Are The Democrat And Republican Parties Doomed?

As much as I wanted to believe that any schism within the Republican Party wasn't as bad as I had originally thought, I found that belief to be mistaken.

Not that I wanted that particular schism to be minimized. Far from it. But I find it is worse than I thought, particularly with some of the more recent events. Between John Boehner's labeling Ted Cruz as “Lucifer in the flesh” and former US Senator Judd Gregg piling on by calling Cruz “a demagogue's demagogue” on one side, and the constant denigration of Donald Trump by much of the GOP establishment on the other, it looks to me as if the schism has widened and isn't like to heal any time soon.

It's one thing if this was limited to just the GOP as it seriously needs to clean out the deadwood that has made it barely distinguishable from the Democrat Party. But the Democrats are getting their share as well, with the differences between Hillary and Bernie showing the deep division between the Left (Hillary) and Progressive/Marxist Left (Bernie) within the party becoming broader.

But what has become more evident to anyone paying attention is that both parties are becoming irrelevant to a large swath of the American people. Certainly that is the finding by former US Senator Tom Coburn, who stated “America doesn’t trust you anymore. That’s the truth... and that’s not one party, that’s both.”

Why should we trust them? Congress certainly hasn't lived up to its promises, hasn't reined in profligate federal government spending, bureaucratic overreach, rogue federal agencies, and worse, a president who seems to think he's a king and can rule by decree. Is it any wonder Coburn has found the people aren't happy with Congress and the political parties in power?

Here's Coburn speaking before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs:

With the exception of the political coastal elite, no one is happy with the federal government. Everyone is angry at being marginalized, denigrated, and ignored by our “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” It seems it has deliberately isolated itself from the wants and needs of the American people, making decisions that more often that not hurt those very same people, yet telling us “It's for your own good.” Yeah. Right.

I have a feeling that both the Democrat and Republican parties as they stand now are doomed. They no longer represent us, nor do they wish to change in order to become relevant to us again. So maybe it is time to either go forth with a hostile takeover, or move past them and let them end up on the “trash heap of history” because of their irrelevance.


Private Versus Government Investment - A Primer

Have you ever wondered why private investment works and government investment doesn't?

Wonder no more.


Thoughts On A Sunday

The level of activity here at The Manse has increased as we move into Spring Cleaning mode. A number of non-functional items made their way to the local Lion's Club Electronic Waste Collection Day. While it is possible to dispose of electronic waste year round at out local transfer station, the Lion's Club charges a fraction of what of the transfer station charges for the same item.

There's also a considerable amount of junk to be removed from the basement, something that will be occurring over the next 4 weekends or so.

It never ceases to amaze me just how quickly we can accumulate stuff we either no longer need (donated to Goodwill, the Salvation Army, or St. Vincent DePaul) or is no longer serviceable. We're hoping to have reduced the amount of stuff in our basement by at least 50% by the time we're done.


Skip gets into the details fascism and its need to destroy the individual for the sake of the collective. (Here's where fascism and the various forms of socialism agree 100%.) As Skip writes, “They just can't leave anyone alone, can they?”

The picture which he also includes breaks it down to an even simpler terms (you can go to his post to see it).

Conservative: Leave Me Alone.

Liberal: No.

Paraphrasing what I wrote in my post yesterday, we're looking for a government that will leave us the hell alone and let us get on with living our lives and making a living free from Nanny State interference.


Here's another interesting post from Granite Grok, this time from Steve MacDonald on the issues of pregnancy, abortion, child support, and his call for the equivalent of an End User License Agreement (or EULA) that covers sexual intercourse, in this case the Vaginal Use Liability Verification Agreement, or VULVA.

The VULVA will stipulate the following. It’s yours. Your decision to treat it like a drive-thru is your business and your responsibility.  And that despite all precautions real or implied, pregnancy is a common outcome of intercourse. If the use of said Vagina results in an unplanned pregnancy (and therefore a potential additional unplanned use of the same vagina as a result of that pregnancy), the user of the vagina will in no way be held financially responsible for any decision made by the mother. This is based on the presumption of the in-force femi-nazi code which states that “men have no say whatsoever in whether or not the woman has an abortion because men cannot get pregnant.” If men cannot get pregnant then these women shall not facilitate the following double standards regarding secondary uses of the same vagina for which men also have absolutely no control. Like birth.

Seems reasonable to me. I know of quite a few people who should have had such an agreement in place before going forward with their sexual relationships. But that's just me.


You know the Department of Education Office of Civil Rights “Dear Colleague” letter has caused far more harm than it has prevented when a male college student was expelled and his scholarship canceled due to a sexual assault accusation even though no sexual assault took place.

A third party reported the alleged assault, though the two people involved have both said no assault took place and that all sexual activity was consensual.

This witch hunt, for that's what it is, must stop. When it devolves to the point that a third party accusation made by someone who wasn't even an eyewitness carries more weight than that of the supposed victim who states over and over again that she was not a victim because the sex was consensual (and did not involve alcohol), then it's gone to damn far.

People need to be sued, ruined, and jailed for bearing false witness.



Cause and effect, or coincidence?


The definition of irony:

UC Berkeley supports $15 minimum wage. Governor Brown signs the new $15 law. Berkeley then lays off hundreds of workers.

Nothing to see here, folks. Move along...


And that's the news from Lake Winnipesaukee, where thoughts of boating intrude regularly, yard work is piling up, and where there's always more work to be done on the boat to get it ready.


Response To A Progressive Tool

It was while crafting a reply to one of our local Progressive academic's recent rants in our local paper that I thought that both his 'deconstruction' of the TEA Party as nothing but another form of fascism and my response would make a decent post. So here goes.

First, the self-professed fount of Progressive thought showing his outright hatred of anything with which he disagrees.

The fascism we are most familiar with began with Mussolini in 1919 Italy and spread. These regimes arose in very different times but echoes of fascism can still be heard in right-wing rhetoric. Fascism at its core is uber-nationalistic. It expresses and demands patriotism on the scale of religious fanaticism. Fascist propaganda specializes in patriotic mottos, songs, and slogans. Flags, flag symbols and flag clothing are to be ubiquitous. Fascism glorifies the nation and the military. Fascists promote an aggressive foreign policy and tend to disproportionately fund their military when the money could be better spent elsewhere. This nationalist militancy bleeds over into a love of paramilitary organizations and militias.

Hate speech and fear mongering about "others" is a tool that promotes obsession regarding national security and traditional values. Robert Paxton, foremost expert on fascism noted, "The use of ethnic stereotypes and exploitation of fear of foreigners is directly out of a fascist's recipe book.

"Making the country great again" sounds exactly like the fascist movements. Concern about national decline, that was one of the most prominent emotional states evoked in fascist discourse, and Trump is using that full-blast...". Right-wingers use ethnic and religious stereotypes to attack Mexicans, Muslims, immigrants, etc. Fascism remains feverishly anti-immigrant. "English only" is an American echo of the Nazi's "German only" agenda.

What I find fascinating is that he does not recognize that the very thing he preaches against is exactly what his fellow travelers are guilty of doing. It is right out of Alinsky: Accuse your opponents of doing what it is you yourself are doing. Then again, maybe he knows exactly what he's doing. He goes on in this vein for an additional eight paragraphs. Rather than giving him any more coverage here, you are free to go read his diatribe at the link above.

My response to him is considerably shorter.

Your definition of fascism is so broad that it includes anyone who does not fully embrace the morally bankrupt Progressive cause. By your definition Ronald Reagan was a fascist. So was John F. Kennedy. So was FDR. So was one of your Progressive heroes, Woodrow Wilson.

If you include the TEA Party's push to reform government such that it will become one that will forcefully and rigorously leave people alone to live their lives as they see fit with little or no interference, then it is indeed fascist. If its call for the government to follow the Constitution of the United States and stay within the limits as defined by it as fascism, then it is indeed a fascist organization. If the TEA Party's demands that the government actually follow the law and do away with the increasing overreach and burdensome administrative rules, regulations, and laws fostered by cronyism created by the numerous agencies and departments in the Executive branch that go far outside the laws as created by Congress and outside their charters, then it is indeed a fascist organization.

That members of the TEA Party have a deep seated and justified distrust and, dare I say, hatred of Marxism, socialism, and Progressivism (all branches of the same ideology) isn't in dispute. They have such feelings for those tyrannical political beliefs because of what history has shown us, with one aspect of which is the blood of millions of innocents they have spilled, all in the name of building some “bright future” that always devolves into oppression, imprisonment, slavery, and murder as instruments of achieving the delusional and unreachable socialist utopia.

I realize this will not sway this true believer in the Progressive cause, will not cause him to re-evaluate his beliefs or core assumptions about his cause or those of the people who oppose his beliefs. He has faith his convictions are the only correct ones and that no others need apply. He is what Lenin called “a useful idiot.” And should his Progressive 'utopia' ever come to pass here in the US, he will be one of the first to be put up against the wall and shot because he will have outlived his usefulness to the cause, just as the Bolsheviks did to their useful idiots after they took power in 1917.


Bill Whittle Opens Some Minds

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” - Winston Churchill

I began this piece with one of my favorite Churchill quotes as it fits rather nicely with what follows a little later. While the younger generation seems willing to embrace socialism - mainly because they really don't know any better - they really have no understanding of what it truly entails or its bloody history.

With that in mind I have to quote another man who has a full understanding of socialism and its failures, in this case Bill Whittle. It was while speaking at high school in Palos Verde, California that he was able to get past any incipient hostility the students felt towards a conservative speaker and show them some long ignored truths about some of the things they believed. One of the subjects he covered was socialism and he explains how he addressed the subject in response to a question from one of the high school students, a Bernie Sanders “true believer”.

And this kid couldn't understand it.  He couldn't understand it, and I finally said, "Listen.  Socialism and Bernie Sanders is based on the politics of envy." And I have come up with – most of the work is so derivative. Mostly it's just regurgitating things that Dr. Hansen says over there and trying to find a way to elaborate on it like it's actually my stuff, but this particular analogy I came up with on my own, because I wanted to demonstrate to these kids the power of envy.  And how, if you understand the power of envy, you understand what drives the socialist impulse throughout history.


And I said, "Fine, let's get to the envy thing," because this is the point I wanted to make.  Here's my example that I came up with.  I think it's a really good example.  I'm going to show you the power of envy and I'm going to demonstrate it in your own heart.  You're not going to have to look at it from the outside.  You get to feel it from the inside.  Here it goes. Ready?  Let's say that you worked in an insurance company for 25 years and you're up on the eighth floor and you're just one person in a cube of 100 cubicles and you've been doing this slog for 25 years. And at the end of the day on a Friday, the boss and the CFO come up to you and they say, "Bill, I just want to have a minute with you."  And you think, "Oh, God, what have I done?"  And he turns to you and he says, "Bill, we've been watching you for 25 years now.  You've worked your tail off for this company. You've done nothing but work hard. You've never complained. You've gone above and beyond the call of duty.  Everything you've done has been wonderful and to reward you for your hard work over a lifetime, I talked with our CFO here, and we want to present you with this check for $100,000.00.  Taxes have already been paid on it.  Thank you very much for everything you've done for us."  And off they go.  Well, what's your reaction to this?  Slightly more tony crowd than some of the crowds I've talked to, but $100,000.00 is $100,000.00 that you didn't have a minute ago and you did not expect that you were going to have.  You suddenly find yourself with a check for $100,000.00.  What do you do?  Well, you're elated, and you're elated because all of a sudden you have options you didn't have before.  You think about all the things that you can do, and you're as happy as you can be, so you get up, not wanting to be too much of a jerk about it, but you get up and you call everybody else.  "You guys, you won't believe it."  The rest of the staff comes around. 


You say, "You won't believe it.  The President was just here.  He thanked me for 25 years of hard work and he gave me a check for $100,000.00," and everybody else in the crowd says, "He came to our desk and he gave us a check for $250,000.00."  Hold onto that thought.  Hold onto that thought right there.  That's the flaw in the human heart.  That's envy. Because if everybody else on the floor got $250,000.00 and you got $100,000.00, you're not $100,000.00 richer anymore.  You're $150,000.00 poorer.  That absolute total complete net gain that had given you so many opportunities and so much joy that was nothing but gain, nothing but good for you, that $100,000.00 bonus is now a source of pain for you because other people got more. And you don't think about what you could do with $100,000.00.  You think about what you could have done with $250,000.00 and then the thing really starts.  Then you start saying, "Susie got $250,000.00.  She's late every day. I do half of her work for God's sake.  John is an alcoholic.  I mean I'm correcting his work.  He gets $250,000.00 and I get a measly $100,000.00.  What kind of a cheap organization is this anyway?" 

And it flips your perspective and it's powerful, because when I said that business about everybody else getting a check, you could hear a groan go through the room.  I don't care what other people make.  I care what I make.  What they make has no impact on me, and the reason it hurts in this example is because it's a gift.  Somebody gifted you $100,000.00, but they gifted [someone else] $250,000.00, so that person thinks more of [them] than they do of you. But if it turned out that they gave it to Susie because she worked from 6:00 in the morning to 10:00 at night for 25 years and she'd been there on weekends and everything and she got $250,000.00 and you only got $100,000.00 you'd be okay with that because it would be based on merit.  So when you're handing out free stuff that's taken from other people by coercion, you're driven by the sense of envy.  They've got more than I do.  I should have some.  It's theft and you can make a case, and I believe it, that you could find a group of people who would say, if you took an entire group of employees at the insurance company and you said that everybody has to accept the check or nobody gets the check, you would find people, I'm telling you, who would turn down $100,000.00 tax-free because the idea of everybody else getting $250,000.00 is intolerable to them.  We call these people Democrats and there's something wrong with them.  There's something wrong with them.  They're busy thinking about other peoples' lives because they don't feel like they have any control over their own.  We want everybody to be free. We want everybody to be masters of their own destiny. We believe in the individuals. We believe if you protect the group, then that group can be protected and other groups are not. But if you protect an individual, everybody's protected.  If you protect the individual -- the first Jewish businessman in the beginning of the Nazi onslaught. If you have legal protections around the individual, the first time somebody tries to tell John Rabinowitz that he can't practice law, he says, "No, no, no, no, no, no, no.  You don’t get to do this to me.  I have inviolate personal freedoms and you can't touch me." And then you don't get the Holocaust.  When you protect groups, and you support other groups, now you have a target for your envy.  Is it the Jews?  Is it the Kulaks?  Is it the intellectuals?  Is it the one-percenters?  You've got to have somebody you can get ginned up and hate about.  Got to have somebody you can envy.  You've got to have somebody you can steal from and you've got to make sure that those people are perceived as having stolen their wealth, because if they earned their wealth, you taking it is stealing. But if they stole their wealth, you taking it is justice.  That's how it works.

Bill goes on to relate a very important point – the kids loved it. They got it. Bill Whittle undid years of programming performed upon those kids in indoctrination centers we call schools with one single example of how socialism uses envy as a justification to steal other people's stuff and 'gift' it to others as a means of gaining power, and with it, use it to steal even more stuff from those who earned it. He shows how it tries to destroy the individual and empower the collective even though it is the individual who has the power and the drive to enrich everyone else. All the collective does is bring everyone to the lowest common denominator, something to which no one should strive.

All I can suggest is to read the whole thing, or better yet, watch the video as it gives a better feel for what Bill taught.


Much Needed Changes

As the presidential primaries and caucuses continue and campaigns for the House and Senate start, I have to admit to feeling we will be seeing a crop of candidates that will fail to measure up to even some of the more minimal standards that define 'reasonably qualified', at least in my eyes.

Of all the elections years I have experienced over the past 44 years, I have to say that this one fills me with dismay...and perhaps a bit of dread.

I have to admit that one of my biggest gripes about our electoral system, at least at the national level, is there there is no way to show our displeasure at the candidates running except by two wholly inadequate means:

Voting for the 'other' guy even though they aren't all that much better than they guy we're against. (To be politically correct, by 'guy' I mean man or woman.)

Staying home and not voting at all.

Neither is acceptable to me any more. It does not allow us to say to the nation “Both of these candidates stink! We don't want either of them!” This of course applies to elective offices where there are more than two candidates running for that particular office, but you get the picture.

I won't be the first one to voice this opinion. I doubt I'll be the last. But I think it's time to seriously consider this option, that being making “None of the Above” a legitimate selection on the ballot. Let me explain.

First, it would likely require an Amendment to the US Constitution, though I am not sure. It might only require a change in the election laws to do so. That is something someone versed in election law could address far better than I.

Second, any such amendment should be limited to federal elective offices which means the House of Representatives, the Senate, Vice President, and President. If the states want to follow suit, let them do so by amending their respective constitutions and/or state election laws.

Third, if “None of the Above” wins above all other candidates, then a new election will be required to fill the office. One important part of this is that none of the candidates on the first ballot will be eligible to run on the second ballot. An entirely new batch of candidates would be needed to run for the second attempt because we already know none from the first batch were acceptable to the voters.

More than a few folks I spoke to over the past few days about this are in favor of a “None of the Above” option. If nothing else it gives those who are presently unable to display their displeasure a voice that until now has been ignored.

Another thing for us to consider is changing how we elect our US Senators.

Since the ratification of the 17th Amendment, Senators have been elected directly by the voters, the same as members of the House of Representatives. This has, in my opinion, made the Senate nothing more than just a more 'uppity' version of the House. The senators are not beholden to their states or constituents, but to those who helped finance their campaigns. While the idea behind the 17th Amendment was to make the Senate more flexible and less beholden to the many states, it has proven to be (to me at least) a failure. The members of the Senate are, in fact, nothing more than 'super-representatives' in Congress. This was not the intent of the Founders.

I believe it is time to repeal the 17th Amendment and return election of senators to the state legislatures. Senators should be working for their home states, should be beholden to their home states and not to the likes of the various special interests who gave them millions in campaign contributions. The 17th Amendment is a dismal failure and has caused far more harm than it was supposed to prevent.

I think it is about time to seriously consider these changes because they are long overdue.


Thoughts On A Sunday

The warmer weather has returned to New Hampshire and we're loving it.

About the only downside is that the pollen count is rather high and ahead of schedule. We usually don't see this until early May. It certainly has been affecting BeezleBub as he's been dealing with his allergies. (It's ironic that a farmer suffers from hay fever!)

I will be getting to some outdoor chores today, but only some light cleanup as the ground is still rather wet and muddy in some places.


I admit I haven't been paying a lot of attention to the presidential campaigns of either major party because I haven't been hearing anything new since the New Hampshire primaries back in February.

It's all boiled down to tit-for-tat, “He's a doody-head!” “No, he's a doody-head!” type of back and forth. Between the two old white socialists who really don't care about the middle class in one party and the outsider/insider/state governor three-way race in the other party, it all starts to sound the same.

I have had some discussions with the missus, with her stating she thinks Hillary has bought the election (well, she's certainly paid a lot of money for it, and I'm not talking about ad campaigns) and me countering about how she won't be able to run for office from federal prison, to our aligned opinions about Trump (“He's a loud-mouthed spoiled bully who doesn't like it when he doesn't get his way”) to Cruz (“We got nothin'”) to John Kasich (“John who?”).

This has got to be one of the least interesting yet scariest presidential election seasons I can remember. Not one of the remaining candidates in either party can be said to pique our interests. That's saying something from someone who has been very involved in the electoral process since 1974, the first year I could vote.

I've heard more than a few friends and a lot of the smarter pundits saying that those people who could truly be great presidents want nothing to do with the office, knowing what the job entails and knowing it requires living in a city that is a “wretched hive of scum and villainy.”

This is what makes me think the next president should be dragged kicking and screaming into office against their will. Anyone wanting the position should automatically be disqualified.


The first real effects of the new state $15 minimum wage is being felt in California, with a number of garment firms pulling the plug and preparing to move their clothes-making operations out of the state.

One company, American Apparel, is planning to outsource clothes-making to another manufacturer out of state, making 500 jobs in Los Angeles disappear.

This will ripple through the California economy and will have just the opposite effect intended. But that won't matter to those who championed the new minimum wage because it wasn't really done to 'help' the poor, but to make themselves feel better.


Here is a perfect example of Hollywood political hypocrisy.

There's nothing I can add to that except take up Glenn Reynolds' demand that we end the Hollywood tax breaks.


Iowahawk nails this one.

“Capitalism” isn't a “system,” it's a word made up by an 1860's hipster dipshit to whine about people voluntarily buying and selling stuff.



Though I've seen this on a number of other much more popular blogs, I feel compelled to add it here as well.

A Hippie Discovers Economics, And You'll Never Guess What Happens Next!


Skip digs into how the socialist heart always gets broken.

They also have a short memory because they keep trying the same thing over and over again but end up with the same results.

I wouldn't mind it so much if they went somewhere else and tried it, but they have infested the American culture, are turning things upside down, and still can't figure out why none of their ideas to create the “Socialist Utopia” ever come to fruition. It certainly isn't for the lack of trying.


I have again given one of my more cynical acquaintances the chance to try what I like to call “The News Experiment”.

This is where for one week they give up reading all of the 'normal' news dealing with crime, war, politics, death and destruction. Instead they can read only science and technology news for that week. Then compare and contrast the two.

The few other times I have challenged someone to do this and they've followed through, they are amazed at the difference in the outlook between the two. The science and technology news is far more upbeat and forward looking while the 'normal' news is almost always a downer.

And people wonder why I read a lot of the science and engineering blogs, magazines, and journals.


Steven Hayward asks “Why do Democrats hate their own presidents?”

Writes Hayward:

you would think that Democrats would celebrate, and hope to emulate, the success of the Clinton years just as Republicans look back to and hope to recreate the Reagan years. Instead, Democrats are rushing to repudiate nearly all of Clinton’s successes.

Those successes being things like a balanced budget, a growing economy, more free trade, a major reform of a bloated and oft-abused welfare system, and a falling crime rate. Why do the Democrats hate these successes? Because it gives them even less control over the American people. Success equals failure in their eyes, because it means they will have less power over the electorate. Fewer poor means they have fewer people to bribe with government largess like subsidized housing, food stamps, and free health care (Medicaid).

It isn't just Bill Clinton they hate. They also have major dislikes of most of his predecessors going all they way back to Thomas Jefferson because “he not only owned slaves, but canoodled with one of them.”

There's just no pleasing these guys, is there?

(H/T Pirate's Cove)


Oh, yeah, this will work out well.

It is only a matter of time before someone will go a little two far and it will end up killing people, or worse, precipitate a shooting war.

Of course if we did something like along the lines of what the Russians have been pulling, I would almost rather have it be a scene out of Tom Clancy's book The Hunt for Red October, where the Soviet Navy was getting too close to US territorial waters. Fighters and fighter-bombers kept the Soviets busy on their radar while a flight of four A-10 Warthogs flew at wavetop level, then bracketed the Soviet flagship by dropping flares along each side and at the bow and stern of the ship to show them just how vulnerable they were.

As the Warthogs flew away, the flight leader got on his radio set on the guard channel and sent “This is Captain Barry Friendly. Thank you for flying Warthog Air!”


This is something I have known for some time: The We-All-Hate-The-Evil-Humans-For-Creating-Climate-Change crowd have been ignoring a scientific fraud.

The fraud? That nuclear power is too expensive to build, too dangerous to use, and won't help reduce carbon emissions.

Of the three, the first two are by far and away the most overly fraudulent claims. Then again, the Green true believers don't want anything that will improve people's lives to be used. They want us back to live under early 18th Century conditions...except for them, of course. After all, they'll have to keep an eye on us to prevent us from progressing past that point.


And that's thenews from Lake Winnipesaukee, where the woodstoves are cold, the woodpiles aren't shrinking, and where we can actually have our doors and windows open to let the warm air in!


The Poor Put-Upon Social Justice Warriors

As the whole PC movement has been pressing forward and the Social Justice Warrior shtick it has inspired have grown, my tolerance for the hypocrisy and intolerance that go with it has shrunk. I realize that some of those same SJW's will think my statement is some kind of microagression or show my racism/white privilege/intolerance for their sensibilities, but frankly I don't care anymore. Not that I ever did care, but I generally kept my thoughts about it to myself. Those days are now gone.

When one looks at everything the SJW's are demanding, particularly after you take a few steps back, what is it they are really looking for? What is the only thing that will truly mollify them and make them all safe and warm?

Treating them like the spoiled little children they are.

Think about it. What is it they keep demanding, both on college campuses and out in their version of real life?

No words that will make them sad or scared.

No bad pictures.

No one challenging their simplistic view of the world. (Imagine the world of a three or four-year old and you'll know what they're looking for.)

No bad people.

No bad ideas.

They want safe places, coloring books, and puppies.

They want ice cream.

They want it and they want it NOW!

What they really need is a spanking and a dose of harsh reality. If we look at them as spoiled, self-absorbed, selfish children, their problem becomes evident to everyone.

Who do we blame for this gawd-awful turn of events? That's quite simple: their parents, their schools, and their teachers, from kindergarten on up through college. No one has challenged them their entire lives, given them the opportunity to think things trough for themselves. If they had, it is highly likely the wouldn't have become SJW's to begin with because they would have seen what a stupid 'movement' the various social injustice opponents had joined.

About the only thing the various SJW's deserve is pity and ridicule...and maybe a spanking.


A New Word Discovery

Seen over at a post at Newsbusters:


No definition need be supplied.


Hey SJW's! Appropriate THIS!!

Bill Whittle reminds the always aggrieved Social Justice Warriors whose latest grievance deals with 'Cultural Appropriation' that they should stop whining about what is one of our greatest American strengths.

“Jaysus, Mary, and Joseph!” indeed. If they truly feel that way, then they should divest themselves of everything they've appropriated from our Western culture. As the saying goes, “You first!” Otherwise they should shut the hell up, stop sounding like spoiled children who didn't get the toy they demanded, and grow up.

Of course we know the chances of that happening are somewhere between slim and none.

Maybe we should start defining the acronym 'SJW' to mean Social Justice Whiners.