Wednesday, February 17, 2021


When I was in high school in the early 90s, my father told me that he found someone on the radio that said the things that we believe. Even at that young age, I knew the media was biased, and had never heard anyone like Rush before. He quickly became one of my heroes. 

We tried calling into his show on a number of occasions, but never go through. 

My father passed away a couple of years ago. Today, he finally gets to talk to Rush. 


Friday, September 18, 2020

Blaming "System Racism" is a cop-out

Princeton gets hoist by its own petard after admitting it is racist.

Blaming "systemic racism" is a cop-out anyway and this is more proof. People who claim these things never offer proof of an actual ongoing racist system, but instead blame past racism in general for problems of today or cite racial disparities of one type or another without proof of causation, let alone correlation. It's just the assumed cause. Princeton is trying to have it both ways. They want to be all woke and blame racism without taking any personal responsibility for their own racism which they, of course, now deny because actual federal dollars are at stake.

It's as if no one is ever to blame for their own actions. There's literally no evidence of racism in most of the police deaths, like George Floyd or Breonna Taylor, but they get to blame racism anyway because it's embedded in the "system." In the old days, they just blamed "the Man" who was always holding people down oppressing them. But under this newer rubric, no one is responsible except the "system" and leftists don't have to actually prove anything with evidence. It's bootstrapping of the highest order: America is racist, so everything that happens is a result of racism. Q: What's the evidence of this systemic racism? A: Everything - it can only be caused by racism. It helps the leftists that they explicitly reject logic and reason and their arguments are more proof of that.

Monday, July 06, 2020

Re: popular votes and elections

Seems clear now that electors can be made to vote for the winner of the popular vote of that state. Whether or not a State can require electors to vote for the winner of a national popular vote is still an open question.

The stronger argument is that such a system undermines the whole purpose of the electoral college, gives away that's state's electoral sovereignty and should be found unconstitutional. It'll only take a single election where the winner of the EC has it taken away by these shenanigans and create such chaos that it would result in a massive crisis. What types of rioting would we see if a blue state's electors would have to vote for the Republican who didn't win that state but won the popular vote? They'd burn down the state capitol.

Such a situation would result in chaos and mass-scale litigation in counties all over the country. It'd make Bush v. Gore look like a walk in the park and result in Florida-style recount nonsense all over the country if the popular vote were remotely close. Plus, there'd be tons of pressure to cheat from the get-go. Imagine very one-sided counties just padding their totals to help the national vote (knowing it wouldn't affect local elections). Under our current system the damage caused by that type of fraud can be limited and the incentives are parochial. When it goes to a "national popular vote" every vote, real or fake, counts.

Wednesday, July 01, 2020

Schools exist for the education of children

Thomas Sowell advises that it is necessary for us to remind ourselves from time to time of a first truth: “Schools exist for the education of children.”
...They do not exist to provide incomes and union dues for Lily Eskelsen Garcia or the campaign contributions for Democrats that those union dues are laundered into. The schools are not there to be social-leveling projects or instruments of political indoctrination. They are not there to provide a theater for secular bourgeois progressives to work out their anxieties about people who are socially, religiously, or economically different from them. They are there to educate children.
Damn straight.

Wednesday, June 10, 2020

Too many damn fools out there

We are told that police kill black people due to systemic racism. certainly, all those white people killed by police could not possibly have been killed due to systemic racism because they're white, so there must be some other reasons, such as incompetence, lack of training, emotionally unfit for the job, the officer just being an asshole, , and the particular circumstances in each case. Come to think of it, those reasons seem like they'd apply to the black deaths as well and it isn't just "systemic racism."

After all of this is done and the billions of dollars have been spent on left wing priorities, then the "systemic racism" nonsense will still be here. It will never go away because no amount of money and no amount of legislation and nothing you can do will ever be good enough to erase the historical grievances that underlie this claim because you can't change history. If all of history is built into whatever system you have, you can't erase it. There will always be some aspect of history that is still with us as it doesn't matter if no one is racist today because we all stand to benefit from the current system that was built by history's greatest monsters. You cannot create utopia, and you cannot perfect humans no matter what you do. It's a fool's errand to try.

Thursday, November 15, 2018

And that's the way it is

if the left couldn't attack the right with and -ist and -ism or -phobic name-calling, they'd actually have to defend their insane ideas and proposals on the substance. They can't because they, for the most part, live in a bubble where that is never required. Conservatives, on the other hand, are surrounded on all sides by the entertainment industry, media and academia and are constantly required to defend our ideas and ourselves against this slander. That's why our ideas are generally better. They've been honed through debate.

However, the appeal of Trump is that we're not going to put up with this shit anymore. The left wants to call us bigots, etc, well my response is "Fuck you." The conversation is over. Why'd I vote for Trump? Fuck you. That's why. Why don't I care about his character flaws? Fuck you. That's why. Why do I let Trump get away with shit I'd never let a Dem president get away with? Fuck you. That's why.

And naturally, the left, completely bereft of the ability to argue without this childish name-calling doubles down, triples down and just starts calling everyone racist and rioting, chasing people out of restaurants - just going nuts. They don't want a conversation. They don't want a debate. They want to dominate us.

The reason the Crenshaw/Davidson thing worked is because both men approached the situation in good faith. Davidson is getting crushed by the left for allowing a "white supremacist" on his segment. That's the opposite. Until that changes, it's gonna be "fuck you. that's why" and I'm not waiting around for the Left to change its tone. Even if they did, I'm not sure I'd believe it. It's Charlie Brown and the football. Regardless, the left has to go first.

Tuesday, October 30, 2018

Modifying Birthright Citizenship

It looks like Trump will take action on this issue. It relates to an interpretation of the 14th Amendment's Citizenship clause. Here is the basic argument.

From what I can tell, the opposition argument, once you get past all of the typical name-calling and frothing at the mouth, is that language of the 14th Amendment means "you're born here, you're a citizen" unless you're the child of an ambassador or diplomat (or invading soldier). I don't have a dictionary from 1860s to help, but so far as I can tell, that doesn't make much sense because the 14th Amendment requires residency as well "are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." It looks like the framers did not mean for the children all foreigners to just become citizens unless they were already allowed to live here permanently.

In essence, this means that the children of legal residents (green card holders) are naturally born citizens. Children of illegals are not, so anchor babies would cease to be a thing. Children of tourists and foreign exchange students are not citizens, which should end birth tourism. Not sure where refugees and asylum seekers fit into all of this, but better to error on the side of NOPE if their status is undetermined. There's already too many garbage asylum claims that seek to take advantage of our generous laws and incompetent system. We don't want to encourage more. 

I realize that has not always been how the country works, but the idealized Ellis Island is a fantasy. People there were screened and many were sent back to where they came from. Plus, now that we have such a big welfare state and all sorts of government benefits, there should be a clearer set of restrictions on who is let in. 

Whether the President has the power to alter the definition via executive order is debatable. Then again, Obama granted amnesty and created DACA by fiat, so why can't President Trump do whatever he wants in this area of which he has quite a bit of plenary power. The preferred method, of course, is that Congress would enact legislation resolving these questions, but its too dysfunctional for that right now - mostly because there are too many pro-amnesty pols from both sides. 

UPDATE: I've done a bit more research. There is a lot of discussion of these issues going back centuries, so it is really just skimming some of it. Some of discussion seems to be conflicting and very little of it relates to those temporarily passing through. Really, there was no such thing as "illegal" immigration. That would cut in the benefit of the pro-birthright citizenship camp, I believe, though a lot of it depends on what words meant back at the framing of the 14th Amendment, which was naturally informed by past uses of the terms.

I think the crux of the issue, from a legal perspective, will be whether residency was required for one to be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States as opposed to the laws simply applying to those folks as well. Since illegals and tourists can't, by definition, be residents in the US, that would seem to favor the pro-Trumpian side of the argument.

Further research is needed.