Monday, August 28, 2017

Quid Pro Quo

Most dislike political posts on social media...  especially if the posts goes against our beliefs.
As a matter of fact, many, in the last generation were instructed that "polite company never speaks about politics, sex, or religion".  So, why the explosion of political posts in today's social media?

Political views are tribal.  Our forebears once divided into tribes; usually based on the color of skin, the color of hair, the location raised, and the language spoken.  Recognizing "propinquities" was a survival mechanism that ensured the safety of their specific genetic predispositions or culture.  In many places around the world, this type of tribalism still occurs (e.g. Iraq, most of Africa).

In the First World, we are safe, well-fed, even spoiled by contrast to the rest of the world, and so now our propinquities are based in ideology, rather than physical attributes, for survival.  We have split into two camps...those who want to rise on their own merits and those who want even more comfort than the First World already provides through the leverage of governmentally-forced community.

In the presidential election, two Champions took the field. One who has lived within the political system their entire life. Enriching themselves through access borne by polite society and remora-like connections.
The other conquered the gritty arena of competitive self-efficacy.  Creating "empire" for their family through the use of both banal and patrician connections in a world of self-creation.

The lazy saw the former as their way to unearned wealth (see Gandhi).  They lost.
The lazy now see the latter as a threat to their sloth-filled fantasies...

...and so they wear black masks to hide their pathetic faces.

Sunday, August 20, 2017

On Transgenderism...

A man you know, walks into the office and announces they are now a woman.
They want to be called "she" and "her".
What do you do?

Forget, for a moment, that they are biologically male.  We should, instead, focus on gender roles.  After all, that's what the Transgender community wants.

The definition of gender roles from Webster is:

gender role - the overt expression of attitudes that indicate to others the degree of your maleness or femaleness; "your gender role is the public expression of your gender identity"  LINK

Reeshard Steele - transgender correspondent

This unbiased source tells us that gender roles are based on degrees of maleness or femaleness.

I called into my office our blog's transgender correspondent, Richard (pronounced Reeshard) Steele and asked about this.   Richard agreed with Webster.  So, I asked Richard, "what is maleness?"
To which he replied, "Oh, you know. Doing things that men like to do."

I pointed out that university Gender Studies classes tell us that what men like to do is a sociological and cultural artifice created by the oppressive patriarchy.  In fact, men and women are equal and should be able to do whatever they want in their roles.  Men can stay home and watch the baby, clean the house, make dinner; while women should explore their career potential, be firemen (oops, firepersons), or hunt the mighty wildebeest on the weekends to feed the family.

Richard agreed.

"So", I continued, "since there is no real differentiation between male and female roles, no real maleness or femaleness, what pronouns should I use to address you?"

Richard seemed a bit shaken and stammered, "sh-she or her".  I accused Richard of perpetuating the myth of gender differentiation based on fallacious roles.
Richard seemed a bit depressed.

I continued by pointing out the opaque miasmic cloud raining confusion over the whole gender role discussion, and so, suggested we find something that was clear cut and accurate...something like SCIENCE!

By using the pronouns that are based in the neutral area of science,  I would continue to address Richard as "he or him" because he will always be male (biologically speaking) .  In this way, we reject the cultural patriarchy so hated by Gender Studies professors, and let women be women.

A bit confused, Richard stumbled away, muttering to himself that I was just another cisgendered transphobic.  As he was halfway down the hall, I yelled out,
   "Richard, let's make it even easier.  I dont want you to be upset, but neither will I lie just to humor a mental disorder.  Instead of 'he' or 'she', from now on I'll just call you Dick."

He looked a bit triggered.

Yeah, I'm going to Hell for picking on the mentally ill.  But, first they pick the fight, then they call you names if you don't agree with them.

BTW, Gender dysphoria is listed in Section 305 of DSM 5.  DSM stands for Diagnostics and Statistical Manual for MENTAL DISORDERS.  If we imposed upon the unchallenged masses grammatical artificiality just to appease the disordered, we are idiots.

Tuesday, October 18, 2016

Arizona Elections Review

Most of us can make up our minds about the most advertised elections, but it's difficult to find good information about the judges' races.

This entry covers only the judges on the ballot.

Here are the ones I will vote to retain and those I won't.  Those I'm voting for were either recommended as conservative or appointed by conservative governors:

Justice of the Supreme Court
Recommend: Hon. Ann A. Scott Timmer - Good decisions in the past; fought government fraud

Court of Appeals Div 1:
Recommend: Kent Cattani  - Currently presides over Court.  Republican appointed by Jan Brewer.

Does Not Recommend: Lawrence Winthrop - Liberal republican who really should register as a Democrat to be honest.

Judges of the Superior Court:

Jay Adleman
James Beene
Lori Horn Bustamante
Susan Brnovich
Rodrick Coffey
Suzanne Cohen
Connie Contes
Christopher Coury
John Ditsworth
David Gass
Pam Gates
Douglas Gerlach
Cari Harrison
Daniel Kiley
Andrew Klein
M. Scott McCoy
Kathleen Mead
Joseph Mikitish
David Palmer
Patricia Starr
Sherry Stephens
Timothy Thomason
David Udall

Bruce Cohen
Lisa Daniel Flores
Jeanne Garcia
Jo Lynn Gentry
Michael Gordon
John Hannah
Michael William Kemp
Margaret Mahoney
Paul Joseph McMurdie
Colleen McNally
Karen Mullins
Robert Oberbillig
Jose Padilla
Timothy Ryan
Teresa Sanders
Christopher Witten

Sunday, September 11, 2016

Attack of the Millionaires

On September 11, 2001 the United States of America was attacked by well-funded extremists who hated the country and its symbols.  Their message was that we should be ashamed of our country.

On Sunday September 11, 2016 it happened again.  However, rather than flying planes into buildings, well-funded extremists used media outlets to spread their false message of self-hatred at the beginning of NFL football games....and the NFL let them.

Lots of talking heads in the sports world tell us that these people have a right to protest at the beginning of football games by kneeling or sitting during our National Anthem.  In fact, these self-appointed Constitutional scholars tell us the First Amendment must allow for this.

 Freedom of speech is not the same as the First Amendment.  The First Amendment prevents the GOVERNMENT from stifling your speech not private entities (such as the NFL).  Freedom of speech is when we are free to express our thoughts to our community and others.  However, others have the freedom of speech (and expression) to disagree with us, ostracize us, and shun us from that community -- and when they do, we can do nothing about that...there is no law that requires people to like us.   Furthermore, they can ostracize those who support us, those who sponsor us, as their own form of free self-expression.

What makes this latest behavior laughable are the foundations for their childish antics.
The false meme of "hands up, don't shoot" was proven to be a lie.
An African-American Harvard economist showed that Blacks were less likely to be shot when confronting police.
And yet, we're confronted by pathetic racialists who cry racism as the answer to every question they're asked.  They publicly beclown themselves, obtusely dancing by the strings of a puppet-master , and continuing their history of being the Useful Idiots of the Left.

It's time to fight back against these well-funded extremists, just as we fought back against those who came from outside our nation.  During the War on Terror we fought to interrupt the source of funding for extremists....and we can do so again.

At the bottom is a list of sponsors for the NFL and Colin Kaepernick.  You can see Colin in the picture to the right -- hes the one surrounded by men.  Still don't see him?  he's the one trying to grow an Afro, though it looks more like SideShow Bob.

Take the time to contact the sponsors through their website or call and let them know you are boycotting their products because of SideShow Colin.  Cut off his source of funding and the source of funding for the organization that allows him to use their venue -


Call to support your country
Email to support the troops

And, if they don't take action...boycott any game where a Useful Idiot sits or kneels and immediately contact the NFL to let them know why you're boycotting using the following contacts:

Twitter:  @NFL
Internet:  NFL Operations
Phone: 1-212-450-2000
Roger Goodell's Email:

 We can watch highlights on the nightly news without feeding these sponsors:

Nike 1-503-671-6453                 Bose 1-508-879-7330                  

Jaguar 1 (800) 452-4827           Anheuser-Busch                       

Microsoft 1 (800) 285-7772       Pepsi 1-800-433-2652

Musclepharm                             Visa 1 (800) 847-2911                

Campbell Soup                          Fedex 1.800.463.3339                

Frito Lay

Other Sponsors:

Dairy Management,
Papa Johns,
Courtyard by Mariott,
Quaker Oats,
Proctor & Gamble,
Danon Yogurt,
TD Ameritrade ,
Cover Girl
Proctor & Gamble

Call 'til it hurts.....

Wednesday, August 03, 2016


A story broke that the U.S. paid a ransom for Iran to release American hostages...

North Korea fired missiles in violation of their United Nations agreement ..

A police officer is charged with aiding ISIS over the last SIX years.

I took screenshots at the top of every hour to see what CNN had as their top stories throughout the day.  Click the picture below...

P.S.   this is why we called CNN the CLINTON NEWS NETWORK during the 1990's.

Tuesday, July 26, 2016

Income Inequality....How About Just a Little Income?

At last night's Democrat convention the crowd exploded with pent-up electric enthusiasm as they cheered politician after politician striding across the stage, proclaiming the night of UNITED TOGETHER and spoke on the issue of income inequality.  Tuesday, they plan to address this topic again.

So, let's recognize and celebrate the accomplishments of the last 8 years of a Presidency that UNITED us and trampled out the dreaded income inequality.  Let us all rejoice at an unemployment rate that has fallen to 4.9%!
Doesn't everything feel so much better in America?

Or, at least the government is telling you everything is better....

In Jan 2008, when President Obama took office, the number of Americans in the workforce was over 136 million and unemployment was at 5%.
In April 2016, the unemployment rate hit 5% again.  SUCCESS!  Our economic woes are solved!!!  We have achieved, what economists call, full employment....But....there's a little problem....

Again, in 2008, with a 5% unemployment rate, there were 136 million workers employed.  In order to keep up with the number of new workers entering the labor force, we must add 145,000 jobs....each MONTH 1.
With 100 months spanning from January 2008 to April 2016, that means we needed 14.5 million new jobs created to once again reach the  5% unemployment rate.

Or, (doing the math) 136 million + 14.5 million = 150.5 million workers.  We needed to have about 151 million workers in the labor force to reach a 5% unemployment rate. But, by April 2016, we only had 144 million people working (psst...look at the red chart).  We are SEVEN and a half MILLION jobs short of where we should be.

How is this possible?

The Obama Administration and its defenders claim that as more older folks retire out of the workforce we don't need to create as many jobs to reach 5% unemployment.  They go on to say that younger workers are staying in school longer and so they are not participating either.  And, in fact, there are fewer workers in the labor force.  The labor participation rate in this country is as low as it has been since 1978.
  Here's a funny thing about the unemployment rate that is NOT true of the labor participation rate  --  when counting unemployment numbers, the fedral gummint can exclude anyone who has given up looking for work.  So, when calculating unemployment, they can just ASSUME you don't want to work and take you out of the equation.  Sounds like a thumb is on the scales...
   The labor participation rate, however, counts everyone over 16 years of age, unless serving in the military or doing time in prison.  And so, if the older folks retire earlier, then yes, the labor participation rate can fall while unemployment also falls.  And, if young workers stay in school rather than work, they can be removed from the unemployment measure as well.

Yeah, well, there's a little snag with this rationale from the Obama Administration....t'ain't true.
Both Pew Research 2 and the American Enterprise Institute 3 actually found that older Americans (measured as over 55 years of age), are actually staying in the labor force LONGER...not leaving sooner.  And, as far as the young -- maybe they are staying in school because they cannot find a job and don't want to start paying back their student loans just yet.  In other words, the drop in labor participation isn't caused by people voluntarily staying out of the labor force -- it's because the Obama economy sucks.  (Ooops, sorry for begin so indecorous.)

This post goes a little "down in the weeds" but, I hope it clearly shows that we are being lied to about the "brilliant" Obama economy.  We are also being lied to regarding how going back to the "old ways" is bad for the United States.

For a quick history lesson to show you why the old ways are sometimes the best ways look back at the labor participation chart.  (Remember that the military and inmates are not counted.)

- From 1950 to 1953 we were involved in the Korean War.  At the end of that war, there is an uptick in labor participation as G.I's return to work.

- Then, in 1955, we begin our involvement in Vietnam.  That pleasant little soiree lasts until 1975. Again, another sharp uptick occurs as soldiers enter the labor force, but then, Jimmy Carter slows the economy and the rate stabilizes

-  Ronald Reagan is elected in 1980.  His tax cutting policies create incredible growth over his 8 years.  At the same time, the Democrat Congress spends like drunken sailors and the deficit expands.

-  1988 George H.W.Bush is elected.  He breaks his pledge to not raise taxes -- the economy sputters again.

-  1992, Bill Clinton is elected and promptly raises taxes...the economy continues to sputter for four years 4 until Newt Gingrich leads a Republican takeover of Congress.  Gingrich and Clinton work together to cut taxes and cut spending.  The economy revives, wages rise, the deficit drops.  At the same time, Clinton adopts the socialist policy of Jimmy Carter known as the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA).  This move eventually leads to the collapse of our economy in 2007 5,6.

-  The attacks on 9/11 hit us hard and the economy slows.  George W. Bush cuts taxes and reduces unemployment to 4.4% by December 2006.  Democrats are elected to the House and Senate.  They immediately raise the minimum wage.  Unemployment begins to rise through 2007.

- In 2007, the CRA machine set in motion by Bill Clinton crushes our economy and the housing bubble explodes.

-  In 2008, Barack Obama is elected.  The economy is slow and unemployment hits its peak during his Presidency.  Obama convinces Congress to allocate $787 Billion to help revive the economy.  This creates a structural deficit that has doubled the national debt during Obama's tenure and the labor participation rate falls back to the rate of Jimmy Carter.  Good job, skippy.

Really.   Obama thinks you're dumb enough to believe the old policies of Reagan were bad for the economy.

Now you have an historical timeline to refute the incessant stream of lies coming from the party of hacked emails and fake unemployment reports.








Tuesday, July 12, 2016

Insidious Enslavement by Gummint Cheese

Why is there so much turmoil between Black Americans and police agencies?  Some people think they know, and many of them are wrong.  The answer to the question is...... “gummint cheese”. 

Follow me for just a minute here....

FACTOID 1: Black males  commit more crimes per capita than other parts of the population.
FACTOID 2: 40% of all police officers killed are killed by Black males though Black males are only 6% of the population.

   Why?  What are the reasons or causes for this higher level of criminality?  Is it that Black males are genetically more prone to be criminals?  Not at all.  Our own social policies drive poor inner-city Black males in that direction.  It's not all Black males; it's predominantly poor inner-city folks who comprise most of this statistic.

Imagine this…a foreign power takes over our country.  In order to placate the masses, we are provided subsidized housing, free food through the use of vouchers, assistance for utilities (up to 100%), medical care, and other support for which we pay nothing.  There is one catch though, we cannot earn more than a specified amount of money (as low as $1,276 per month 1), or we begin to lose these benefits, one by one.  Wait, there’s another catch –  there is a rumor that a woman cannot have a man living in the house with them.

This isn’t a fictitious takeover of the United States; it is what happens in our inner cities. 

This is our modern welfare system.  Is this true?  Must a man be “out of the house” to qualify for welfare in the United States?  Does welfare end, when families begin?  Not necessarily, but the belief still exists in many communities.  Here’s how it started…

The “man in the house” rule was written into the 1935 Aid to Families with Dependent Children welfare law.  AFDC was intended to help women and children.   If a man lived in the house, they needed to get out and work to support their family.   In 1968 this part of the law was ruled unconstitutional.  The lawsuit was brought by children of a mother who had been refused welfare because she had a periodic, but consistent boyfriend.2  So, how did the law change after the Supreme Court decision?  Women could still receive benefits, with a man in the house, as long as the man was not considered a parent! 3


That’s right, a man could co-habitate with the woman AS LONG AS HE WAS NOT CONSIDERED A PARENT TO THE CHILDREN!!!  While this no longer holds true, the idea was implanted in the last generation. 

What effect could this have had?  We can only point to correlations, not causation, but consider this…. 
- In 1890, 80% of Black homes were headed by two-parents. 
- By 1970 that figure had dropped to 64%. 
- Just 20 years later (1990), the rate of two-parent Black families had fallen to 38%.

Male children, much more capable and prone to violence, have been losing role models thanks to our welfare system 4.  Unfortunately, many of these male children are Black...but they could just as easily be White, Asian, or Middle Eastern and suffer the same fate (see France for an example of Algerian ghettos).

So, back to our occupied country example… if you are limited in what you can earn, how do you obtain those things you WANT to have?  New Nike tennis shoes, a nice jacket, a PlayStation?   If others can have those things, why can’t we?  Stymied from earning money legitimately, Social Strain 5 tells us that some will obtain those material goods through “unconventional means”6.  An underground economy and criminality are two of the more deviant means.  If you can’t earn money, you can hustle for it.  You might sell drugs, you can steal.  In the 1980’s there was a wave of inner city children harming other children to steal their Nike Air Jordan tennis shoes.  If you Google “killed for Air Jordan’s" you’ll find this is still going on.  This type of behavior becomes the new norm in some disorganized communities (The case of Trevon Johnson 7).

As a community accepts deviance as a legitimate means to an end, social disorganization forms 8.  Social Controls (the social pressure inside a community that helps to regulate behavior) diminishes.  Churches, schools, and police were the primary forms of social control.  But, remember that inner cities have government-imposed lower incomes thanks to the welfare system.  The tax-base is lower and so schools had less money to provide an adequate education.  Churches become less influential and seen as judgmental against those who embraced these new norms.  Gangs form new "congregations". 

 The last form of social control, policing 10, is seen as an impediment to achieving those things we believe we deserve.  In these strained communities, police are charged with trying to keep the community safe.  As other social controls fail, they are often the option of last resort.  At the same time, gangs and community organizers are trying to diminish police impact by waging a turf war against officers.  Even Black officers aren’t respected in this environment.

This is the highly charged atmosphere that leads to clashes in the inner cities.  While not all residents of disorganized communities embrace deviance, a significant enough portion does so and rejects any controls that would heal their neighborhoods.  Those who are contacted by the police in these neighborhoods may be law-abiding, but police must take every precaution inside these war zones -- sometimes with disastrous consequences.
Law-abiding residents may be trying to escape this environment, but some are hamstrung by the reliance on government programs to meet their day-to-day needs.  SNAP, TANF, Housing Assistance, and even WIC’s free gummint cheese 11 are insidious ways to make a population dependent on their elected officials for their sustenance.   In return, the population continues to vote for those politicians.

Rather than fix the problem, they keep these residents subjugated.  Sounds a lot like the days of the plantations.

Welfare policies, well-meaning, helpful to some, were the catalyst in this world of unintended consequences.

The only way to fix this issue is by reforming the economies of the inner cities.  Jack Kemp once proposed "enterprise zones" to make this happen.  Even President Obama agrees with this approach 12.  As people take pride in earning their living, their right to self-determination is enhanced.    Pride in the community will stem from the pride of ownership.  With money to spend, businesses will return.  Disorganization will diminish, as will the need for the poor to embrace "unconventional means" and eat gummint cheese.

2. King v. Smith, 392 U.S. 309, 88 S. Ct. 2128, 20 L. Ed. 2d 1118 (1968)
5.  Merton, R.K. 1957. Social Theory and Social Structure, rev. ed. New York: Free Press.
9. Velez, M. B. (2001). The Role of Public Social Control in Urban Neighborhoods: A Multi-Level Analysis of Victimization Risk. Criminology, 39, 837–864.
10.  Kappeler, V. and Gaines, L. (2015). Community Policing: A Contemporary Perspective, 7th ed. Anderson Publishing

Monday, November 24, 2014

The Case of Michael Brown: Raise a Thug, Attend a Funeral

A grand jury just exonerated Officer Wilson in the killing of Michael Brown.    There are a few lessons to learn from this case.
First -- raise thug, attend a funeral.  After the verdict, the Brown family stated that their child's killer would not face consequences.  On the contrary, Officer Wilson's life has been disrupted by this investigation.  Imagine doing your job and then being relieved of your duties, interrogated about your actions, questioned by the community, your  livelihood at jeopardy...   There were consequences for one of Michael Brown's killers.

Second -- everyone suffers for the failure of poor parents.  The other killers of Michael Brown also suffered -- they lost their son.  What might have been different if the Brown parents had actually been parents?  What if they had set limits to Michael's behavior?  What if they taught him to not steal from others?
These questions do not blame the victims.  The Browns were not the victims.
Officer Wilson was a victim in this case.
The store owner accosted by Michael Brown was a victim.
The city of Ferguson, having to deal with the aftermath of Michael Brown's assault on a police officer were the victims.

I don't want to hear any more from the Browns.

Saturday, November 22, 2014

AARP - Even THEY Know They are a Synonym for Excreta

AARP has a new ad campaign.

You remember AARP, don't you?  They're the vast grouping of blue-haired politicos who sold out on Obamacare.  AARP made almost $3 billion dollars while turning a blind eye to Obamacare's $716 billion cut to Medicare (the program for seniors..not Medicaid, the program for po' people).
Conservative seniors continue to flee AARP, while AARP continues to appoint liberals to head up their state-wide leadership positions .

If you're a senior who is still a member of AARP, this sign is for you.  On the tiny little sign, on the right side of this picture, we see the words "YOU DON'T KNOW 'AARP'".  If you're still a member of AARP, there is a phrase very similar to that one.  It also ends with a four-letter word and it describes those who still send dues to AARP.

Wednesday, November 19, 2014

How to Avoid Getting Gruber-ed Again (This is for the Libs)

    Tomorrow, an executive order is going to override established law.  More importantly though, is the sales pitch El Presidente Obama is going to throw at us.  Some of us will buy into being Gruber'ed again (see Gruber below).  Others will recognize pieces of this speech for what they are -- male bovine excreta.

    What Obama will propose is this:  he is going to grant a "pardon" to those who have committed the crime of invading our country.  These folks will be able to bring from their home countries any children they left behind.  To throw the American People a bone, Obama will pronounce that these people WILL NOT be able to get free healthcare -- THERE!  SEE!  Very little cost to us.  
   "So", Obama will guilt-trip you, "what's the problem?  Why can't we be generous?  Why can't we just share a little bit of 'Merica with these poor downtrodden folks who come from countries that suck so badly, they can't possibly survive if they stay there?"  Group hug.

   Here's where the Gruber'ing comes in.  You see, a pardon only expunges past crimes.  The fact that these people will stay is a re-offense.  But, tomorrow Emperor err... President Obama is going to unilaterally declare that he will not enforce the immigration laws on the books.  Instead, he will likely grant an Imperial ...errr... a Presidential Pardon for everyone in the entire world to invade our borders. 
    Also, he is already prepping the race-baiting defenders of crimes against the United States ...errr....immigration activists to act appalled that no Obamacare will be permitted.  The race-hustlers ...err...advocates will weep and gnash their teeth at the unfairness.  Surely, the American people can look at their tear-stained cheeks and realize that they have given so much for this opportunity.  
   Little problem there, B.,, we're on to you. Two minutes after the grand pronouncement from the Grand Overlord...errrr...the President (and astonishingly fast), the race-based Champions of Fairness will file suit against the United States on behalf of the noobs.  Just like immigrant children must be permitted public schooling, so shall the Supreme Court find that criminals...errrr.. newly minted residents have the right to tax-payer funded healthcare.  And Obama knows it.  Just like he knew Obamacare would lead to a government takeover of healthcare.

Question is, are we going to get Gruber'ed by this kabuki dance?  Us?  No!
Will the Democrats be Gruber'ed again? (prolly).

Tune in tomorrow for the fun.....


Grubered... ( 's -- 'ing) verb, to treat other human beings as though they are mouth-breathing imbeciles and then subject them to your bragging about it.

Professor Gruber is an MIT professor hired by the Obama administration to strategerize a way to sell Obamacare to the unwashed masses.  Gruber declared that the stupidity of the American People would allow the establishment rulers to pass this off as "not a tax".  In fact, the only people who would be taxed were eeeeevil insurance companies.  (Who would undoubtedly pass  the costs on to us -- shhhhhh). The only folks who fell for this were liberals.  Good Job!  They must be the stupid ones of whom he spoke -- but we already knew that.