Power To The People


Fake News vs Alternate Facts

The Associated Press is claiming that the Trump Administration is considering mobilizing the National Guard to round up what they call “unauthorized immigrants” (because, as we all know, using the term ‘illegal’ to describe lawbreaking is totally racist).


Future headline from the AP.

The Trump administration is considering a proposal to mobilize as many as 100,000 National Guard troops to round up unauthorized immigrants, including millions living nowhere near the Mexico border, according to a draft memo obtained by The Associated Press.

The 11-page document calls for the unprecedented militarization of immigration enforcement as far north as Portland, Oregon, and as far east as New Orleans, Louisiana.

Four states that border on Mexico are included in the proposal — California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas — but it also encompasses seven states contiguous to those four — Oregon, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Louisiana.

This was the response by Press Secretary Sean Spicer:

Now, as with most things, I would imagine that the truth lies somewhere in between.  After all, it’s perfectly plausible to think that someone somewhere within the Trump administration put something together for consideration that involved using the National Guard to augment DHS when it comes to deporting illegal aliens.  But at the same time, just because someone put a proposal together, that doesn’t mean that it’s being seriously considered by the Administration.

Many ideas are considered.  Few actually become policy.

And, at the same time, it’s rather obvious that the AP is playing this up as part of the anti-Trump fear-mongering that the media has been engaged in since Donald Trump became the Republican nominee.  The day before this ‘news’ was published was the so-called ‘Day Without An Immgrant,’ a protest that had no effect whatsoever on the lives of most Americans, just as it didn’t the last time it was tried.

But the Left and their media allies have ramped up the fear-mongering on immigration for weeks.  The media ran story after story, headlining ICE raids last week to get people worked up, but when you look at what actually happened, it was nothing out of the ordinary, it was just ICE doing its job to deport illegal aliens, most of whom had committed other crimes.

It’s also clear that there are plenty of people who stayed in the bureaucracy after President Obama’s departure, with the goal of subverting and sabotaging the Trump Administration at every turn.  It’s very likely that this ‘draft memo’ was leaked to the Associated Press precisely for this purpose: to get people worked up and to continue the smear campaign against Donald Trump.

There’s plenty out there to criticize Donald Trump about, but this is getting absolutely ridiculous.


Alternative Facts

My latest column is up at AND Magazine!

Here is an excerpt:


In 2006, Neil Gorsuch was nominated to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals by President George W. Bush. His nomination was confirmed with overwhelming bipartisan support. In fact, Democrat Senators still active on the political scene – Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Chuck Schumer, Diane Feinstein, and Patrick Leahy all voted for him. Gorsuch’s confirmation to the Tenth Circuit just over 10 years ago was so non-controversial that it was done by voice vote, because there really wasn’t any opposition to the appointment.

And now that he has been nominated to the Supreme Court, we’re about to find out that he is THE WORST PERSON IN ALL OF EXISTENCE!
Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) voted in favor of Gorsuch’s nomination back in 2006. Today, he’s changed his tune:

At a CNN townhall, Nancy Pelosi called it “a very hostile appointment,” basically saying that, while she’s sure he’s a great guy, he wants to see you choke on pollution as you mourn the death of your children, who died from poisoned food…and he might just kick your corpse as he walks by, laughing maniacally all the while.

OK, I might embellish just a bit, but that is the overall impression Pelosi was trying to create.

Continue reading here.

Super Bowl Freakfest

It seems that very little can transpire in our society these days without politics being injected into the mix.  That includes sports, which seem to become more and more politicized every year, and that especially includes the Super Bowl.

I didn’t watch the game this year.  I really have no interest in either the Patriots or the Falcons.  I used to like Tom Brady, but the whole “Deflategate” thing last year changed my opinion of him.  And when I heard that Lady Gaga’s halftime show would include some social justice warrior message, I decided that there are better ways for me to spend my time.  Last year’s show, which included Beyonce’s salute to BLM and the Black Panthers, was bad enough for me.

I heard later that the whole Lady Gaga/social justice thing was inaccurate (good for her), but I still don’t feel that I missed anything – I can catch the halftime show on YouTube if I so desire.

But if the politicization of football wasn’t aggravating enough, the amount of butthurt flying around social media is vomit-inducing.


Let’s start with The Left.

Initial reports indicated that Lady Gaga’s Super Bowl halftime show would include a message of “equality” and “inclusion.”  Everyone, it seems, took this to mean “preachy SJW message.”

But it seems that, rather than giving a preachy SJW message, Lady Gaga chose to give a real message about equality and inclusion.  She sang her song “Born This Way.”  She stood before an American flag made of light-up drones.  She recited the Pledge of Allegiance.  Her performance was very well received, and decidedly un-controversial…and now, the lack of controversy is itself a controversy.

A variety of left-leaning news outlets, along with various hashtag-warriors, chose to criticize Lady Gaga for not taking the opportunity to turn the Super Bowl halftime show into a platform to bash Donald Trump…because, as all left-wing social justice warriors know, the path to unity lies in Trump-bashing.


But let’s not leave out The Right.

About all the Left has to complain about today is that the Super Bowl wasn’t anti-Trump enough for them.  But the SJWs on the Right seem to have plenty of material.

It was pretty well established over the course of the last year that, as much as the Right enjoys making fun of liberal snowflakes, with their speech codes, safe spaces, and fear of micro-aggressions, the Right has a safe space of their own: football.

Black Lives Matter was constantly (and rightly) criticized for its for its penchant for violent protests and blocking freeways…and encouraging cop killing.  But when San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kapernick chose a peaceful way to protest, by sitting or kneeling through the National Anthem, he was instantly lit up by the right wing.

While there was plenty to criticize about Kapernick’s message, the brunt of the criticism ended up being about his method.  Here was a young black man protesting peacefully (albeit misguidedly), which conservatives had been calling for from the black community for some time, yet his method of protest was deemed politically incorrect, and denounced by the Right.  Trevor Noah made a great point when he asked Tomi Lahren “What is the right way for a black person to get attention in America?”  The Right seems to want to have it both ways.  First, make sure your protests are non-violent.  Second, make sure your non-violent protests don’t offend any of my social or cultural sensibilities.

The message was clear: you’re only allowed to protest in a way that I can easily ignore.  Don’t do it during my NFL, and don’t do it during my anthem.

And then, on Super Bowl Sunday, there was this:


Apparently, the spot that aired during the Super Bowl was just the first 30-ish seconds, with a “see the full story at our website” lead-out.  After all, a 30-second spot is expensive enough, and this “journey” is nearly 6 minutes long.

Right-wing media went ballistic, accusing 84 Lumber of endorsing illegal immigration, of purposefully using this manufactured tale of a woman and her daughter to get people emotionally on-board with the Left and their opposition to Trump’s wall, and continued permissiveness toward illegal immigration.

There’s just one problem…the head of 84 Lumber is a big-time Trump supporter, and modeled the wall in his company’s video after Trump’s own campaign statements: he wants a “big, beautiful door in that wall.”

And let’s face it: we need a wall to keep our nation secure, but we also need a guest worker program to keep things like our agriculture industry viable.  A lot of people (on both sides) who talk about immigration don’t realize just how difficult it is to come to America.  And while it shouldn’t be easy, we should have mechanisms in place for cheap labor, where cheap labor is needed in our economy.

But the bottom line is, when the Right freaked out over the 84 Lumber ad, they freaked out over nothing.  The pro-illegal-immigration narrative that fed the criticism of the ad wasn’t based in logic or reality, it was just a knee-jerk reaction based on an incorrect assumption.

This is what happens when politics intrudes into the safe space…just one more reason to keep politics out of football, I guess.

The Liberal Women’s March

Watching coverage of the “women’s march” this past weekend, I must say it was a fairly confusing cacophony of ridiculousness.

Pink “pussy hats” meant to represent female anatomy.

Insistence that it isn’t an anti-Trump march, yet a constant anti-Trump focus.

Denouncement of Trump’s so-called “locker room talk,” typically denounced in ways as bad or worse than what Trump said.

Proclamations that they are there to denounce hate, interspersed with such loving statements as “fuck you” aimed at the targets of their venom.

A hardly-coherent rant by Ashley Judd that sounded more like the ramblings of a crazy woman.



Many claimed that it wasn’t an anti-Trump march, though there wasn’t really a specific target for these marches other than Donald Trump.  I’ve never been a Trump supporter, and while I’m still very skeptical that Donald Trump’s agenda will “make America great again” to the extent that many think it will, the so-called message of ‘unity’ conveyed by these protests do little more than to push me to be glad that Donald Trump won the election – at least he isn’t likely to be cowed by this BS.

Hear that, feminists?  You’re creating more Trump supporters.

One other aspect of the Women’s March was the groups that were turned away.  You see, this Women’s March wasn’t to include all women, just those women with the pre-approved political worldview.  When pro-life women’s groups approached the event’s organizers, they were turned away.  They say they’re tolerant, but if you aren’t pro abortion, they won’t tolerate you.  They may have paid lip service to “love” and “unity,” but actions speak louder.


Yes, Madonna said the fantasized about blowing up the White House…but she said that she decided not to because “I know that this won’t change anything.”  She urged people to “choose love,” a statement that stood in stark contrast to the message of “fuck you” that she gave immediately preceding “choose love.”

She then went on to sing a song (I use terms like “sing” and “song” loosely here), wherein she urged Donald Trump to “suck a dick.”  So I think it’s pretty clear how sincere her calls for love and unity really were.

For me, this march raised more questions than it answered.

How are “fuck you” and “suck a dick” part of a message of love and unity?

How do things like pink “pussy hats,” vagina costumes, a seeming obsession with female genitalia, and purposeful offensiveness advance women’s rights?


How does the purposefully offensive vagina obsession do anything for love, unity, and women’s rights?  If you’re protesting Donald Trump’s offensiveness, how does trying to match or outdo his offensiveness further your cause?

You’re protesting because Donald Trump said something offensive…but how does trying to be even more offensive (and then denouncing anyone who finds your offensiveness offensive) do anything productive for your cause?

You protest because Hillary Clinton lost the Electoral College, but how does it help the cause of women’s rights if the first female president is one of the most corrupt politicians (of either gender) in the nation?

The Same Rights As Guns?

If you pay attention to politics, I’m sure you’ve seen this image (and ones like it) floating around social media:


Some reports have stated that this sign was from last weekend’s “Women’s March,” though I’m sure I remember seeing it last year.  But, I’ve seen other signs that were from last weekend’s march, so the idiotic trope live on.


First, the blindingly obvious logical fallacy (which my OCD forces me to include): guns are inanimate objects.  They have no rights.  The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with the rights of inanimate objects, it is about the right of the people to own and use those inanimate objects.

But, moving on…

My wife brought this up to me the other day when she saw the picture on Facebook, and we had a good laugh as we talked about how ridiculous it would actually be if women had ‘the same rights as guns.’


Here’s what the world would look like if women were regulated like guns.  And understand that I live in California, with some of the strictest firearm regulations in the nation.

  1. You have to pass a basic safety test before marrying a woman or giving birth to a daughter.
  2. After passing the safety test, you must fill out registration paperwork, provide ID to prove you are who you say you are, and pass a federal criminal background check.
  3. After filling out the paperwork, you must wait 10 days before you can take a woman home with you.
  4. All women must have a serial number permanently stamped on them for identification. I’m assuming that would have to look something like this:
    Polish-born Holocaust survivor Hack shows number tattooed on arm during a news conference at the Yad Vashem Museum in Jerusalem
  5. Taking a woman out in public requires a special permit…and since “open carry” is illegal in California, women in this state had better get used to this:
    Oh, and by the way, in order to get the CCW (carry a concealed woman) permit, you have to pay steep fines, take several hours of training classes, and apply with local law enforcement agencies, who have no obligation to approve. If your application is rejected, you’re out of luck…and if it is approved, you must renew your permit (including training classes) every few years.And in some states, your woman had better be very concealed, as such things as ‘printing’ or ‘unintentional brandishing’ can land you in hot water with authorities.
  6. For Californians, your CCW permit is not recognized in any other state, and no other states’ permits are recognized in your state.  In order to take your wife out in public, you must either travel to a state that allows it without a permit, or apply for a permit in that state.
  7. Any time you interact with law enforcement, you must inform them that you have a woman with you, and will be required to produce your permit, showing that you can legally associate with a woman.
  8. If you don’t have a carry permit, you must keep your woman in a locked container when transporting her (such as in the trunk of your car).
  9. Around the house, you must keep your women locked up at all times, to ensure that a child never stumbles across a woman unsupervised.  The safe you use to store your women must be in accordance with state and federal regulations.
  10. Women with certain cosmetic features (as defined and constantly re-defined by the state legislature) must be registered as “assault women.” This registration process includes additional fees and background checks.
  11. It’s illegal to take a woman into an airport.  Or into a school.  Or into a government building.

And let’s not even get into what the equivalent of banning ‘high capacity’ magazines would be.

Democrats In Denial

As a well-experienced observer of the media, I have come to a conclusion: Washington politics is peopled almost entirely by a bunch of spineless, whiny drama queens.  They are bound and determined to play out their own version of Much Ado About Nothing, and their good buddies in the media insist that this is the “news” that we should all be concerned about.

Case in point: the great John Lewis controversy.


Congressman John Lewis pouts at the unfairness of it all during the Democrats’ great ‘Sit-In of 2016.’

Over the weekend, Congressman Lewis announced to the world that he plans to boycott Donald Trump’s inauguration, saying on Meet the Press that “I don’t see this president-elect as a legitimate president.”

I think I’ve made it pretty clear that I’m no fan of Donald Trump.  I said early on that I wouldn’t vote for him, and I didn’t.  I have no regrets in that regard.  While I do, at times, find his responses to his Democrat and media critics to be emotionally gratifying (it’s about time that someone in the Republican Party was willing to stand up to the left-wing media apparatus), I also find them to be juvenile, and unbecoming of the next President of the United States.  In the area of presidential dignity, I was hoping that we would raise the bar, not lower it.

But the Democrats have taken this to an entirely new level.  Prior to the election, the left-wing media went to great lengths to weigh their national polls, reinforcing the Democrats’ belief that Hillary’s ascension to the presidency was inevitable.  This may have been a calculated strategy – perhaps they wanted make Hillary’s victory to seem so inevitable that Republicans would just stay home on election day.  But regardless of the reasons behind it, the only real outcome of this contrived sense of inevitability has been a political party in denial, unable to accept that their Chosen One lost the election.


Actual footage of a Democrat voter.

The narrative that Russia “hacked the election” has fed and compounded this denial among members of the Democrat Party, despite the fact that they have offered no solid evidence that Russian involvement changed any votes.  They haven’t even really proved that the DNC emails published by WikiLeaks came from the Russians.

But reactions by the Obama administration, and by Democrats at large, show that their outrage is politically motivated, more than anything.  When millions of Americans’ personal information was hacked from the Office of Personnel Management, the response from the Obama administration was notably tepid when compared to their outrage over losing an election.  But the DNC emails showed the public the kind of disdain that Democrat leadership holds even for its own constituents.  The corruption inherent in the Democrats’ primary process, and the resulting disenfranchisement of millions of Democrat voters, was made public for all to see.

And that has the Democrats enraged.


All of this is borne out of denial.  Their candidate is one of the most corrupt politicians on the national stage.  Her career has been defined by her ability to dodge scandal after scandal, from her dogged repetition of “I do not recall” in the Whitewater hearings, to blaming the Benghazi tragedy on a YouTube video.

They really did expect that a nominee under investigation by the FBI for criminal negligence, for using an un-secure, private email server while Secretary of State, would just skate right into the White House.  When James Comey announced that the FBI would not recommend her indictment, they took that as her complete vindication, though it was blindingly obvious that some kind of deal had been worked out between Bill Clinton and Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

But because she’s a Democrat, and because she’s a woman, America should find no fault in her, no matter how corrupt she’s been throughout her political career.  And because Her Grand Inevitableness lost, and lost to a candidate as reprehensible as Donald J. Trump, the Left has pulled out all the stops to undermine our electoral process.  They trumped up charges that Russia “hacked” the election.  They attempted to sway electors into violating election laws to change their votes.  They tried to disrupt the process to certify the Electoral College’s vote.  And they failed, each and every time.  Kinda makes you long for the days when every Democrat in America insisted that refusing to accept the results of an election posed a major threat to American democracy, doesn’t it?

It’s interesting to note that the “scandal” surrounding John Lewis is centered entirely around the fact that Donald Trump’s response to Lewis was typical Trump: on Twitter, Trump didn’t bow or scrape.  He was forward and forceful, saying that “Congressman John Lewis should spend more time on fixing and helping his district, which is in horrible shape and falling apart (not to mention crime infested) rather than falsely complaining about the election results.”

The reaction from Democrats was immediate and completely predictable: HOW DARE Donald Trump criticize a “civil rights icon” like John Lewis?!?!?!?!?!


Of course, they completely ignore the fact that Lewis’s civil rights ‘legacy’ is 50 years old.  Today, he is a career politician and a political hack, capitalizing on his past in the civil rights movement to sustain his own political power.  This is rather typical of how Democrats operate: they will accept a former Klansman like Robert Byrd, completely writing off his past, as long as he pledges allegiance to the Democrat Party and the socialism for which they stand, and will likewise completely ignore the ineffectual career of a man like Congressman Lewis, calling upon ancient history (politically speaking) to turn him into a saint if anyone should have the temerity to actually stand up to him.  The Race Card is, after all, a long-held staple of the Democrats’ political playbook.

And John Lewis isn’t the only Democrat going apoplectic over Donald Trump’s upcoming inauguration.  Various performers have proclaimed that they will not perform at the inauguration (though, interestingly, the media articles that proclaim this typically leave out any mention of whether or not they were asked to perform).  Others have been bullied into not performing by the ever-tolerant Left.  Various politicians have indignantly proclaimed that they will not attend.  And while these stories may make easy headlines for the news media, they make the news cycle rather boring.

This is the same thing they did the last time the Executive Branch changed from Democrat to Republican – they forced recount after recount, even to the point of violating Florida election laws in their mad denials, and for years thereafter we were treated to rabid hippies insisting that George W. Bush had “stolen” the election.  John Lewis skipped his inauguration, too (though he seems to have forgotten that fact, as he’s insisted that Trump’s will be the first inauguration he won’t have attended).  This is nothing new: to Democrats, Republican victories will always be illegitimate, because they just can’t handle rejection.


So when it comes to the Left vs. Right angst that has dominated the drama over Donald Trump’s impending inauguration, I propose this solution:

If you want to attend Donald Trump’s inauguration, then attend.  If you don’t want to attend Donald Trump’s inauguration, then don’t.  Your decision to attend (or not) is not worthy of media headlines (unless it is driven by death threats, as it has been for some performers who have pulled out of the events).  Instead of behaving like a whiny, petulant child, as Congressman Lewis has, choose something novel, such as behaving like an adult.


Just throw that election on the ground.

Time Gets Us All

My latest column is up at AND Magazine!

Here is an excerpt:

“This thing all things devours;capture
Birds, beasts, trees, flowers;
Gnaws iron, bites steel;
Grinds hard stones to meal;
Slays king, ruins town,
And beats high mountain down.”
-JRR Tolkien, The Hobbit
If I’ve seen it once, I’ve seen it a thousand times. People seem frustrated with 2016. It’s been a stressful year. An emotional year. A year filled with political angst, with personal hardships. Celebrities we’ve known all our lives have died this year. Let’s face it: 2016 sucks, right?

Well, it’s just another year.

That’s right, I said it. In the grand scheme of things, 2016 is just a unit we use to measure the passage of time. Those pithy little letters you write to 2016 on your Facebook page don’t really amount to anything. Time doesn’t give a shit about you. It doesn’t care about your feelings. It doesn’t care about that celebrity you hadn’t thought about in years, but suddenly loved so much once they started pushing up daises.

Continue reading here.