining gun-crime statistics have to do with my claim that making it easier for law-abiding citizens to have legal guns is the opposite of being racist? It’s simple: People who are not racist want blacks to live and thrive in safe environments — and those environments are best created and sustained when the predators are kept at bay by armed, law-abiding citizens.
Incidentally, one of the things few people learn in school is that the Democrat party has always worked hard to keep guns from blacks. This is true for the slave era, when Democrats were the slavery party; the post-Reconstruction era, when Democrats controlled the South; the Jim Crow era, when Democrats still controlled the South; and present day inner cities, which are Democrat-controlled and tragically crime-ridden.
Except for a few racist, Southern-Democrat chapters, the NRA has consistently fought against black disarmament, reasoning correctly that giving blacks guns would protect them against slavery, lynchings, Jim Crow generally, and predators inside and outside of their communities. (For more on the subject, read Ann Coulter’s article about gun rights and blacks, in which she summarizes with her usual élan the way in which the anti-black Southern hegemony worked hard to keep guns out of black hands in order to control and terrorize them more effectively. You may hate Coulter, and you’re within your rights to do so, but she’s got the facts on this subject.)
To sum it up, if you’re not a racist, you want American blacks to live and to thrive. They can do this only in safe communities and the safest black communities have always been those in which moral, law-abiding black citizens have been armed.
Safe communities are those with a strong moral compass and a lot of guns.
It’s tempting not to write anything here but, instead, simply to show the video of the would-be mass murderer entering a church in Texas yesterday only to be met instantly by armed citizens who ended his rampage after only two deaths, not dozens. The outcome would have been very different if the attendees had been trapped there, like fish in a barrel, while waiting the endless minutes for armed police to arrive:
The above video is not just a one-off. As I hope I’ve demonstrated above, an armed society is protected against its government, and armed moral, law-abiding citizens protect themselves from the predators amongst them. (This is why I strongly argue that American Jews to arm themselves.) Just look at England: Once it banned guns, it became a country with violent crime and murder rates consistent with South Africa’s – and that’s not something any civilized country wants to boast about.
The current Progressive political stance is to demand total disarmament because “one death is one too many.” That is a naive and unrealistic demand that results in more deaths, rather than fewer.
Mankind’s civilized veneer is thin at best. Turn on the news or read a history book and you’ll be reminded that human beings are infinitely creative when it comes to killing. If I felt so inclined, I could kill someone by coming upon them when they’re asleep and stabbing them repeatedly in the eyeball with a Bic pen. (Don’t worry; I’m not planning this but, rather, positing the possibility.) The gun’s invention added to man’s repertoire, but it didn’t change his inclination to kill.
What changed with guns is that guns evened things out, increasing ordinary people’s ability to defend against the predators among us. If a huge man gives every indication that he intends to use his ham-like hands and jackbooted feet to beat me to death, or that wicked knife to stab me to death, my best defense as a small woman is several gunshots fired off before he can close in on me. Likewise, an armed homeowner can stop the intruder at the door before a murder, rape, or robbery even has time to get started. (This video effectively makes that point.) And of course, it’s a good government that worries about infringing to much on its armed citizens’ freedoms.
Putting all guns in police hands is not the answer and that’s true even if one ignores the fact that too many governments have a nasty habit of committing mass murder. For one thing, even nice neighborhood cops can get the bad idea that they’re “the King of the world” if they’re running around in tanks, armed to the teeth, while unarmed citizens meekly obey them.
In addition, unless the gun violence is part of a rolling dispute that takes place over a long period of time, cops usually get to the scene long after the mayhem is finished. Just review again the video, above, of the shooting in Texas, with the shooter gunned down in seconds. The NRA summed up this practical reality by saying “When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.” Indeed, if you have a Hurricane Katrina situation, the police may be days, weeks, or months away.
Bad things happen. That’s life. But it’s certain that, on the whole, the best way for good people to defend themselves against bad people is for the good people to be armed. And maybe I’m naive, but when I look at Americans, I believe that there are many more good people than predators.
This principle isn’t undermined by the stories that routinely appear about kids dying tragically from a gun accident at home. Just as the problem in World War II wasn’t the guns but was the Nazis, too often the problem in those homes isn’t the guns it’s the parents. These are the homes in which parents use drugs or too much alcohol around the children, the homes that don’t have smoke detectors, the homes with small children that nevertheless have unprotected access to swimming pools, and of course the homes in which parents don’t follow basic gun safety rules. Their kids are unsafe under any circumstances.
Additionally, sometimes freak accidents just happen, with or without guns. I remember in the 1980s, in Texas, a woman died instantly when she tripped in her living room and crashed into her old sliding glass door, which shattered into razor-like shards, one of which severed her aorta. Likewise, a wine glass killed a woman in a slow-moving golf cart accident a couple of years ago. There is no such thing as perfect safety.
Even factoring in crimes, carelessness, and chance, the reality is that people are most safe when they have a gun. It is the best means by which they can defend themselves against all predators: humans, animals, ideologues, and governments.
Those advocating gun control need to lie to promote their cause — which should tell you that their cause is invalid.
When Progressives, from Bernie on down, demand push gun control, they do so using false data. If you have to falsify data to support your position, you don’t have a case. It’s as simple as that.
As just one example, gun control supporters published a Google map purporting to show 74 gun murders at American schools since the Newtown shooting in December 2012. Here’s that map:
People who are afraid of guns find this map terrifying. It obviously shows that our children aren’t going to schools; they’re going to shooting ranges — and they’re the targets. The problem, of course, is that the map is based upon a lie, and the lie is that almost none of those little flags are school shootings of the type that terrify white, Progressives living in suburban communities. Except that’s not true.
The [Washington] Post is admirably clear that the map includes both colleges and schools, that it counts “any instance in which a firearm was discharged within a school building or on school grounds,” and that the data isn’t “limited to mass shootings like Newtown.” This point has also been made forcefully by Charles C. Johnson, who yesterday looked into each of the 74 incidents and noted that not only did some of them not take place on campuses but that “fewer than 7 of the 74 school shootings listed by #Everytown are mass shootings,” that one or more probably didn’t happen at all, that at least one was actually a case of self-defense, and that 32 could be classified as “school shootings” only if we are to twist the meaning of the term beyond all recognition.
Why would gun-control advocates lie like this? Simple. The facts don’t support the premise that America’s schools are being turned into daily bloodbaths because of armed and crazed students. If you don’t have those useful facts, you have to invent them.
Here’s another lie, one that President Obama made in a speech on June 10, 2014, after another headline about white people getting shot, President Obama said,
We’re the only developed country on earth where this happens, and it happens now once a week. . . . I mean, our levels of gun violence are off the charts, there’s no advanced developed country on earth that would put up with this.
Obama added at another point in his speech that this level of killing is “becoming the norm.”
As I’ve demonstrated above, that’s untrue, for America’s violent crime — gun and otherwise — has been dropping since the 1990s. Indeed, we’re nowhere near the top nation when it comes to violence (although our immigrants, both legal and illegal, from those countries with extravagant violent crime may affect America’s own problems).
Obama’s obsession with the apparent ubiquity of mass gun deaths in America showed up again at the end of November 2015, after a shooting at a Planned Parenthood clinic that left three dead. He stated then that ” I say this every time we’ve got one of these mass shootings. This just doesn’t happen in other countries.” Obama had apparently forgotten that, just two weeks before, men armed with guns committed a mass shooting in Paris that killed 130 people.
Given President Obama’s statements, it bears repeating here that, contrary to the sense that mass murder is omnipresent in America (a sense driven by the immediacy of internet news and the media’s own blood lust), right up until the uptick in murder after Black Lives Matter cowed police, America’s murder levels had declined, returning us to numbers last seen in 1969. Even with the BLM uptick, one can still see that we’re not getting more violent, we’re getting significantly less violent.
And while we all learned in school that correlation isn’t causation, there’s compelling evidence from Western nations the world over, not to mention the individual American states, that violence goes down when legal gun ownership goes up, and that violence goes up when legal gun ownership goes down. That’s a pretty strong correlation/causation argument.
Let me reiterate the point I made at the beginning of this section: You know you’re right if your opponent’s only evidence is fraudulent.
To sum up, it’s entirely possible that everything gun-control advocates have ever believed about guns and gun control is wrong. Even Bernie seemed to grasp that when he was still dreaming of overthrowing the American government rather than running itself.
Any honest gun rights supporter will freely concede that guns can be used for evil purposes. What those who seek to control guns refuse to admit, though, is that history and crime statistics establish with almost boring repetition that people are safer when they live in a moral, armed country.
When it comes to the killers, data shows that individuals with guns are always inefficient killers, while governments acting against unarmed citizens are massively efficient killers, often leaving tens of millions of dead bodies in their wake. Significantly, in the modern era, no government has attempted to go full-bore totalitarian when its citizens are armed.
When it comes to those defending themselves, communities that have more law-abiding citizens with guns than criminals with guns are safe communities, a reality that would most benefit black Americans.
The bottom line is one that will make Progressives feel uncomfortable, but that is nevertheless true: Guns kill . . . and that’s a good thing. By doing so, they serve as a bulwark protecting individual citizens from predatory people and governments. That’s why individual citizens must strongly defend the Second Amendment right to bear arms, resisting all government efforts to grab their guns, something that would leave them vulnerable, not only to criminals and jihadists, but to the government itself.
If you’re a Progressive and any of this has resonated, perhaps you ought to rethink your support of candidates who promise to take away all privately owned guns (and that includes Bernie), leaving all guns solely in government hands, and give another look at Donald Trump who is the antithesis of a dictator.
And if you’re asking how we know that Trump is not now and will not be a dictator, the answer is simple: Trump believes that Americans should be armed, something that precludes his ever becoming a dictator. He knows that the vast majority of Americans are good people, who will not (and have not, given the 300 million privately owned guns already in existence) turn America into a giant shooting gallery, complete with human targets. Sadly, those shooting galleries do exist in America, but they’re confined to Democrat- and gun-controlled inner cities.
(You can see the other posts in this series here and here.)
In America, the term Right Wing is misused to imply that conservative Americans are fascists lusting for world domination; in fact, the opposite is true.
(As my regular readers (to whom I am endlessly grateful) know, I was away from my blog for some time caring for a relative who had surgery. Being away that long gave me time to think about “going a little crazy,” as Bob Ross likes to say when he adds another tree to a painting. In my case, “going a little crazy” meant wondering if I could do a video as well as a podcast.
In addition to the time spent researching how to do go about making a Power Point video (I’ve got to start somewhere), it took me six hours to create a 35 minute video and companion podcast. They both are a little glitchy, but not bad for a first effort. I will get better. But I will never forget my readers, so here is the same content in written form.)
The idea for this video came when I ended my trip with a much-needed massage. Because this is Tennessee, my masseur is a liberty-oriented man so, in the midst of a far-ranging conversation, he asked this question: “Why are conservatives called “fascists,” when fascism is a socialist doctrine?” An excellent question, and one I wanted to answer here.
The reality is that, even though the media loves to talk about “right wingers” (although never left wingers), there is no “left wing” versus “right wing” in America, at least as those terms are understood in the rest of the world. Instead, we only have liberty versus tyranny, along with the supporters of both those ideologies.
Ironically enough, although the French Revolution post-dated the end of the American revolution by six years, the terms “right wing” and “left wing” are leftovers from that overseas kerfuffle. Let me explain.
The French Revolution had as its slogan “Liberté, égalité, fraternité.” Liberty, equality, fraternity! In the context of the French Revolution, those words were always lies.
At the start of the Revolution, France had an absolute monarchy that sat on top of a large, equally absolutist aristocracy. It was not a sustainable system, and the revolutionaries intended to topple it. However, unlike the American revolutionaries who envisioned limited government coupled with individual liberty, that’s not what the French wanted. Instead, the revolutionaries imagined an absolutist commune, with the monarchy and aristocracy replaced by an equally controlling cabal of “the people.”
But what, you may ask, does this have to do with “left wing” and “right wing”? Simple. In the French Parlement during the lead-up to the Revolution, the representatives who sought to retain an absolutist government led by the monarchy and the aristocracy sat to the Speaker’s right. The representatives who sought to replace the existing government with an absolutist government led by “representatives of the people” sat to the Speaker’s left.
And that’s where the terms still used today in American and around the world came from: Those on the right seek to “conserve” the old ways; those on the left seek to upend them. Except, as I’ll develop at greater length, America has not traditionally had any cognates to this European left/right divide.
And now we get to my favorite chart, one that, for convenience’s sake, uses a left/right continuum to show how there are two sides to the political spectrum:
On the left (although it could just as easily be portrayed on the right side of the line) is absolutist, totalitarian government, something with which we are all familiar. It exists under many names – monarchy, socialism, communism, democratic socialism, fascism, theocracy, etc. – but it always plays out the same: maximum government control; minimum individual liberty.
Meanwhile, on the right side of the continuum (although I could have easily placed “liberty blue” on the left), is the political system that has limited government and maximum individual liberty. At its extreme, it’s anarchy. Otherwise, it’s . . . well, it’s really only the American experiment. Everywhere else in the world, government control is the standard.
So what is the American experiment? It was build on Britain’s Magna Carta and its 1689 Bill of Rights. That last document was a statement of limitations on monarchical. William of Orange and Queen Mary II had agreed to this Bill of Rights in order to to attain the British throne in the wake of 1688’s “Glorious Revolution.” (It was glorious because King James II fled, rather than going to war.)
If you look at the British Bill of Rights, you’ll see many echoes in our own Bill of Rights. However, the British Bill of Rights limits only the monarchy. Parliament was not limited, which is why it felt free to impose all sorts of restrictions on British citizens in the American colonies.
When the Founding Fathers decided to draft a Bill of Rights, they did it correctly. Instead, of stating the items as a negative charter (as Obama wrongly put it), one that simply tells government what it can’t do, the Founders stated our Bill of Rights as a set of rights inherent and inviolable in every individual. No government – no monarchy, no legislature, no judiciary, no official whatever – should be able to impede those rights without a high showing of necessity.
Hold that thought in mind as we look at the three most common forms of government outside of America in the years since WWI.
First, we have socialism, which exists not only as a free-standing form of government (National Socialists), but also as an umbrella term for the evil twins of communism and fascism. Under communism, there is no private ownership. Everything – and everybody – belongs to the government. Examples, all of them tyrannical, are the Soviet Union, China (despite its faux market economy), North Korea, and Cuba.
Back in the 1930s, fascism put a softer face on communism, because it did not nationalize all private property, instead limiting itself to nationalizing a few major industries, especially fuel and transportation. However, there is no freedom in a fascist country. Mussolini provided the ultimate definition of fascism: “All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.” (I also include today’s oligarchies in the list of fascist states, since they function much the same way.) In the World War II era, fascist states sought world domination and, in Germany’s case, included genocide and slavery in the service of an imaginary “master race.”
Today’s Europe is still fascist, although that would no doubt horrify Europeans were you to tell them that. Under both EU rule and the governments of the individual European states, there is private ownership, but major industries, especially transportation, are still nationalized. Moreover, the EU and the individual governments tightly control every aspect of people’s lives.
(When it comes to nationalized services, I have a real bee in my bonnet about these “soft” socialized states’ so-called “cradle to grave” care, something my parents’ European-based friends and family boasted about non-stop. These benefits had nothing to do with socialism. They were available in Europe because American taxpayers funded European defense costs during the Cold War. It wasn’t socialized medicine; it was American medicine. Now that the Cold War has ended and the money isn’t flowing as much, European socialized medicine is cratering.)
The difference between today’s European fascism and Hitler’s is that (a) it’s not called fascism today and (b) it’s not yet engaged in world domination and anti-Semitic genocide. However, given the speed with which Muslims are populating Europe, all in thrall to an Islamic doctrine that calls for world domination and anti-Semitic genocide, I think it won’t be long before Europe starts to repeat the 1930s.
The third type of government in the world today shows up in monarchies or theocracies, both of which thrive, and are often intertwined in the Middle East. Whether it’s Mullahs in Iran or Kings in Saudi Arabia, these are totalitarian governments that use religious doctrine to control every aspect of their citizens’ lives. (In Saudi Arabia, Prince Muhammed bin Salman is slowly trying to change this but, since he holds the tiger by the tail, it’s a very delicate and dangerous process.)
And then there’s America, which has a totally different system, one that, in its purest form, does everything it can both to limit government power and mob rule. There’s nothing else like it in the world.
The American political system as the Founders envisioned it has a limited federal government composed of three parts – executive, legislative, and judicial – each with unique spheres of power, each with some control over the other branches, and each jealous of its own power as a bulwark against any branch becoming too strong.
The Executive branch eschews pure democracy in favor of an Electoral College, forcing presidential candidates to campaign in every state (as Hillary learned to her cost). Without this, all presidents would be elected out of population centers. If the Democrats were able to do away with the Electoral College, something they’re trying to do through the grossly unconstitutional National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, all future American presidents would be elected by California, New York, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, Virginia, Massachusetts, and Washington.
Under the Legislative branch, we have two organs. The Senate was originally meant to have its members appointed by each state’s governors, ensuring (a) that the Senators would be responsive to their states and (b) that no senator would be enslaved to the passions of the mob. The 17th amendment changed that in 1912, probably not for the better.
The House controls the power of the purse and, before the 17th Amendment, was the only branch of government with direct democracy. House members must go back to the voters every two years to make their case. This is why impeachment begins in the House and why the current refusal to have a formal impeachment – which would force House members to make their positions known to their voters — is a direct betrayal of the voters.
Finally, the Judicial branch is the least democratic part of our government, for its members get selected by the President, get approved by the Senate, and then sit for life. In theory, it is impartial and rules only on whether matters are constitutional or unconstitutional, a power Chief Justice Marshall arrogated to the Court in the early 19th century.
In recent years, the federal judicial has boldly grabbed for itself both legislative power and executive power. The legislative power appears in its finding emanations of penumbras to justify federally sanctioned abortion, something never contemplated in the Constitution, and writing whole romance novels to allow gay marriage, another concept far afield from the Constitution. Both these issues belong in the states until such time as the Constitution is formally amended. As for executive power, every time some podunk judge in a Leftist district blocks a facially valid executive order from President Trump based upon the judge’s interpretation about the purity of Trump’s mind and soul . . . that’s an improper exercise of executive power.
Lastly, as I said before, our Founders gave us a Bill of Rights holding that certain rights are vested in the people and that the government cannot infringe them. This is extraordinary and differs from all other constitutions in the world, each of which is an endless book of bureaucratic does and don’ts.
So what kind of cool stuff flows from a limited government and a Bill of Rights? For starters, we have free market capitalism, which has been doing wonders since President Trump reformed taxes to leave more money with citizens and cut back on onerous regulations.
Strikingly, our Democrat Party presidential candidates have no room in their platforms for the free market. Bernie is a stone-cold communist. As an aside, given that he’s been alive for the greater part of the 20th century and all of the 21st (to date), he must know about the tens of millions dead and enslaved under communism (a knowledge sadly denied to uneducated millennials). That he still supports communism despite this knowledge means either that he’s the most stupid man ever to walk the earth or an evil tyrant wannabe. Neither reflects well on him or the voters who support him.
Warren also should know better, but I can attest to the fact that she’s stupid. Maybe evil too, but definitely stupid.
The most recent example of the disrespect the Left has for the free market comes from Kamala Harris, another candidate who is dumb as a rock, only dumber. Her candidacy is in free fall, so she’s promising to seize private property to prop it up. (Incidentally, I don’t think the government should fund private companies, but it’s important to note that, government aid notwithstanding, these are still companies with shareholders, employees, and profits.
Democrat presidential candidate Kamala Harris on if drug companies do not comply with her mandatory set drug prices: “I will snatch their patent so that we will take over”
Audience asks: “can we do that?”
“Yes, we can do that! Yes, we can do that! … I have the will to do it” pic.twitter.com/gpU8nnGt6h
— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) November 23, 2019
Another benefit we have is social mobility of a type that never existed anywhere else in the world before America. I created a little photo montage, just off the top of my head, of people who have attained success in a way that would not have been possible without America:
In America, the fact that your grandparents were rich doesn’t mean you will be, and the fact that they were poor doesn’t mean that is your fate either. We make our own fate in America.
One of my favorite rights – and one that I came to late in life – is the Second Amendment right to bear arms. I think this picture says it all:
In Nazi Germany, the government seized arms as a prelude to seizing people. A government should always stand in awe of its people’s right to defend itself against tyranny.
People should also be able to defend themselves against evil-doers in their own community. Mexico, a rapidly failing state, with appalling gun violence and skyrocketing murders, has some of the toughest gun control laws in the world.
Of course, the Democrat Party desperately wants your guns. Beto, before dropping out, was open about this – and please note the audience roar of delight:
And then there’s the right to free speech. In England, the cradle of free speech, it’s already gone:
Free speech isn’t doing so well in Leftist America either. In New York, you can be find $250,000 for “misgendering” someone. And in California, when it comes to long-term care facilities, it’s the law that you can be fined for “misgendering” residents there too.
So, going back to my chart and the left/right divide, here’s what you need to know about the rest of the world: it’s not tyranny versus liberty; it’s two different types of tyrants fighting each other for total control over citizens. In America, we have half of that equation. The American left wants total control over American citizens:
“We’re not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that’s fairly earned. I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money, but you know, part of the American way is, you can just keep on making it if you’re providing a good product.” – Barack Obama (net worth $40,000,000).
“You built a factory out there, good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads that the rest of us paid for. You hired workers that the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for.” — Elizabeth Warren (net worth $18,000,000).
“I will snatch their patent so that we will take over.” – Kamala Harris (net worth $4,000,000).
“Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15.” Beto O’Rourke (net worth $10,000,000-$15,000,000).
On the opposite side of the political aisle in America, however, things are different. Conservatives don’t crave power. They crave a smaller government that leaves citizens alone to pursue their own lives, and that concerns itself solely with such core issues as national security, a stable legal system, functional transportation across the country, and managing (God forbid) major health crises.
“A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.” – Gerald Ford
“No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth!” – Ronald Reagan
With the above in mind – American conservatives are the sole political movement in the world dedicated to individual liberty – why are American conservatives called “right wing” or “fascist,” terms that are tied to totalitarian control, while American leftists are called “liberal,” implying a dedication to individual liberty? It’s time for a little history lesson to answer that question.
Back in the 1930s, Hitler and Stalin both presided over socialist governments. The former was fascist (private ownership but government control), while the latter was communist (no private ownership of the means of production). They were hideous, evil fraternal twins of socialism.
As is often the case with sibling rivalry, the two countries (and their leaders) hated each other. Nevertheless, in August 1939, a week before Hitler invaded Poland, sparking WWII, Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia entered in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Under that pact, they swore to be neutral vis-à-vis each other in times of war.
When Hitler invaded Poland, Soviet Russia did nothing. Taking their cue from Russia, in America, communists also took a very lukewarm stance against Hitler.
The Pact ended abruptly on June 22, 1941, when Hitler initiated Operation Barbarossa by invading the Soviet Union. When America entered the War, it found itself allied with Russia against the Nazis. On the American home front, communists instantly became staunch and fervent anti-Nazis.
However, when the war ended, with the Allies victorious, and socialist/fascist Germany in ruins, American communists had a problem: Fascist socialism stood exposed as one of the most evil ideologies of all time. How were they to protect communist socialism, which was also one of the most evil ideologies of all time?
The answer was to create a false syllogism that took hold in academia and media, and that now controls American thought:
Communists and Fascists were enemies.
Communists helped win World War II, with the war’s end providing unquestioned proof that Fascists were completely evil.
Communists and American Republicans are enemies.
Republicans are therefore akin to Fascists and, like fascists, must be completely evil.
And what’s the moral of this story?
Next time someone accuses you, or any other conservative, of being “fascist” or “right wing,” object vigorously. You are a person committed to individual liberty as opposed to being a slave to an all-powerful government (no matter how woke, intersectional, and politically correct that government claims to be).
When you hear a Democrat presidential candidate say “Let me make this perfectly clear” . . . you are about to hear a lie at worst, a non-answer at best.
Elizabeth Warren in particular, but several of the proggies on stage last night, all exhibited the same verbal tic. When they were about to lie by omission or refuse to answer a question, they began their response with some variant of “Let me make this perfectly clear . . .” What followed was clearly NOT an answer to whatever question was asked. The formula was to follow “Let me make this perfectly clear” with some sort of re-direction — often several meaningless personal anecdotes — then the big, flourishing, holier-than-evil-conservatives and bad-orange-man finish.
Exhibit one: Sitting Bull, when asked whether she will admit her health care plan will drive up middle class taxes:
WARREN: So, let’s be clear about health care. And let’s actually start where [the] vice president did. We all owe a huge debt to President Obama, who fundamentally transformed health care in America and committed this country to health care for every human being.
And now the question is, how best can we improve on it? And I believe the best way we can do that is we make sure that everybody gets covered by health care at the lowest possible cost. How do we pay for it? We pay for it, those at the very top, the richest individuals and the biggest corporations, are going to pay more. And middle-class families are going to pay less. That’s how this is going to work.
So are taxes going up for the middle class under a Lieawatha plan? It’s not hard to read the smoke signals on this one. An honest answer would, of course, have been a simple “yes.” Or if she actually believed that cost savings on health care would be greater than any tax increase, she could simply say that. Clearly, Fauxcohauntus says neither. Stephanopoulos, to his credit, pointed that out and gave her a second bite at the apple, but the only thing she made “clear” in her second opportunity to answer the question was that she was using unique mathematical equations to imply middle class savings:
WARREN: Look, what families have to deal with is cost, total cost. That’s what they have to deal with. And understand, families are paying for their health care today. Families pay every time an insurance company says, “Sorry, you can’t see that specialist.” Every time an insurance company says, “Sorry, that doctor is out of network. Sorry, we are not covering that prescription.
Families are paying every time they don’t get a prescription filled because they can’t pay for it. They don’t have a lump checked out because they can’t afford the co-pay. What we’re talking about here is what’s going to happen in families’ pockets, what’s going to happen in their budgets.
And the answer is on Medicare-for-all, costs are going to go up for wealthier individuals and costs are going to go up for giant corporations. But for hard-working families across this country, costs are going to go down and that’s how it should work under Medicare-for-all in our health care system.
Exhibit 2: Still on the same issue. Biden points out the reality of Warren’s plan yet again, and again Stephanopoulos asks her about the numbers.
BIDEN: . . . The senator said before, it’s going to cost you in your pay — there will be a deductible, in your paycheck. You’re going to — the middle class person, someone making 60 grand with three kids, they’re going to end up paying $5,000 more. They’re going to end up paying 4 percent more on their income tax. That’s a reality. Now, it’s not a bad idea if you like it. I don’t like it.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Okay, now I want everybody to keep to the time, but you did invoke both senators. I have to get responses from them . . . and then we will broaden it out. Senator Warren, you go first.
WARREN: So, let’s be clear, I’ve actually never met anybody who likes their health insurance company. . . . I’ve met people who like their doctors. I’ve met people who like their nurses. I’ve met people who like their pharmacists. I’ve met people who like their physical therapists. What they want is access to health care. And we just need to be clear about what Medicare-for-all is all about.
Instead of paying premiums into insurance companies and then having insurance companies build their profits by saying no to coverage, we’re going to do this by saying, everyone is covered by Medicare-for-all, every health care provider is covered. And the only question here in terms of difference is where to send the bill? . . .
Exhibit 3: Paleface Who Speaks With Forked Tongue was clearly the worst of the bunch. But Bernie the Red’s “clear” answers weren’t that far behind, as he demonstrates when given the chance to admit to those numbers Biden had just raised:
SANDERS: Let us be clear, Joe, in the United States of America, we are spending twice as much per capita on health care as the Canadians or any other major country on earth.
BIDEN: This is America.
SANDERS: Yes, but Americans don’t want to pay twice as much as other countries. And they guarantee health care to all people. Under my Medicare-for-all proposal, when you don’t pay out-of-pocket and you don’t pay premiums, maybe you’ve run into people who love their premiums, I haven’t.
What people want is cost-effective health care, Medicare-for-all will save the average American substantial sums of money on his or her health care bill.
Exhibit 4 is Bernie again, this time trying clearly not to admit that Venezuela is socialist, and that any government with enough power to impose socialism is one with enough power to become dictatorial and tyrannical.
RAMOS [addressing Bernie the Red]: You haven’t been asked about Latin America in the previous debates, so let’s begin. Senator Sanders, one country where many immigrants are arriving from is Venezuela. A recent U.N. fact-finding mission found that thousands have been disappeared, tortured and killed by government forces in Venezuela. You admit that Venezuela does not have free elections, but still you refuse to call Nicolas Maduro a dictator — a dictator. Can you explain why? . . .
SANDERS: Well, first of all, let me be very clear. Anybody who does what Maduro does is a vicious tyrant. What we need now is international and regional cooperation for free elections in Venezuela so that the people of that country can make — can create their own future. . . .
Then it was the turn of the only true brown-noser on stage, Kamala Harris, to be clear:
DAVIS: Also a concern for people of color is criminal justice reform. Senator Harris, you released your plan for that just this week. And it does contradict some of your prior positions. Among them, you used to oppose the legalization of marijuana; now you don’t. You used to oppose outside investigations of police shootings; now you don’t. You’ve said that you changed on these and other things because you were, quote, “swimming against the current, and thankfully the currents have changed.” But when you had the power, why didn’t you try to effect change then?
HARRIS: So, there have been — there have been — I’m glad you asked me this question, and there have been many distortions of my record.
Let me be very clear. I made a decision to become a prosecutor for two reasons. One, I’ve always wanted to protect people and keep them safe. And second, I was born knowing about how this criminal justice system in America has worked in a way that has been informed by racial bias. And I could tell you extensively about the experiences I and my family members have personally had. But I made a decision that, if I was going to have the ability to reform the system, I would try to do it from the inside. . . .
At any rate, this is far from the only progressive verbal jiujitsu you will see from our modern left. The other you will inevitably see is when you hear a progressive claim that someone is “weaponizing” something against them. What that means is that a conservative has raised a completely valid issue and the proggie can only defend by saying the conservative is evil for even raising the issue, thus making of the proggie the morally superior victim. It is clearly as intellectually a dishonest argument as you will ever hear raised.
If listening to Trump irks you, stop listening and start focusing on his accomplishments. Then do the same for the Dem candidates. Then vote for Trump.
(If you prefer listening over reading, the companion podcast to this post is embedded below, or you can listen to it at Libsyn or at Apple podcasts. I’m trying to make a go of my podcasting so, if you like the podcasts, please share them with your friends and on social media. Giving my podcast good ratings helps too.)
When I’m bored, I watch video compilations showing how to do things better. Each video has 20-30 clips showing clever tricks for doing anything better (cleaning, packing, cooking, etc.). The videos are “show and tell,” without narration, but with a music soundtrack. These soundtracks are always horrible.
This video, viewed over 270,000,000 times, shows both the useful information and the horrible music:
The bad music doesn’t make me avoid the content. Instead, I mute the music.
There’s a point to his seemingly irrelevant anecdote: When NeverTrumpers start wittering on about about Trump’s latest bombastic tweet or speech, or another act of boastful puffery, I want to tell them to do as I do with my life-hacking videos: Turn off the sound and just focus on the content — the content, in this case, being his achievements in office.
It occurred to me that this would be an interesting test to apply as well to the top Democrat candidates, each of whom functions at three different levels: (1) Promises to the base; (2) personal style; and (3) actual accomplishments.
When it comes to promises to the base, the Dems are almost indistinguishable:
Free health care for everyone, including illegal aliens who will be let into the country without barrier and allowed to stay without limits;
Seizing all privately held guns;
Creating policies that ignore that human biology, absent statistically insignificant aberrations, divides humans into two sexes, male and female;
Ceding control over foreign policy, national security, and trade to international organizations (i.e., NATO and the UN);
Allowing China to continue using unfair, illegal trade practices to drain the world’s wealth into its coffers;
Bowing before the Iranian mullahs;
Treating totalitarian, misogynistic, homophobic, anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, blood-thirsty Palestinians as equal negotiating partners with the Israelis who have a full and free democracy; and
Using energy policy to roll us back to a pre-modern time without planes, trains, and automobiles, as well as without lights, heat, air-conditioning, computers, stable food supplies, clean water, and anything else that relies on a stable, abundant supply of energy.
(Andrew Yang’s proposed universal income and Tulsi’s slight differences on the border and abortion do not detract from the core Leftism of their policies. Also, on Israel, the candidates have been all over the board, but they seem to have coalesced around the realization that the base is hostile to Israel.)
On style points, what can I say? It’s always personal.
I personally find unappealing Kamala’s nasal, bored affect; Warren’s scolding schoolmarm; Bernie’s spit-flecked New York-accented hectoring; Booker’s Spartawuss self-righteousness; Tulsi’s flat, loud drone; Buttigieg’s precocious little boy; Klobuchar’s “Mother knows best ” vibe; Robert Francis O’Rourke’s shrill adolescent hipster act; Yang’s tech-savvy, hip Asian dude cutesiness; Williamson’s New Age, crystal-clutching love bombing; and, of course, Biden’s “confused old man yelling at the clouds” dementia.
Here’s the thing, though, about both personality and campaign promises: What we hear is unrelated to what is. As with those life hack videos, the auditory input is noise that disrupts our brain, obscuring our ability to see what’s going on. With this post, I’m asking you to try to look at the Democrat candidates and Donald Trump with the noise turned off. Look, instead, at the high (and low) points of who they are and what they’ve actually done or tried to do.
At the end of this post, you can see the full bullet-point lists I made giving bios for each candidate, followed by their significant accomplishments and failures. I made the lists the lazy way, relying almost entirely on information culled from Wikipedia, which tends to be Democrat friendly. For purposes of the body of this post, here’s a super-brief summary of the candidates’ highs and lows, again without the background noise of promises and personas:
Joe Biden was a marginal student, haunted by a plagiarism charge in law school; he had minimal private sector legal experience; he spent 44 years in D.C. (36 in the Senate and 8 as Veep); he ran twice for president, with plagiarism again a problem. While in D.C., he opposed federal busing; helped pass a crime law that stripped men from black communities; borked Robert Bork and hi-tech lynched Clarence Thomas; banned “assault weapons”; flipped and flopped on war; and opposed the Surge but supported the total withdrawal from Iraq that led to ISIS. He’s also way too handsy and sniffy with little girls and grown women.
Elizabeth Warren was a decent student who ended up as a career legal academic, first in Houston, then in Austin, then Pennsylvania, and finally at Harvard. It’s believed she achieved her last two gigs because she claimed, falsely, to be Native American. I had her for banking law during her Austin years and hated her, finding her confusing and dishonest.
Warren gained fame for two studies, the first pointing out the obvious, which is that good schools raise housing prices, causing people to incur high debt loads, and the second, using shoddy research methods, making inflated claims about medical bankruptcies.
In addition to a high Harvard lecturer salary (combined with a low workload), she made many millions flipping foreclosed houses and advising corporations on legal matters that might not be too popular with her base, such as working for Dow Chemical on breast implant cases to limit its liability to women. Overnight, though, she turned into a fiery Leftists SJW. In addition to becoming famous for her pronouncements, her single concrete accomplishment in politics was to create the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency given the task of overseeing the American financial sector without itself being overseen or answerable to any of the three constitutional branches of government.
Bernie Sanders is now and always has been a professional communist. He lives and breathes communism. Unlike today’s millennials, who don’t remember the Cold War and who learn nothing in college, he has no excuse for celebrating communism, for he saw played out in real time how communism killed approximately 100 million people around the world, and brought hunger and terror to countless others. He’s held political office since 1981. During that time, he putzed around in a small Vermont town and then made speeches in the House and Senate. He was once pro-gun but is no longer. He is technically Jewish, but is hostile to Israel and recently accepted an endorsement from Linda Sarsour, an open anti-Semite. He dreams of bringing every aspect of American lives under the government’s — that is, Bernie’s — total control.
Kamala Harris was raised in an extremely affluent household (and, like Obama, raised for many years outside of the U.S.). A lawyer, she got her political start in the bed of California House Speaker Willie Brown, effectively sleeping her way to the middle. She was elected as San Francisco’s District Attorney and then as California’s Attorney General. She was often hard on crime, which ought to be an honorable thing but, in today’s world, is a record that she’s trying to bury. She also was involved in several ethics scandals and Tulsi rightly accused her of violating prisoners’ rights and condoning unconstitutional prosecutorial misconduct. As Senator, she’s done nothing but oppose Trump.
Cory Booker has born the burden of being a light-skinned black(ish) man, from an affluent background, when all he’s always wanted was to be is a dark-skinned black man from the mean streets. He’s hyper-educated, having attended Stanford (a B.A. and an M.A.), Oxford (on a Rhodes scholarship), and Yale (J.D.). He got off to a good start as mayor of Newark, slightly lowering crime in his first two years, but that didn’t last. Corruption dogged his administration, especially with the $100 million Mark Zuckerberg gave the city for education reform. The money benefited everyone but Newark kids. Once in the Senate, Booker worked on gay rights initiatives, was pro-Israel, wanted tougher sanctions against Iran, and, during the Kavanaugh hearings, called himself Spartacus for publishing documents that the Republicans had already produced. He also thinks we should all be vegans.
Pete Buttigieg is gay, married, hyper-educated, and portrays himself as an expert on “woke” Christianity (not to be confused with textual Christianity). He attended Harvard and Oxford. He joined the Naval Reserves (good for him) and spent 7 months in Afghanistan, mostly working as a driver in a dangerous region. (Since he’s multilingual and was in naval intelligence, I assume the driving gig utilized his language skills.) He’s in his second term as mayor of South Bend, one of America’s most crime-ridden mid-sized cities. In that role, he incurred $800,000 in settlement costs connected with firing the city’s first black police chief; repaired or demolished 1,000 blighted properties; and started a nightly laser light display.
Julian Castro comes from a radical household, for his mother co-founded La Raza. He attended Stanford, admitting that he was an affirmative action admission. He then got a degree from Harvard law. He spent the next few years alternating between local San Antonio politics and running a small private law practice. He eventually became San Antonio’s mayor, which was a springboard to becoming Obama’s HUD secretary. In San Antonio, he created “a community wide visioning effort” and used increased sales taxes to expand pre-K education. As HUD secretary, he claims to have stabilized the housing market, helped after community disasters, and worked on lead safety in government housing.
Amy Klobuchar got a B.A. from Yale and a J.D. from the University of Chicago, after which she worked as a corporate lawyer before going into local politics. She’s been in the U.S. Senate since 2006. She has her name on lots of successful bills, primarily (it seems) because she attaches herself like a leech to anodyne causes that offend no one. She was recently outed as an exceptionally abusive boss. Her public vibe is “Mother knows best.” Her private behavior is “Mommie Dearest.”
Robert Francis O’Rourke is a rich, college-educated slacker who bummed around for years, married a billionaire’s daughter, and used a stint on the El Paso City Council to get elected to the House of Representatives. He made his name nationally by running unsuccessfully for Ted Cruz’s Senate seat. While in the House, he focused on making the southern border more efficient (better trained officers, lower waiting times). When Israel was under attack by Hamas, he refused to support funding for the Iron Dome defense system, saying that American had been cruel to Israel by being kind, so he was going to be kind by being cruel . . . or something.
Andrew Yang is the child of a wealthy Taiwanese immigrant household who went to a very chi-chi boarding school and then got a B.A. from Brown and a J.D. from Columbia. He worked as a lawyer and test prep instructor being founding a start up aimed at funding entrepreneurs whom his company located by trolling colleges for top graduates. He claims to be good at math.
Tulsi Gabbard has a B.S. in Business. She got elected to Hawaii’s legislature and, while there, joined the Army National Guard. She was called up and spent a year in Iraq as a specialist for a medical company. Apparently it agreed with her, because she attended Officer Candidate School, graduating with honors. As a second lieutenant, she became a military police officer. She served in Kuwait, training the Kuwait National Guard, and currently holds the rank of major. On the home front, after rising through Hawaii politics, she was elected to the U.S. House. She has worked on successful bills to improve airport screenings for handicapped vets and to give Congressional medals of honor to Filipino and Filipino-American WWII vets. She’s tried to return elections to paper ballots. She shows occasional strong common sense (paper ballots, no third trimester elections, better border security), but is mostly a toe-the-line Leftist.
Marianne Williamson is a college drop-out who made her name as a New Age guru, writing books, lecturing, and ministering. She created an organization, with which she is no longer associated, that brought food to HIV/AIDS patients in L.A. She also created the Global Renaissance Alliance, an initiative to organize worldwide “citizen salons” to pray for peace and Leftist causes. She recently made news for her insight that conservatives are nice people compared to Leftists.
Donald Trump . . . where to begin? He was a phenomenally popular businessman who took the golden spoon he was born with and turned it into a diamond-encrusted platinum spoon. He made himself and his persona one of his best and most popular products; built high-end properties all over the world; created a reputation for getting projects done on time and under budget; was famous in the New York construction world for giving women and minorities prominent positions on projects; has always fought to win; used bankruptcy strategically, in a way that harmed creditors, but greatly increased his wealth; and created the most popular reality show in TV history – to name just a few things.
Without any political experience, he left every politically experienced Republican competitor in the dust and mowed over the woman that America’s powerful Leftist institutions had anointed as president. Once in office, he set about keeping his promises, from super-charging the economy, to trying to control illegal immigration, to wiping out ISIS on the battlefield, to criminal justice reform, to supporting Israel, to reining in China, supporting the Second Amendment, and more. You really need to check out the Trump laundry lists at the bottom of this post.
Seen this way, have turned off the noise, and promises, and personality quirks, none of the Democrats can hold a candle to Trump. Except for Andrew Yang and Marianne Williamson, neither of whom has ever held office, all that most of the Democrats have done is to run for and hold office. Their job histories are pathetic, their military service limited (although still respectable), and their records of accomplishments as politicians are scanty.
The only two who actually did accomplish some things over the years are Biden and Harris, and they’re either running from those records (e.g., Biden for supporting the Iraq War; Harris for being tough on crime) or they would be running from the records if they had any decency (e.g., Biden who invented “borking” and the politicization of the Supreme Court; Harris presiding over grossly unconstitutional prosecutorial misconduct).
Trump, for all his boasting and bombast, his wheeling and dealing as a developer, his bankruptcies and phoenix-like recoveries, is a man of tremendous accomplishments. Before he was president, he did things: he managed budgets, met deadlines, negotiated deals, entertained people, and created vast amounts of wealth for himself and others. Since he’s been president, as I noted in brief above and spelled out at greater length below, he’s supercharged the economy; worked to secure our borders; bolstered our allies; worked to undercut China’s economic, national security, and technological attacks on America; supported the Second Amendment, and generally been the most successful conservative president in American history.
If you’re an ostensibly conservative but allow his personality to blind you to his accomplishments, please admit that you’re not really a conservative. And if your hatred of Trump leads you to throw your weight to that bunch of nonentities cluttering Democrat primary ballots, just own up to the fact that you’re a Leftist.
As for those people who are not very politically engaged, I suggest you go with a proven winner. Looked at objectively, without the noise and the personality parade, the Dem candidates are, as I said nonentities, as well as being hypocrites and largely ineffectual politicians. Moreover, I would argue that, in Bernie’s case, he is a genuinely evil man who managed to live through the Cold War without ever acknowledging the 100 million or so deaths communism caused in his lifetime. That’s evil. The others are just various shades of Red with the front-runners – Biden, Harris, and Warren – invariably behaving in ways inconsistent with the policies they wish to foist on the rest of us.
ADDENDUM: CANDIDATE INFORMATION
Joe Biden’s quickie bio:
Graduated from college with a BA in history and poly sci.
Was accused of plagiarism at Syracuse University Law School.
Practiced law briefly as a public defender and then went into private practice.
Won his first local political office, for county councilor, one year after graduating from law school, while continuing his private practice.
Four years after graduating from law school, through a series of flukes, he become a U.S. Senator for Delaware. He spent the next 36 years in the Senate, leaving only when Obama needed a Veep who wouldn’t threaten him.
Ran unsuccessfully for president in 1988 and 2008. His 1988 campaign was damaged when he plagiarized a British politician’s speech.
What Joe Biden has accomplished or failed to accomplish:
Opposed federal busing legislation.
Helped pass the Comprehensive Crime Control Act, which saw large numbers of black men imprisoned.
Sought arms control during the Cold War.
Took the lead in borking Robert Bork and hi-tech lynching Clarence Thomas.
Spearheaded the 1994 “Assault Weapons Ban”.
While on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee took the lead in ceding American power to international organizations such as NATO and the UN.
Supporter bombing the Balkans.
Opposed the first Gulf War.
Supported initiating both the Second Gulf War and the war in Afghanistan before turning against the former, to the point at which he opposed the successful Surge, after which he supported the devastating total withdrawal that paved the way for ISIS.
Took the lead on the Violence Against Women Act, giving federal civil remedies to women on the receiving end of gender-motivated crime. Biden considers it “the single most significant legislation that I’ve crafted during my 35-year tenure in the Senate.” Fortunately for Biden, the act did not cover pawing or nuzzling women and little girls.
Elizabeth Warren’s quickie bio:
Grew up as a financially insecure middle-class white girl in Oklahoma.
Got a B.S. degree from the University of Houston in speech pathology and audiology.
Attended Rutgers Law School, and did it while raising one child and pregnant with another, something that deserves kudos.
Lecturer at Rutgers Law School.
Associate Dean at the University of Houston Law Center.
Professor at the University of Texas School of Law, which is where I admit to my bias against her: I took Warren for banking law. While I’d admit that I was a slightly clueless student, she was a horrible teacher. She never finished one thought before going on to the next one. She also did something I’ve always found unforgivable, which was lying about what would be on the test. I earned a decent grade in the class, so this is not sour grapes on my part. I just genuinely dislike her.
Professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.
Professor at Harvard Law School, which was under the mistaken impression that it was hiring a Native American woman — something it did because she formally identified as a native American woman.
What Warren has accomplished or failed to accomplish:
Irked Native Americans by stealing their identity for professional advancement.
Made her fame with the insight that middle-class people bought expensive houses to be in good school districts, overextending their finances and driving up housing prices. This was the same type of brilliant scholarship that, back in the 1970s, saw impressive academic articles saying mother’s milk is good for children or the sun rises in the east.
Despite her anti-rich rhetoric is a mult-millionaire, having made much of her money teaching minimal classes, flipping foreclosed houses, and giving expensive advice to corporations.
Took the lead on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency intended to govern the entire American financial sector without any oversight from any of the constitutional branches of government.
Became both famous and infamous for assuring Americans that anyone who made it did so only because of socialist government programs and had a duty to yield to government demands that it return a chunk of that money to the system.
Introduced an unsuccessful bill that would have forced banks to give students the same lending rate that the banks paid to the federal government for use of those funds.
On a lot of committees, makes a lot of speeches, raised a lot of money, but other than the CFPB, has not accomplished anything while in government.
Bernie Sanders’s quickie bio:
Graduated from the University of Chicago with a BA in poly sci.
Went straight to communism while in college and never left it.
Had short stints in the late 1960s as a Head Start teacher, psychiatric aide, and carpenter.
Entered politics in the early 1970s, trying to become a Vermont governor or U.S. Senator on behalf of the “Liberty Union” anti-war party.
Honeymooned in Moscow at the height of the Cold War.
Became mayor of Burlington, Vermont, from 1981 to 1989.
Served in the House of Representatives from 1991 to 2007.
Served in the Senate from 2007 through to the present.
Is a millionaire, thanks to book sales, and he and his wife own three houses.
What Bernie has accomplished or failed to accomplish:
Used his platform as the mayor of a small town in Vermont to opine on U.S. foreign policy in Latin America.
Hosted a Noam Chomskey speech in Burlington.
Reduced cable TV rates.
Improved Burlington’s Lake Champlain waterfront.
Collaborated with 30 Vermont musicians to record a folk album.
In 1987, U.S. News and World Report ranked him as one of America’s best mayors. The potted Wikipedia bio makes it unclear if Burlington did well because of or in spite of Bernie.
Opposed the Brady Bill and, indeed, was generally against gun control until he recently became for gun control.
Voted for the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act that removed so many men from America’s black communities.
Opposed the Patriot Act.
Voted against both the first and second Iraq Wars.
The he sponsored two successful bills while in the House: one to designate a postal building and other for a veterans’ compensation cost adjustment.
He is hostile to Israel, although many of his relatives died in the Holocaust, and just accepted the endorsement of Linda Sarsour, an open anti-Semite.
Kamala Harris’s quickie bio:
Born into an upper-middle-class family. Like Barack Obama, while she is partially black, hers is not the American black experience.
Lived and was educated in Quebec during her middle and high school years.
Attended Howard University, receiving a BA in poly sci and econ.
Got her J.D. from UC Hastings in San Francisco.
Worked as a deputy DA in Alameda County, specializing in child abuse cases.
Started in politics when her boyfriend Willie Brown, then the California Assembly Speaker, threw two political sinecures her way, netting her large salaries for little work. I like to say that she’s the politician who slept her way to the middle.
Became an Assistant DA in San Francisco, quitting eight months later because of personnel problems in the office.
Returned to City Hall, this time running the Family and Children’s Services Division in the City Attorney’s Office.
Successfully ran for City Attorney, although she was found guilty of violating an agreed-upon campaign spending limit of $211,000 by nearly $100,000. Kamala eventually spent almost $625,000 to win the election.
Re-elected when she ran unopposed.
Elected as California State Attorney General.
Elected as a US Senator.
What Kamala has accomplished or failed to accomplish:
Refused to seek the death penalty when a police officer was shot and killed in the line of duty, infuriating the entire police department and (of all people) Dianne Feinstein.
During her tenure as San Francisco’s District Attorney, the felony conviction rate rose significantly. She’s trying now to run from this record, especially because, as Tulsi Gabbard pointed out, her office engaged in criminally unconstitutional prosecutorial conduct.
Worked to prevent hate crimes against LGBT children in San Francisco and supported same-sex marriage.
Successfully introduced a Homeowners’ Bill of Rights in the California legislature.
At Loretta Lynch’s urging, brought criminal charges against pro-Life activists who used secret recordings exposing the fact that Planned Parenthood outlets were illegally selling fetal body parts.
Argued against changes to address overcrowding in the California prison system, overcrowding so severe that the US Supreme Court called it cruel and unusual punishment. Was accused of using prisoners as slave labor, especially for fighting wildfires.
Opposed sex reassignment surgery for a mentally ill man in prison, a sensible stand but one that has offended many in the LGBT community.
Since entering the Senate, she’s opposed Trump and run for president.
Cory Booker’s quickie bio:
Born into an upper-middle-class Newark family.
Attended Stanford, receiving a BA in poly sci and an MA in sociology.
Awarded a Rhodes Scholar and studied U.S. history at Oxford, earning an honors degree.
Obtained a J.D. from Yale Law.
After graduating from law school, worked for less than a year in two left-leaning pro bona legal organizations.
Within a year of graduating from law school, won a seat on the Municipal Council of Newark.
After four years on the Municipal Council ran for mayor of Newark.
Four years later, in 2010, ran for reelection as mayor of Newark and won again.
Cut short his mayoral career to enter the U.S. Senate, via a victory he won in a special election in 2013, after incumbent Frank Lautenberg died unexpectedly.
In 2014, won the senatorial seat in the regular election.
Is now running for president.
What Booker has accomplished or failed to accomplish:
Crime dropped during his first two years as mayor, but rose significantly thereafter.
Trimmed the city budget a little.
Talked Mark Zuckerberg into giving $100 million to the Newark public school system. A Leftist authoried book, The Prize: Who’s in Charge of America’s Schools?, revealed that graft and waste ate through the money with minimal benefits for students.
During his second term, Booker helped get a woman out of a burning house.
During his mayoralty, the Newark Watershed, which supplies water to municipalities in northern New Jersey was found to be corrupt.
In Congress, co-sponsored the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would primarily have benefited the LGBT community.
Co-sponsored Bob Menendez’s failed Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act of 2013, calling for tougher sanctions against Iran.
Co-sponsored the Respect for Marriage Act, a failed initiative to recognize same-sex marriage.
Pledged to oppose all of Donald Trump’s nominees for administrative jobs, without regard to their qualifications, just because…
Co-sponsored an unsuccessful act making it a federal crime to boycott Israel if protesting actions by the Israeli government.
Sought to legalize marijuana at the federal level.
Called himself Spartacus for publishing documents that had already been produced to the public.
Pete Buttigieg’s quickie bio:
Gay and married.
Considers himself a scholar of woke Christianity.
Attended Harvard and received a BA in history and literature.
Got a Rhodes scholarship, which led him to a First Class BA degree from Oxford in philosophy, politics, and economics.
Worked as an intern at a local TV news station.
Before heading to Oxford, worked as a “conference director” for former Defense Secretary William Cohen.
Became an ensign in the U.S. Navy Reserve. Spent 7 months in Afghanistan as a naval intelligence officer, although a lot of his work was driving people around (albeit in neighborhoods as dangerous as inner city South Bend or Chicago).
Became mayor of South Bend, Indiana, and is now in his second term.
What Buttigieg has accomplished or failed to accomplish:
Demoted South Bend’s first black police chief and then reappointed him. These and other personnel decision cost the already cash-strapped city $800,000 in out-of-court settlements.
Successfully repaired or demolished 1,000 blighted properties in South Bend.
Led the initiative to fix traffic in South Bend.
Led the initiative to have a nightly laser light display in South Bend.
Attended Stanford, receiving a BA in poly sci and communications. Admitted that he got in due to affirmative action.
Attended Harvard Law.
Worked for a major Democrat donor law firm after graduation.
Within one year of graduation from law school, elected to the San Antonio City Council.
Ran for mayor four years later and, when he lost, set up his own law practice.
Ran for mayor again four years later and won the election.
During the Obama administration, became Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.
What Castro has accomplished or failed to accomplish:
Created SA 2020, “a community-wide visioning effort.”.
Expanded San Antonio pre-K education through a sales tax increase.
Delivered a keynote address at the DNC convention in 2012.
In a memo he wrote when he left HUD, he identified his own accomplishments as stabilizing the housing market, rebuilding communities hurt by national disasters (helped with $1 billion in taxpayer funds), and helping to further lead safety protections in government housing.
Amy Klobuchar’s quickie bio:
Received a BA in poly sci from Yale.
Attended the University of Chicago Law School, and was on the Law Review.
Worked as a corporate lawyer in Minnesota for thirteen years before getting elected as Hennepin County attorney, a position to which she was reelected.
Elected to the U.S. Senate in 2006 and reelected in 2012 and 2018.
What Klobuchar has accomplished or failed to accomplish:
According to a 2016 “Medill on the Hill” article, in the previous two years, Klobuchar passed the most bills that became laws. None of them seem to have been important laws. Without reading more, I get the feeling that she attached herself to easy issues.
Fully supported Russiagate.
Was exposed as the boss from Hell who abused and humiliated her employees, resulting in the highest staff turnover in Congress.
Robert Francis O’Rourke’s quickie bio:
Comes from a rich, connected El Paso, Texas, family.
As a teenager, belonged to a computer hacker group called Cult of the Dead Cow, which resulted in his engaging in felonious conduct. He also wrote creepy things for the group about sex and violence.
Attended Columbia University, earning a BA in English lit.
Was arrested when he was 23 for trespassing at a University of Texas El Paso physical plant.
Was arrested when he was 26 for drunk driving. The arrest occurred after he hit another car and then tried to flee the scene.
Tried to be a rock musician.
Worked as a live-in caretaker and art mover, before his uncle hired him to work as the uncle’s internet service provider.
Worked as a proofreader.
Worked at his mom’s furniture store while living in an apartment building his father owned.
Opened an internet services and software company using a loan his father took out for him. His mom was his first client.
In 2005, married a billionaire’s daughter.
Served on the El Paso City Council.
In 2012, was elected to the House of Representatives, and was re-elected in 2014 and 2016.
Resigned from the House to run unsuccessfully for the Texas Senate in 2018.
What O’Rourke has accomplished or failed to accomplish:
Supported redevelopment of a depressed area in El Paso, which never came to fruition.
Opposed the War on Drugs while on the El Paso Council.
Co-sponsored a bill to improve training for customs officers and agents and require special reports on use of force.
Helped pass a bill that, in relevant part, created public-private partnerships to lower wait times at ports of entry on America’s southern border.
Refused to support funding for Israel’s Iron Dome defense system, saying in part that the U.S. has just been too good to Israel, which was actually bad for Israel.
Andrew Yang’s quickie bio:
Born to highly educated, well-paid immigrants from Taiwan.
Got bullied at public schools (who hasn’t?).
Attended Phillips Exeter Academy, one of the most elite boarding schools in America.
Attended Brown University, graduating with a BA in economics.
Attended Columbia Law School.
Worked as a lawyer and a test prep instructor.
What Yang has accomplished or failed to accomplish:
Created a start-up aimed at funding entrepreneurs by trolling college graduates for future stars.
Tulsi Gabbard’s quickie bio:
Born in American Samoa and raised in Hawaii.
Home schooled through high school, except for two years at a Christian Missionary Academy.
Graduated from Hawaii Pacific University with a BS in Business Administration.
In 2003, while already a member of Hawaii’s legislature, joined the Hawaii Army National Guard.
Spent one year serving in Iraq as a specialist for a medical company.
Attended Officer Candidate School, graduating as her classes “distinguished honors graduate,” becoming a second lieutenant and assigned to be a military police officer.
Served in Kuwait for a year helping to train the Kuwait National Guard, receiving an honor for her outstanding work. Currently holds that rank of major.
Elected to the Hawaii House of Representatives.
Elected to the Honolulu City Council.
Elected to the House of Representatives, in which she still serves.
What Gabbard has accomplished or failed to accomplish:
As noted above, served in the military.
While on the Honolulu city council, worked to help loosen parking restrictions for food truck vendors and authored and passed a bill allowing city workers to seize personal belongings stored on city property (after 24 hours’ notice).
While in the House, introduced and got passed a law improving airport security screenings for severely wounded veterans.
Introduced and got passed a law to give the Congressional Medal of Honor to Filipino and Filipino-American veterans of WWII.
Introduced and got passed a law to help prevent child abuse and neglect on military bases.
Introduced a bill to return American elections to paper ballots to prevent fraud and foreign election interference.
Marianne Williamson’s quickie bio:
Upper middle class Jewish girl from Houston.
Studied theater and philosophy at Pomona College for two years before dropping out of college, burned out by anti-war protests during the Vietnam era and by general existential despair.
Read Helen Schucman’s A Course in Miracles, a book all about spiritual transformation. Schucman claimed that Jesus’s voice dictated the book to her.
Inspired by Schucman’s book, Williamson became a professional New Age guru, teaching classes, writing books, and ministering to New Age congregations.
What Williamson has accomplished or failed to accomplish:
Oprah likes her.
Net worth of is estimated at being between $957,000 and $4.5 million.
Created Project Angel Food to support people with HIV/AIDS in Los Angeles.
Co-founded the non-profit Global Renaissance Alliance, set up to create a network of “citizen salons” around the world that would pray for national growth, peace, and Leftist causes.
Pre-White House Trump bio (gleaned from a very hostile Wikipedia article):
Born into an affluent family to a real-estate developer father.
Graduated from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania with a B.S. in economics.
Avoided serving in the Vietnam War, whether by legitimate or illegitimate means.
Avoids all alcohol and recreational drugs, loves fast food, and need only 3-4 hours of sleep per night.
After working for his family business, Trump launched his Manhattan real estate business with a $70,000,000 loan that his father and the Hyatt hotel chain jointly guaranteed.
Was the first major developer to hire a woman to manage a large commercial development project.
Developed vast, high-end commercial properties across Manhattan which, along with his flamboyant personality, made him one of the world’s most famous people.
Began developing properties all over the Eastern Seaboard and around the world.
Famous for being aggressive about land grabs, pushing regulations, and bullying people.
Famous for dumping bad projects, while usually managing to retain some profit as well as his name on the project.
Strategically used bankruptcy to regroup and recoup his wealth.
Respected for bringing projects in on time and, often, under budget.
Wrote (or co-wrote or didn’t write) a best-selling book called Trump : The Art of the Deal.
Furthered his brand working with World Wrestling Entertainment.
With The Apprentice, created and worked on the most popular reality show in television history.
Without ever having run for office before, won the presidency on his first try, against a crowded, experienced field, against the woman whom the establishment had anointed as the next president, and despite an attempted Obama / Deep State coup to destroy his candidacy or wipe out his presidency.
• Almost 4 million jobs created since election.
• More Americans are now employed than ever recorded before in our history.
• We have created more than 400,000 manufacturing jobs since my election.
• Manufacturing jobs growing at the fastest rate in more than THREE DECADES.
• Economic growth last quarter hit 4.2 percent.
• New unemployment claims recently hit a 49-year low.
• Median household income has hit highest level ever recorded.
• African-American unemployment has recently achieved the lowest rate ever recorded.
• Hispanic-American unemployment is at the lowest rate ever recorded.
• Asian-American unemployment recently achieved the lowest rate ever recorded.
• Women’s unemployment recently reached the lowest rate in 65 years.
• Youth unemployment has recently hit the lowest rate in nearly half a century.
• Lowest unemployment rate ever recorded for Americans without a high school diploma.
• Under my Administration, veterans’ unemployment recently reached its lowest rate in nearly 20 years.
• Almost 3.9 million Americans have been lifted off food stamps since the election.
• Signed the biggest package of tax cuts and reforms in history. After tax cuts, over $300 billion poured back in to the U.S. in the first quarter alone.
• Opened ANWR and approved Keystone XL and Dakota Access Pipelines.
• Record number of regulations eliminated.
• Enacted regulatory relief for community banks and credit unions.
• Obamacare individual mandate penalty GONE.
• Last month, the FDA approved more affordable generic drugs than ever before in history. And thanks to our efforts, many drug companies are freezing or reversing planned price increases.
• We reformed the Medicare program to stop hospitals from overcharging low-income seniors on their drugs—saving seniors hundreds of millions of dollars this year alone.
• Signed Right-To-Try legislation.
• Secured $6 billion in NEW funding to fight the opioid epidemic.
• Increased our coal exports by 60 percent; U.S. oil production recently reached all-time high.
• United States is a net natural gas exporter for the first time since 1957.
• Withdrew the United States from the job-killing Paris Climate Accord.
• Cancelled the illegal, anti-coal, so-called Clean Power Plan.
• Secured record $700 billion in military funding; $716 billion next year.
• NATO allies are spending $69 billion more on defense since 2016.
• Confirmed more circuit court judges than any other new administration.
• Confirmed Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch and nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh.
• Withdrew from the horrible, one-sided Iran Deal.
• Moved U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem.
• Protecting Americans from terrorists with the Travel Ban, upheld by Supreme Court.
• Concluded a historic U.S.-Mexico Trade Deal to replace NAFTA. And negotiations with Canada are underway as we speak.
• Reached a breakthrough agreement with the E.U. to increase U.S. exports.
• Imposed tariffs on foreign steel and aluminum to protect our national security.
• Imposed tariffs on China in response to China’s forced technology transfer, intellectual property theft, and their chronically abusive trade practices.
• Net exports are on track to increase by $59 billion this year.
• Improved vetting and screening for refugees, and switched focus to overseas resettlement.
• We have begun BUILDING THE WALL. Republicans want STRONG BORDERS and NO CRIME. Democrats want OPEN BORDERS which equals MASSIVE CRIME.
The Democrat Debates were indeed boring, but they were also a wonderful insight into Democrat policies and candidate strengths and weaknesses.
I watched both of the Democrat debates. I’ve now had 43 hours to ruminate about Wednesday’s debate and 19 hours to ruminate about Thursday’s debate. That’s given me a little perspective. For what it’s worth, here’s what I think:
I. The debates as a whole.
When Obama ran in 2008 and again in 2012, he tried to underplay his radicalism. Both times, he played lip service to the center and then governed to the Left. A perfect example concerns how he handled LGBT issues, whether for open military service or getting married. He assured voters that neither would happen and then went and supported the more Leftward policies anyway. I’m not opining about the policies. I’m just pointing out that Obama lied.
What’s refreshing about the current crop of candidates is that they are not disguising their political beliefs and practical goals. Given that Trump is completely open about his traditional American political values and that the Democrats have stopped hiding their Leftism, this may be the most honest political campaign since the one in 1860.
Indeed, if the ultimate Democrat primary victory retains that honesty into the election campaign, rather than trying to rewrite the history of whatever he or she said during the primaries, we will not see the usual presidential campaign in which candidates circle the middle (a middle that moved increasingly Left beginning in the 1990s). Instead, there are some very stark differences here. Talk about American having a true “time for choosing.”
One of the major differences between every single Dem candidate on the one hand and Trump on the other hand, is the way in which they view America. Obama occasionally leaked out comments showing his dislike and disdain for both America and Americans, but he tried to dress his politics in the upbeat, and entirely meaningless, mantra of hope. Yeah, sure America was great he said, but he would make it so great it would be “fundamentally transformed,” apparently into a different kind of greatness entirely. But it was all great.
Trump, of course, is Mr. Optimistic. He has wonderful visions about a great America that will still be a recognizable America, although better than ever before. Most importantly, it won’t be socialist country. It will continue to be a free market, sovereign nation in which people benefit from small government, individual liberty, and true equality before the law. Our foreign friends will respect us and our foreign enemies will fear us (as they should). Indeed, some of our foreign enemies may well have abandoned their wicked ways to join the community of nations. Trump is optimistic and endlessly upbeat.
The twenty Democrat candidates paraded before the American people on Wednesday and Thursday are pessimistic, angry people who live in a dystopian reality that they hope to make worse for everyone. Theirs is a world in which people are starving and dying in the streets, filth is piled everywhere, there are no jobs, an apocalyptic climate “emergency” is waiting around the corner, the races despise each other, and gay people are marginalized and dying.
Thinking about it, there is some truth to their reality: They’re pretty much describing Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Chicago, inner city Washington D.C., de Blasio’s New York, the whole states of California and Illinois, and any other communities in which Leftists have been free to have their wicked ways.
Listening to Democrat candidates’ dystopian visions, it was as if the Trump economy never happened. There is no record low unemployment amongst blacks and Hispanics; there is no 3% or more quarterly economic growth; and there is no vibrant stock market, one based on real economic gains rather than the Obama market, when fearful investors parked their money in the market because they were afraid to put it into an unstable real economy.
No one should be too surprised, I guess, about the fantasy world the Leftists have built. After all, these are the same people who believe that a person’s biological sex is a social construct, that the sun has nothing to do with the earth’s climate, and that pot is harmless. Facts tend not to interfere with their belief systems.
Significantly, none of the 20 candidates is a happy warrior. All of them, instead, seem to be auditioning for a leadership role in a Mad Max movie — they will be the only stable dictator in a world of horrific violence, despair, and decay.
In addition, none of the 20 candidates has charm or charisma. I’ll talk about their individual traits below, but my overall takeaway was that these are very weak people. If you look at Trump, whether when he was campaigning in 2015 and 2016 or during his years as president, what you see is an effortless alpha male. He commands any space he’s in. He is optimistic and powerful. Whether or not you like where he plans to lead America, he is a relaxed, happy, effective leader. He’s also very, very funny and can show tremendous warmth and charm.
During his debates, @realDonaldTrump was an effortless, relaxed alpha. All of the Democrats are dripping with flop sweat and shrilly desperate to prove that they are powerful leaders. Their affects give the lie to their desires.
In contrast, the 20 Democrats are frenetic, shrill people who hoped to disguise their fundamental personal weaknesses by outshouting each other. Funnily enough, when I think of them, I think of a movie review I read at National Review. Yeah, I know that sounds like a non sequitur but it’s not.
The review was about Murder Mystery, a made-for-Netflix movie staring Jennifer Aniston and Adam Sandler, both of whom are capable of being appealing. What piqued my interest about the review was the fact that Kyle Smith likened their teaming to Nick and Nora Charles, the dynamic married duo who starred in a series of Thin Man movies in the 1930s. Nick was played by the debonair William Powell and Nora by Myrna Loy, one of the most beautiful, charming, funny, appealing actresses ever to grace the silver screen. Here’s what Smith had to say:
Murder Mystery: An Old Comedy Genre Gets Polished Up — Adam Sandler and Jennifer Aniston make a fine Nick and Nora Charles.
In Murder Mystery, Sandler does the unexpected and plays a character who’s neither Kurt Cobain nor Jerry Lewis but just an ordinary working stiff with a slightly disappointed but basically loving wife. Thanks to a deft, funny script by James Vanderbilt and brisk direction by Kyle Newacheck, this throwback comedy turns out to be an easygoing charmer.
Murder Mystery takes us back to the days when Nick and Nora Charles were martini-sipping crime-solvers in the six-film Thin Man series, updating the formula with a superb twist: This time the couple are working-class types who get pulled into a world of international playboys and billionaires’ yachts. Sandler’s Nick is a frustrated NYPD cop (he tells everyone he’s a detective, but he keeps flunking the exam) and Aniston is Audrey, his hairdresser wife of 15 years. He promised her a trip to Europe one day, but the money to pay for it has never come. He’s the kind of guy who buys her the wrong allergy medicine at the drugstore to save 50 cents. When he finally does decide to max out the credit card to get her that transatlantic vacation, Audrey sneaks into first class, where she meets a charming bon vivant (Luke Evans) who likes her enough to invite the pair of them to hang out on his yacht. She’s Jennifer Aniston, so this is plausible enough.
I have to part ways with Smith. Aside from the upper class setting, Aniston and Sandler are nothing like Nick and Nora. They’re neither witty nor charming. They are, instead, shrill, angry, and irritating, three traits that no sane Thin Man writer would ever have thrust upon those characters. I slogged through the end of Murder Mystery to see whodunnit (not worth the slog), and came away desperately disliking the lead characters.
That’s exactly how I felt watching the debate. I’d been promised that at least some of the candidates would offer charisma, if not wit and charm, but none offered anything. They were alternately shrill, angry, paranoid, irritating, greedy, totalitarian, and completely loopy (an adjective that’s not reserved solely for Sanders and Williamson). The thought that these types of human beings might lead our great nation was quite disturbing.
The candidates’ policy prescriptions matched their personalities. Across the board, they want to increase government power, raise taxes, impose socialized medicine, upend the Second Amendment, abort babies up to the minute of birth, and open our borders while promising free medical care, education, and welfare to all comers. In other words, they imagine a dictatorship of the elite — an angry, paranoid, elite that hates so much the people over which it governs that it wants to import an entirely new, more amenable group of people over which it can govern.
Regarding importing a whole new demographic, as several people commented it was often unclear whether the candidates in these Democrat debates wanted to be president of existing, legal American citizens, or were seeking the votes of Latin Americans who have yet to arrive here illegally. I listened to Derek Hunter’s podcast today, and he said it was as if the candidates vying for Angela Merkel’s position in Germany tout to the voters all the good things they promise to do for France.
It’s the rare, peculiar, and frightening candidate who doesn’t pander to his own voters, but panders instead to citizens of another nation entirely. It’s hints that these candidates believe that, between now and November 2020, they can get enough illegal aliens into America to vote a Democrat into office.
II. The individual candidates
And now a few thoughts about the individual candidates at the Democrat debates. It’s a given that all of them said things intended to appeal to their mad base (open borders, socialized medicine for all comers, unlimited abortion, high taxes, gun seizures, abasement before Iran, the destruction of the American economy through a Green New Deal, etc.). My comments are just about their personalities. Ladies first.
Kamala Harris presents with a flat, Fran Drescher voice and a naggy personality. She can definitely go on the attack, as she did with her probable lies to Biden about busing. My question, though, is whether American voters really want to elect as president their hated ex-wife or the mother with whom they had issues, especially when she’s made it plain that she wants to empty their bank accounts and control every aspect of their lives? Heck, if they wanted that, they could have stayed married to that shrew or accepted living in mad Mom’s basement….
Also, contrary to Harris’s “I’m the only black person here” statement, she has something significant in common with Obama: She’s a fake American black, for her black-skinned father is very elite Jamaican man and she was raised for a significant part of her life outside of America. In other words, Harris has no connection to the American black experience.
Kirsten Gillibrand presents with a shrill, childish voice and an angry, bossy personality. She demands attention, rather than earns it, and when she gets it, she hectors people sharply. For all her anger, her history of flip-flopping frantically to whatever the political winds demand tells me that, if you put her in a room with a mullah or a member of North Korea’s Kim clan, she’ll collapse like an old tissue.
Amy Klobuchar has a no-nonsense affect that reminds me strongly of my 4th grade teacher, Mrs. Fukuda. Or maybe she’s like some Mary Poppins-esque nanny who firmly puts you in your place. Indeed, her presentation is so firm and normal that it’s easy to forget that, when it comes to policies, she’s as Leftist as the rest of them. In other words, she’s the school teacher from Hell.
Tulsi Gabbard was in the military. Did you know that? She definitely was in the military. She’s happy to tell you over and over again that she was in the military. When she talks about the military, her voice takes on the harsh tones of a drill sergeant. The rest of the time, she sounds, not sedate, but sedated. And by the way, she was in the military. I’ve also heard she looks nice in a bikini. Trump, I’m certain, does not.
Elizabeth Warren is someone about whom I cannot be objective because I’ve disliked her for thirty years, going back to her banking law class. Learning that Warren leveraged family lore into a well-paying Harvard gig based upon imaginary diversity did not make me like her more. Learning that she lied her way into fame by gaming statistics about medical care and family bankruptcy did not make me like her more. Hearing her denigrate individual achievement in America (“you didn’t build that”) did not make me like her more. Her current assurances that for everything she dislikes about America she has a plan, when it’s clear that the plan is always about more taxes and more power for the government, do not make me like her more. And finally, her spinsterish, scolding presence on the debate stage does not make me like her more. I really dislike her.
Marianne Williamson is the hippie whom time forgot. Most of the time she spoke with the earnestness of a stoned preacher on the corner of Haight and Ashbury in 1967. “Love, man . . . yeah, that will heal the world. Just more love and maybe some health-giving flowers for America’s inner being. I’ll drop love bombs on Kim Jong-un and the Mullahs. Even our archest of arch enemies, Donald Trump, will feel the healing power of my love deep in his evil soul. Nameste, America. Peace.”
And now the men, in alphabetical order:
Michael Bennet had a hysterical quality I found very disturbing. There’s something emotionally off about the man.
Joe Biden really did try to be Mr. Normal in a field of radicals but he lost it there when he said that his first act as president, should he win, would be to defeat Donald Trump. Otherwise, he was pathetic as he tried desperately to find his footing while crossing the ice floes made up of his decades in Democrat politics all the while fending off the snapping young Democrat dogs surrounding him.
Cory Booker will be defined forever by the horror that showed on his face when he realized that Beta has stolen his “I speak Spanish” shtick. Otherwise, he was his usual glib, insincere self. His insistence that the rights of black transgenders is a matter of paramount concern was peculiar. He also sounded ineffective when he complained about crime in the city in which he once sat as mayor. All I could think of was “you had once job….”
Pete Buttigieg is another ineffectual mayor. He presides over the 300th largest city in America, a position he won by 8,000 plus votes. That’s not 8,000+ votes more than his competitors. That’s total votes. The blacks in his city despise him because it’s obvious that he always viewed them, not as his job, but as stepping stones to something bigger. His constant attacks on Christians are a glaringly obvious psychological insight into his anguish about living a life inconsistent with Biblical precepts (for the Bible is not fond of gay sex), but are decidedly unappealing in an American presidential candidate. Also, he looks like Beaver Cleaver’s radical Leftist brother — immature and politically dangerous.
Julian Castro is short and wants abortions for transgender women (i.e., men). He cannot win and should leave the national stage before he embarrasses himself further. By the way, I too am short and there’s nothing wrong with that. It’s just that in a telegenic age, a pipsqueak who is confused about basic human biology squaring off against the alpha male Trump is not a good look. Buttigieg, by the way, also suffers from the short man problem.
Bill de Blasio has only one advantage in the race, which is that he’s tall enough to square off physically against Trump. Otherwise, I wouldn’t buy a used car from that corrupt, hypocritic, and I certainly wouldn’t trust him to take possession of American’s money and redistribute it. Also, considering that monied New Yorkers are leaving in droves, taking away the funds supporting his crazed, corrupt socialism, is not a selling point for the rest of America.
John Delaney was slightly more sane than the rest of the people on the stage. He’s also bland and is a little too obsessed with his own father. He has no chance.
John Hickenlooper is a nattering old maid. Old maid men do not win in American politics. The only thing that puts the lie to his old maid status — and most decidedly not in a good way — is that he sat through a porn flick with his mother.
Jay Inslee is a scary dude. He’s an apocalyptic street corner preacher, but with a better haircut. His end-of-days climate obsession is not a winner.
Beto O’Rourke is Beta O’Rourke. Take away the skateboard and the flapping arms (and did you notice how careful the MSNBC/NBC camera men were to hide his hands?) and you’ve got the kid in the dorm who thought he was deep and cool while everyone else knew full well that he was a not-very-bright dork. Dork’s don’t win presidential campaigns.
Tim Ryan is visually identical to Inslee. Other than that, I can’t remember a darn thing about him.
Bernie Sanders — I’ve covered Bernie in a separate blog. He’s a mean-spirited, evil, foaming-at-the-mouth, yellow-toothed socialist tyrant wannabe.
Eric Swalwell is running a campaign that can be summed up thusly: The Second Amendment is toilet paper. All the other candidates also want to take your guns, but Swalwell is the most fanatic on the subject. Let me remind you of other politicians who seized guns: Hugo Chavez, Hitler, Stalin, the Kims, etc. I’m sure Swalwell doesn’t believe he ever could be a tyrant, but the temptation is always there for a political leader once the people he’s disarmed stand helpless before him.
Andrew Yang opposes circumcision. Aside from being fundamentally anti-Semitic, because circumcision is Judaism’s core covenant with God, it’s also an unhealthy position, for there’s indisputable evidence that circumcision slows the spread of certain sexually transmitted diseases, most notably AIDS. I cannot support him under any circumstances. I also think the whole “give every $1,000” is stupid. Why not just lower tax rates? That way, taxpayers will keep their own money in proportion to the money they’re forced to pay, while those who don’t pay taxes don’t just get more free cash.
Watching the Democrat primary candidates emerge on the debate stage will be like watching a clown car disgorge its contents. Currently, they’re a joke.
I’ve been looking at the roster of current candidates for the Democrat primary and I have to ask — are any of them normal? Please understand that I’m not talking about qualifications. I’m really just talking about normalcy, as Warren G. Harding would have said. And for the ones who are normal, they are so undistinguished it’s almost breathtaking.
Just think about this roster of announced or thinking-about-announcing Dem presidential candidates. They make Jeb! look like a normal dynamo. Indeed, they make every Republican candidate ever look normal, scintillating, and highly qualified: John Francis O’Rourke — Hit and run drunk driving, cow porn poetry, feeding his wife baby feces, eating dirt, sweating excessively, and so much more. Much, much more.
John Hickenlooper — Watches hardcore porn with his mother. ‘Nuff said.
Elizabeth Warren — She’s Fauxcahontas with a tin political ear and she drinks beer like a robot.
Joe Biden — Do I need to say more than “bad touch” Biden?
Cory Booker — I call him Spartawuss. Ace calls him “the Fiercely Heterosexual Cory Booker.” I’d respect Booker more if he’d just admit that he’s gay. Oh, and he admits to assaulting a woman in college.
Amy Klobuchar — The politician who would give Joan Crawford a run for her money in the “no wire hangers” category.
Kamala Harris — A woman who started her political career by sleeping her way to the middle, who lacks any charm, who has bad political instincts, and who lies about smoking pot in college. No, just no.
Andrew Yang — There’s the whole “don’t circumcise me, bro” thing, plus there’s that thing about handing out taxpayer money like candy. Why doesn’t he start with handing out his own money like candy?
Marianne Williamson — Her campaign asks people to “think. love. contribute.” She’s a New Age guru. Do I need to say more about that, either?
Bernie Sanders — Aside from being a hardcore communist, which means he cheerfully accepts one of the most evil, deadly ideologies in human history, he honeymooned in the Soviet Union, never met a totalitarian dictator he didn’t like, and drunkenly sang songs half-naked while in Russia. Really?
Kirsten Gillibrand — Do we really want as president a woman who sounds like a Barbie doll on helium and one, moreover, who panders to the Left even more than Elizabeth Warren? I don’t think this woman has stuck to any principled position ever.
Jay Inslee — This is a man with zero name recognition. Other than that, he’s a generic Leftist politician who’s been tight with the Clintons. He’s a Leftist of last resort.
Pete Buttigieg — The only openly gay candidate (sorry, Cory, you should have been honest). Buttigieg sounds great on paper, at least if you’re a Leftist (he loves Bernie), and he’s got that whole Bill Clinton Rhodes Scholar thing. The problem is that Buttigieg presides without distinction South Bend, Indiana — and that’s the sum total of his management experience.
Julian Castro — Like Inslee, a completely generic Leftist politician. His only distinctive qualification in the Democrat Party is that he’s Hispanic. Haven’t we learned from Obama that electing to the presidency because he’s a token representative of his race doesn’t presage good outcomes?
Tulsi Gabbard — Sorry, Tulsi, but you’re way too close to Assad in Syria. That’s some serious bad judgment.
John Delaney — Who?
Trump is now and always has been an eccentric, so maybe he doesn’t meet the “normal” metric. Nevertheless, before becoming president, he had a stunningly accomplished career distinguished by actual accomplishments. Moreover, in his two years as president he’s racked up a string of executive successes both domestic and foreign capped by getting a clean bill of health from political operative Robert Mueller and his team of Trump-hating attorneys.
I don’t see any of the Democrat clown car passengers taking Trump on successfully in 2020. Of course, that’s what everyone said about Trump vis-a-vis the Republican primary candidates so no, I’m not making predictions. I’m just struggling to deal with the facts before me.
Sitting here, I see a bunch of really weird or totally blah people, all of whom lack significant accomplishments. And that’s not even factoring in their hard, harder, hardest Leftist positions and their active or passive embrace of the anti-Semitism Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib have made the Democrat Party’s worst kept secret.