Close Please enter your Username and Password

This Libertarians viewpoint

All things political everyone welcome. Bring it on.

Posted:Oct 16, 2018 7:12 am
Last Updated:Oct 16, 2018 1:25 pm

What your ancestral makeup is, and using that to determine your place in society sure sounds vaguely familiar. Familiar as in Germany 1930's.

But your immutable characteristics, as in your DNA, is very important to liberals because, now, instead of using it to determine discrimination, it is being used to determine victim status. We all know certain racial traits carry more victim status than others. Black and Hispanic are tops of most lists, women after that, unless you are a white woman, of course. Asians hardly ever get a victim card, maybe because they are too busy working hard and achieving to have their hands out at the free bee table.

Brazil , a very mixed race country, passed a law to reserve certain spots in higher education for just "black" students, which, is apparently very hard to determine, as racial intermarriage goes back centuries. It was encouraged , in fact, in order to , as their history tells us- to " whiten" Brazil. Far more slaves ( about 5.5 million ) were sent to Brazil from Africa than to America.

So now, guidelines are issued. The Department of Education in Para, Brazil’s blackest state, attempted to fulfill the decree with a checklist, which leaked to the press. Among the criteria to be scored: Is the job candidate’s nose short, wide and flat? How thick are their lips? Are their gums sufficiently purple? What about their lower jaw? Does it protrude forward? Candidates were to be awarded points per item, like “hair type” and “skull shape.”

In response to the leaked test, one college professor from the state wrote on Facebook, “We’re going back to the slave trade. During job interviews they’re gonna stick their hands in our mouth to inspect our teeth.”

Is this that much removed from Warren's campaign commercial about her DNA test? Or Rachel Dozzier, the white blonde chick who " identified " as black and darkened her skin and kinked her hair and actually got to be the President of the local NAACP?
Is this why, in the past few years, white males are the pariah ? Is this why the affluent son of an Hispanic dentist can get an affirmative action admission to Harvard, but the white male son, with better grades and higher SAT's of a Midwest farmer gets denied ? Or why Asians have to sue Harvard , despite being more than well qualified, but are denied academic positions because the spots are reserved for other minorities? You see, you have to be high on the victim scale to get preference. Despite being discriminated against for most of the history of the US, they just dont have the cache to the liberals a kid from Detroit does.
Notwithstanding her denials, Warren traded on her claim of Native American to further her career. Harvard listed her as a minority and the first Native American professor. Fake -a-gawea is making campaign ads about her DNA, much to the dismay of fellow Democrats.

I do wonder what happened to concept of " All men are created equal" It was replaced , I must admit, for a long time with " Them that has, gits " ( the 'hood retort from the 70's on the first quote ) But now it is a race to see who is the most victimized, and see what can be gained, politically, or materially from victimhood status.
Posted:Oct 9, 2018 8:20 am
Last Updated:Oct 12, 2018 8:13 am

I am sure we all have watched a toddler in the so-called " terrible twos " have a temper tantrum. They scream, plop down on the floor, and pound their fists on the ground until they think you will get tired of the actions and give them what they want.

Why am I so reminded of this watching the protests this past week? The Democrats thought if they hired enough people to scream and cry in the halls of Congress, ditto any Republicans out in public, the Republicans would give in , and Trump would pull Kavanagh's nomination. Not only the toddler screamers, but they also had the equivalent of the little girl across the street who came over to tell what a mean kid Brett was. ( no, I don't believe Ford. I think she is a nut job , manipulated by people with an agenda )

I cannot remember a time when Conservatives acted like this. I didn't see the Tea Party protests descending into " Lord of the Flies". The people protesting Obamacare, and the leftward turn of the Senate in 2009 and 2010, didn't beat on the Supreme Court doors, climb statues, and harass Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid at DC eateries.

The Left wing pundits and writers are doing their best to whip up more childish antics. A few headlines "Liberals, This Is War" — Charles Blow, New York Times.
"Get Angry, and Get Involved" — David Leonhardt, New York Times.
"We to Stay Angry on Kavanaugh" — E.J. Dionne, Washington Post.
And they aren't one bit regretful that they put the country thru the nasty fight of the past couple of weeks. Instead they are celebrating it. Ariel Dumas, a writer for Stephen Colbert’s "Late Show," tweeted that "no matter what happens, just glad we ruined Brett Kavanaugh's life."

So why is the Left so childish? Why do they think that screaming and rolling around on the ground is an intelligent, effective , political strategy? One reason is it used to work. It worked with idiot Jeff Flake. Some professional protestors cornered him in an elevator, and he caved like California sink hole. Any other Republican President would have caved also.
The other reason is they got plenty of nothin'. They have no ideas, no policy proposals to make anything better. They can't say they are going to fix the economy, Trump already did that. They did say they wanted to raise our taxes- always a winner. They can't tell us they are going to defeat ISIS- Trump pretty much took care of them when he let the military do their jobs, instead of letting a Ben Rhodes type ( Obama's war manager, an English major with no military experience ) run it from some office at 1600. The love regulations, mandates and Big Government, so no one would believe them if they said they would cut Government.

All they have left is to scream and cry and protest, hoping someone will be weak enough to give in. Sorry kiddies, not this time.
It wouldn't have stopped the nastiness and the hysterical protest if Trump had pulled Kavanaugh and put up another name. It would have emboldened them to do more.
Give them one cookie, and they will expect another. Finally, the grown-ups are staying in charge of the cookies.
Posted:Oct 3, 2018 8:41 am
Last Updated:Oct 7, 2018 6:09 am

As part of a generation who had fairness and equality drilled into us at every turn, I am having a really hard time wrapping my head around the recent movement that we should always believe a certain group of people because of their X chromosome.
I find nothing more nonsensical than a sign that reads " We believe survivors ". Why? What is so unique about them , that they have suddenly been gifted with always telling the truth? Talk about naïve. Do the sign holders actually think that no one would make something up for revenge? For attention? Because they are nuts? If you put all the sign holders in a room, and did a little experiment , could they tell the truth from fiction? Have 10 women tell them a story, one is true, 9 are made up. Could they spot the lies? Or the other way around, 9 truths and 1 lie. Of course they couldn't. Experienced law enforcement , from the FBI on down to the local cops, are trained to do that, not you and me. And if the person telling the lie is good enough, or they believe themselves, it may never be exposed.

Take a look at the research on false memory. A observations from the False Memory Syndrome Foundation.

The professional organizations agree: the only way to distinguish between true and false memories is by external corroboration.

" What are false memories? Because of the reconstructive nature of memory, some memories may be distorted through influences such as the incorporation of new information. There are also believed-in imaginings that are not based in historical reality; these have been called false memories, pseudo-memories and memory illusions. They can result from the influence of external factors, such as the opinion of an authority figure or information repeated in the culture. An individual with an internal desire to please, to get better or to conform can easily be affected by such influences. "

Or maybe constructed because of political opinion?

In a situation like therapy, and the person desperately looking for reasons for their problems, might pick a person or situation from the news to give credence to what they think they are remembering. That happened to a New Zealand TV personality, who was named as the ra**st, but was on TV at the time of the alleged incident, and didn't even know the woman.

But despite all the research on false memory, therapists planting ideas that aren't there, and the current political climate, women are always some sort of victim. And always a victim of a white male. How convenient- as the Church Lady on SNL used to say.

There was a time when the word " survivor " meant the Holocaust or cancer, not having a pass made at them 40 years ago.
And where do we draw the lines? If you are a white female who decides to become a male, do you lose all the believability? Because, white males are evil and all that?

I am a very black and white person on legal things. When someone is accused of a crime, I want to see the evidence. An accusation is not more credible because of the gender of the person making it. How many sign carriers would believe an accuser of attempted or actual r**e , if the accuser was a male? A white male?
Would the same women be out in the streets with their little pink hats and signs if a Georgetown Prep alumnus had accused Kavanaugh of the same thing as Ford has? That he tried to r**e him at a party? Or is this just more of the politics of destruction of men foisted on us by the new rapid feminists for the sake of power?

I have no doubt a lot of the protestors are sincere, but a lot more are professional activists , well financed, and with an agenda. But that is another blog. Unfortunately , the loudest voices are ones with an agenda, and they are on a seek and destroy mission for anyone who does not agree.

“In war, the first casualty is truth.”
― Terry Hayes, I Am Pilgrim
Posted:Sep 26, 2018 7:13 am
Last Updated:Sep 29, 2018 10:12 am
The " feminist " these days resembles nothing of the early days of the movement, and even less of that of the 1970's. What started out as a demand for equal rights and protections, and has devolved into weakness, whining and victimhood.

Dennis Prager has a few apt descriptions: " wallowing in the self-pity, victimhood, anger, contempt for men, lies (“colleges have a culture of r**e”), and ingratitude (for living in one of the best countries, if not the best country, a woman can live in in the world today) "

Other than ganging up on actual predators , like Harvey Weinstein, who rightly deserved to be exposed and prosecuted ( as did Bill Clinton ) , this culture of revenge and victimhood has weakened what the feminist movement used to stand for. She think she is courageous for walking out of her job for a few hours, wearing a little pink hat, or if she is really brave, a giant vagina, and screaming she needs to be treated special.
The word " survivor " used to be for Holocaust survivors, and people with cancer, not someone who fended off an unwelcome pass at a drunken party. It used to mean something.
I am not trivializing unwelcome groping or worse, what I am pointing out is how the perpetuated victimhood of feminism has weakened women's ability to actually be empowered and have control over their lives. Slugging the guy at the party is one way to deal with an unwelcome pass. Heading straight the police is another for a more serious offense. ( I have to not type what I really want , SFF sensibilities and all that )

When you spend all your time with the "poor little me , I am being oppressed by the patriarchy" , how is that not different than " Do it for me, I'm just a girl " ?

There are still places where women are not victims:
Posted:Sep 25, 2018 8:05 am
Last Updated:Sep 29, 2018 10:14 am

I have a cautionary tale for all the Me Too ladies. I am talking about the ones who are seeking political or personal revenge on a man who they perceived, or actually did something wrong to them. Revenge is a lot different than justice or prosecution of someone who actually committed a crime. Your selfishness is destroying the interaction between men and women, and ultimately will backfire on you. How many times can the male population be accused of something they didn't do, before the male population just stops interacting with you , without a damn lawyer present? Kind of a social and professional buzzkill , isn't it?

Let me explain. Suppose you are a female lower level manager at a big company looking to move up. One thing that can get one ahead in a lot of circles is networking- social interaction with others in the field. Liz Peek, political pundit, points it out this way: " I have spoken to numerous young female office workers who are openly concerned that they are being excluded from informal gatherings because their associates are worried their conversations or behavior might be misconstrued. What executive is going to take the risk of inviting a junior female co-worker out to lunch or for an after-work drink, when all it takes is an accusation to lose his job? "

If the women are all going to act like Kristine Gillibrand , who says Kavanagh's accusers are giving an accurate telling of what he is accused of, all because SHE says so, and not from any proof, this is not only a danger to a centuries long system of jurisprudence, but a death knell to the social interaction of the sexes.

Personally, I have a feeling many of these women have a low opinion of men. They would like an Amazon Tribal World, where the men do their bidding when told to. One does not have to look far to find women who demand total domination - check out the blogs, for instance. You know who they are. They want to be in charge, and dare any male to oppose them.

This sort of mindset has found itself in academia, politics, and the general social life of the Left Wing. But what about everyone else? What about a very nice, well-mannered male college student who doesn't dare even ask a woman out , without fear that he will accused and run off campus because he now is tagged a sexual predator for even attempting to interact with a female ? And woe be to he, who may find himself in a potentially sexual situation, possibly fueled by alcohol ? If he doesn't call her in a few days, for example, will she seek revenge and say he assaulted her? What about the college woman , who would like to meet a nice guy and maybe have a long term relationship? The men are all scared to talk to them, thanks , in part to the women I am talking about. How are these women going to meet a man they may want to spend the rest of their lives with?

Fabricated stories- like the Duke team, or the " Jackie" Rolling Stone article?
makes light of actual assault, and it won't be long before every woman will be taken as one who cries wolf.

So here is where we find ourselves. Men in the corporate world will be afraid to mentor a young woman in whom they find potential. The women will find it ever harder to rise in the work place, if every man looks at their motives suspiciously. And the women will find themselves excluded from helpful social situations, out of fear. The " boy's club " they claim they are trying to break up, will close ranks on them.

If you study history, you know there is a pattern of backlash for every movement. Someone comes along to do the opposite of what the current crowd demands. And that backlash , whether it is communism against capitalism, abortion on demand vs restrictions, radical man hating feminism vs equal rights, is never what the originators of the movement intended.

So be careful what you wish for, who you villainize , and how many times you cry wolf. Radical always backfires.
Posted:Sep 19, 2018 7:49 pm
Last Updated:Sep 22, 2018 4:45 am
So just how far back do the Democrats want to go to smear Kavanaugh? Who's next? How far up ones political butt would the Democrats go to derail a candidate for elected office? Interview your kindergarten class maybe?

Posted:Sep 18, 2018 8:34 am
Last Updated:Sep 23, 2018 6:07 am

When you have a site like Politifact that is 9 times more likely to give a Republican a Pants on Fire rating than a Democrat, you come away with a couple of scenarios. Either the Republicans , all of them , are the biggest bunch of malicious, deliberate liars ever to grace the earth, or the site is biased. Statistically, the ratings should be more balanced. No wonder the public doesn't trust the media.

So how about we look at how the site generates their ratings? It would appear , under close analysis, the site should be renamed PolitiContext for Democrats. Let me offer a few examples, courtesy of the folks at Media Research Center.

They gave ultraliberal Sen. Kamala Harris a "Mostly True" on July 25 when her facts on apartment rentals weren't factual. By contrast, on July 20, PolitiFact declared it "Mostly False" when a Republican challenger tweeted that ultraliberal Sen. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin "opposed displaying the flag and reciting the Pledge of Allegiance or singing the National Anthem in our classrooms." Except Baldwin did vote against the bill, and Harris's statements were way off , if you can do math.

The vote on the classroom bill is black and white- she voted no. So what about Harris? Harris has a new bill offering a refundable tax credit for renters making under $100,000 a year and who spend more than 30 percent of their income on rent. She tweeted: "In 99 percent of counties in America, someone making the minimum wage working full time can’t afford a 1-bedroom apartment."

That's wrong. First of all , I want to know who is making 6 figures that can't afford an apartment. But lets leave that one. She used the data from left leaning National Low Income Housing Coalition, for the FAIR MARKET VALUE of apartments, not the actual value . Fair market value is about the average. There are cheaper apartments. When conservatives make claims and then refer to a conservative think tank for their research (say, the Heritage Foundation), reporters think these studies are too ideological to be reliable. They would seek out something less conservative. But they don't apply that skepticism to liberal lobbies like the National Low Income Housing Coalition, which might have an interest in supporting the Harris legislation.

This isn't the only example. Politifact doesn't just rate facts, they rate spin. They enter context for Democrats, but not for Republicans. They even went so far as to rate a joke from Ted Cruz. Cruz joked Iran has Death to America Day , but no Christmas or Thanksgiving equivalent. But, hey, anything to make Republicans look bad.
It’s no wonder that the public has so little faith in the fact-checkers. A 2016 Rasmussen poll found that an astonishing 62% of American voters think the fact-check-ers are biased.

I am not saying don't believe what PolitiFact says, or the Heritage Foundation, or any other the other sources one can find for data, or quotes, or context.
But we should all be advised that every single one of them has a viewpoint. Every single one of them has a bias.
What you choose to believe, when it is not hard data- like yes or no votes, or REAL math ( not Government math) is up to you. But don't try to sell us that there is one unbiased source. That dog just don't hunt, especially when the Far Left OR the Far Right is peddling it.

Posted:Sep 15, 2018 6:54 am
Last Updated:Sep 18, 2018 7:30 am
Somewhere, there is some sicko vegan, liberal Commie lying to wait to ruin Halloween .
Have they no shame?????

Posted:Sep 13, 2018 8:49 am
Last Updated:Sep 14, 2018 6:27 pm
We have all seen the silly theater Cory Booker created when he had his " Spartacus " act at the Kavanaugh hearings. Oh, yeah , brave brave brave saying you were illegally releasing emails that were already cleared for release.

Not only that, but the emails revealed Kavanaugh was AGAINST racial profiling. Ooopsy.

So how about a look at another Booker- one that had a lot more sense than this chucklehead.

Posted:Sep 12, 2018 7:22 am
Last Updated:Sep 14, 2018 6:26 pm

Barack is baaaack. Great news for Republicans.

Battlin'Barry has shown us he is not much of a surrogate campaigner. People he stumps for have a unfortunate tendency to lose- right Hillary?
But Barry has one huge blind spot ,and that is the person he is the most fond of - himself.

In his recent generic stump speeches, he has all his usual angry mannerism. You know , the ones that show he REALLY cares- the lip pursing, the bottom lip biting , and the looking down the nose at everyone. The Democrats love this stuff.

He reminded us HE is the reason we have a booming economy, HE is the reason people are doing a lot better than they did for his 8 years. What the hell took you so long, pal ? Had to be out of office for a year, THEN it all took hold?

Obama also suggested that Donald Trump was elected in 2016 by the “powerful and the privileged.” He also railed at voters for failing to show up, and for permitting such a damaging “threat to our democracy.” No, Barry, it was the voters in Ohio and Pennsylvania, who had seen local industries move overseas, and it was voters in Michigan, who were sick of the Democrats taking them for granted. Ditto Hispanics and African Americans.
Again- more blind spots- It wasn't ME -it was someone else's fault we got Donald J Trump.

Losing the House and Senate in 2010 and 2012, didn't make a dent in his ego either. Passing Obamacare and the same voters watching their health expenses skyrocket - you didn't notice, did you Barry?
Nope you were busy globalizing us- the Paris Climate Accords, " even though it would hobble the U.S. economy and its powerhouse energy industries while enabling the continued expansion of China, by far the world’s biggest carbon emitter. " ( quote from Liz Peek )

Obama complained that “demagogues promise simple fixes to complex problems,”
But you told us all we needed was Government mandated health insurance, and everything would be fixed. All we needed to save the planet was the Paris Accords. The world would be instantly safer if we sent Iran a few billion, and onerous regulations would create better jobs.

Yup, you are angry Barry Ole Buddy. I get it. Trump has used the same pen and phone as you, to get rid of all the stuff you shoved down our throats , while you promised you knew better what was best for us. We warned you- we told you we didn't like your act- in 2010, 2012 and 2016.

So you're back. Back to remind us how racist , sexist, homophobic, etc . etc. we are , as you start your identity politics schtick . We let you down Barry. We upset you. And now you are back to scold us, and hope we all have the same short memories as Democrats. I do hope the Democrats are contrite enough to embrace those same failed policies you gave us , Barry. And double down with the Socialism talk just for good measure, won't you? That's a sure fire seller with those lost blue collar voters. Take more of their money and give it to who you think needs it more. Go for it.

The voters aren't stupid, Barry. And unless you succeed in rigging the elections for Democrats like you tried in 2016, with the help of the FBI, the lame stream media and social media, the voters will tell you , again, we like our great economy, lower taxes and not being forced to buy crappy insurance. We like the wage increases, the new jobs, and the jobs coming back to the US.

Maybe this time it will sink in, if your giant ego gets out of the way. But I doubt it.

To link to this blog (Maisie2013) use [blog Maisie2013] in your messages.