Biden Threatens to Ban the American Chef's Favorite Kind of Cooking Stove

 

 

 When more than 80 some odd million owners of 40 plus million gas stoves complained about the cost of rewiring their kitchen for an electric stove, President Clueless J. Puddinhead offered this advice (above). Guided by his ideology protection detail His Fecklessness rambled on about global climate change for 30 minutes without accidentally revealing whether the climate would be warming, cooling or remaining the same but with a different hairdo. White House staff called the speech an historical moment that ranks right up there with the times he fell up and/or down the stairs to Air Force One, got lost in the Rose Garden or pooped his pants while visiting the pope in the Vatican.

Just What We Need - A "Left-Leaning" Democrat

Democrat - No relation

I live in one of those rare Washington State Republican enclaves on the edge of the Seattle liberal-dome. Our representatives, city and county officials tend to be reliably conservative. To the north of Puyallup, where I live there are enough Democrats to elect the governor all by themselves. To the south of us live Washington's version of East Texas only a skootch more conservative. My first men's prayer breakfast of my Graham SDA church ended with everyone loading up and going to the gun show. Our head deacon was buying parts to make a fully automatic AR-15. The elders often met at the gun range to discuss church budget.  

Puyallup is where the tides meet. Currently, builders here are putting up senior-living apartments as fast as they can cut down fir trees to build them. Don't worry, those things grow back fast. I counted the rings on a giant one we cut down last year and discovered that I was quite a bit older than that huge hunk of lumber. There's enough wood in one of those to build a 3 bedroom house.

Seniors are fleeing Seattle, a once lovely city, called the Emerald City by folks who loved the city and they are fleeing in droves. They are fleeing a massive influx of homeless, drug addicts and growing crime and a government that pretty much encourages it. They don't prosecute shop-lifting so long as you can stuff it in your jacket and get out the door. They do prosecute business owners who knock down shoplifters and sit on them till the police come. The "summer of love" we had up here left a whole once-beautiful section of town trashed and storefronts empty as store-owners fled. Apparently the old people followed. They are filling up senior apartment complexes as fast as builder can put them up.

Sadly, the predators who preyed on them in Seattle, seem to have followed them here. We've had a spike in car thefts, porch piracy, vandalism, arson, robberies and mugging have increased dramatically in our little once quiet neighborhood. And the bull-dozing of local woodlands for new senior housing has displaced the local wildlife. We've got a couple of deer herds roaming our neighborhood using the patches of woods around our houses for shelter. Also displaced have been coyotes, bobcats and even a bear, so much so that people's pets are coming up missing.

So into all this, the above announcement appeared on the Neighborhood app letting us know that help was on the way in the form of a "slightly left-leaning Democrat" we might have the privilege of writing in for county council "person". His post sparked a huge, sometimes rancorous debate. I have the right to remain silent but not the ability, so I jumped in on the discussion. I was polite mind you and to his credit so was he. Some folks, however did get a little nasty. I find it's a waste of time trying to communicate with delusional people, but not every leftist on the thread was unreasonable. Though Mr. King lost me at "Left-leaning Democrat", we were able to have a civil discussion about my issues with the Democrat approach to governance. 

My grocery bill doubled starting from the day Joe Biden put his hand on the Bible and was sworn in. Governor Jay Inslee is a nightmare and has presided over massive open and hidden tax increases that have essentially along with Biden's inflation made it harder for those of us on fixed incomes. Now my friend Mr. King wants an opportunity to bring "regressive" leftist notions to our local community (and no I didn't misspell progressive). The last thing we need is solid Democrat representation all the way up the chain to Washington, DC. 

These guys talk a good game, but all they've gotten us with their piles of government programs that sound good is a crime rate that's through the roof (see Seattle), a grocery and gas price increase that's no more 17%, than the moon is made of green cheese. We've suffered an explosion of drug crimes, homelessness and unpunished shoplifting, virtually non-existent borders, and a military that's being gutted and replaced with as many political radicals as they can recruit. We've had a crime wave in our neighborhood that has touched everyone. My wife's meds were stolen from our mailbox. It's so bad that a guy who set fire to the highway last year, was released in an hour, then walked down the street and tried to rob a store. Then a few months later he shows up here and was caught ripping off packages from people's porches and breaking into a car, stuffing it full of stolen packages, then trying to steal the car. Wanna bet he's out again? 

All we need is another elitist leftist trying to tell us how all us members of the proletariat ought to live, think, eat, work, play and procreate, while figuring out how to disarm us and make us subservient to the collective (see leftism = Marxism). Even the left-leaning light agenda of Democrats is riddled with bad ideas, discredited and dangerous notions.

How's that for what I disagree with about left-leaning Democrats? This thread started out openly left-leaning political so the moderators didn't delete the thread. Here in the suburbs, naked hypocrisy is a little too out there. So if the thread were deleted, we'd all know what party's doing the editing and, probably, the vote counting around here. 

Do I sound angry and disgusted with the political left. Well I do because I am. I paid attention in history class and read extensively on the subject over the past 58 years since I was 10 years old. left-leaning is not to be trusted and definitely not something we want to see running our little corner of Pierce County. Puyallup is facing an invasion from the gulag north of us as surely as the border states are being invaded from the South. I get why refugees want to leave Mexico and Seattle. The trouble is they bring the predators with them. If you read our website and count up the car theft, property theft and damage and general crime increase in our once pleasant little neighborhood, you'll see the problem.

Why is it important that government be largely local? I sat in on meetings as a reporter in Klickitat County where it was discussed whether or not to copy a neighboring Oregon county and create survey teams with Public Health officials and armed Homeland Security officers to go around and record whether or not families were vaccinated or not, and while they were at it to check for flags (like the Betsy Ross flag which has been declared a white supremacist dog whistle), whether the household possessed any guns, evidence of pro-Trump signs, religious iconography and other potential indicators of domestic white supremacist terrorism.

Fortunately the county commissioners were NOT left-leaning Democrats. When asked if she would organize such a survey team, the county public health director answered, "Oh, hell no! I don't want to get shot!" Having that sort of power at the local level is how we guard our communities from federal meddling. 

For me, it's why not to vote for left-leaning Democrats - to prevent this sort of collectivist nonsense from gaining a foothold. We don't need politicians telling us how to take care of our local problems. I was for 20 years a community organizer in Texas working across party lines. We got things done for our communities that a bunch of central planners in the halls of government had screwed up. We don't need left-leaning Democrats in power here either. We threw them out in East Texas. I recommend we do that same thing in the sensible parts of Washington State. Sorry to ramble on, but I have way too much experience with left-leaning Democrats. They're some bad juju I'm here to tell you. I don't hate them. I've even converted some of my left-leaning Democrat friends. They just have latched on to some bad ideas and run with them.

© 2022 by Tom King 

Switch the Names of the Parties and Who Do You Think Would NOT Have Lived this Down

History Note:

1868 St. Bernard Parish Massacre

In 1868, St. Bernard Parish was home to one of the deadliest massacres in Louisiana history. The St. Bernard Parish massacre occurred during the Reconstruction era, days before the Presidential election of 1868. As black men gained the right to vote, white Democrats of the parish feared losing their majority. Armed groups mobilized to violently silence these recently emancipated voters to win the election in favor of Democrat Horatio Seymour over Republican Ulysses S. Grant. A Seymour victory meant the end of Reconstruction over the South and the return of Louisiana to home rule. Many freedmen were dragged from their homes and murdered. Others fled to the cane fields to hide from the perpetrators.

The use of violence to suppress Republican votes was successful. Grant only received one vote from St. Bernard Parish, despite having a Republican majority. The reported number of freedmen killed varies from 35 to 135; the number of whites killed was two (one was killed in an attempt to help the victims)

© Excerpt from Wikipedia  

The mass murder of blacks by Louisiana Democrats has practically disappeared from history. If you asked most college students these days, which political party was responsible for the massacre, who do you suppose they would say was to blame?

You KNOW who would be blamed....

The Presuppositions of the System: Keeping People Passive

My Facebook account is restricted again*. I've discovered a new thing you can't talk about. As I've scanned the net lately, there has been a burst of actual disinformation. Even Wikipedia has been hit with efforts to show that Republicans and Democrats "switched" policies, especially on the subject of race. The discredited Big Switch Theory which posits that the entire Democrat Party suddenly saw the light in the 60s and rejected their racist past and Republicans suddenly embraced it, has risen from the almost dead and is bleeding into the history books and encyclopedias. 

The trouble with this narrative is that Republicans have continued until the present day to promote racial equality. They were solidly in favor of the Civil Rights Bill. Democrats had to be bullied into it by LBJ who told them that if they did, that then the n!@#$% (his word) would vote for the Democrat Party for the next 200 years. Democrats at the time referred to it as the "Nigger Bill" among themselves. I used the word deliberately for its shock value so as not to gloss over the cold-bloodedness of the Democrats of the time. They appear hardly on the verge of a sudden conversion to racial holiness. 

Of 60 openly racist Dixiecrats in the House and Senate, 59 of them remained in office for 10 to 30 more years. The only one that went Republican did so after it was revealed that he had a black girlfriend and a daughter by her. So he had already decided black people, at least black women, weren't so subhuman.

The alterations to Wikipedia entries, blogs, articles and historical websites have tended to push the narrative of so-called Republican racism back to the 1920s, adding all sorts of sinister behavior to "facts" about Republicans and to minimize Democrat support for racism in the 20th century. The strategy seems to be to recast Democrats as actually heroes, standing against racism in the early Progressive era. There's little historical evidence for that. The one major Democrat figure who began eliminating racial segregation after WWII was Harry Truman. Eisenhower continued to press against the racist policies of the day. Kennedy pushed for Civil Rights. Both Truman and Kennedy wouldn't last 10 minutes in today's Democrat Party which has doubled down on racial paternalism in a thinly veiled pseudo-egalitarianism that still maintains it's old white superiority over minorities who they firmly believe need the protection and guidance of the white plantation owner class of Democrat.

Noam Chomsky explains above how that tactic works. A big part of the tactic is to limit what you can talk about. At this point Facebook is limiting any talk of mid 20th century Democrat racism or the racist history of the Democrat Party. Part of this complex power grab is a strategy to hide Democrat racism and to find anything they can dig up to paint Republicans as the new racists and thus insure for themselves the power to effectively protect their own wealth and power.

 © 2022 by Tom King

* I've been released from one of 5 types of restriction. The other 4 appear to be designed to prevent my infecting others with my disinformation (which although true makes Democrats look bad). I'm spending more time on other social media and I don't care what Facebook is doing toward cracking down on conservative thought. Like the Democrat party, I think the technocracy is over-playing its hand. It's a rerun of 1860 except this time the South has developed a little sense. 2024 will be an interesting year.

The Democrat Double Standard on "Settling Our Differences".

If as one Dem put it, "We settle our differences at the ballot box. We don't have coups and we don't have riots,"

Oh really? Then what was the 4 years of rioting, looting, and arson by ANTIFA and BLM all about? Democrats kept saying that was a legit way to solve their differences with the president. 

So does that mean if we want to settle our differences with President Puddinhead, we should do 5 or 6 billion dollars worth of damage to American cities? Dems would probably applaud that as it would give them an excuse to roll in the troops and toss the Constitution. Look at how they over-reacted to the January 6 protest, calling it insurrection and the worst thing since the Civil War. You'd be forgiven for thinking they were kidding, but you'd be wrong. Like spoiled kids the howling and foot-stomping has been a sight to behold.

The only thing about a conservative set of riots is, (1) it would be better organized and (2) conservatives would likely do damage to Democrat cities rather than to their own. When a child throws a tantrum, he tends to destroy his own things. When someone seeks redress of grievances against an oppressor, he tends to go after his oppressor and his things. As I remember, one of the things ancient Israel's laws prohibited was doing damage to yourself as part of worshiping the various pagan gods. It strikes me as significant that when a Democrat is angry he seems to destroy his own communities and his own fellows. 

That's kind of a familiar political move in history - in fact quite an ancient one. Every time the devil makes a move to make himself the Prince of this World, he starts with rioting, violence and bloodshed, then proceeds to gather fighters to whip the populace into shape, and appoints one of his more cruel minions as king, emperor, pharaoh, Czar, Tsar, Caesar, President or potentate who proceeds to drive the nation to ruin. 

It happens every time. We saw it in the kingdoms and empires of Europe where rule by privileged elites, nobles, kings and princes enslaved the proletariat (Karl Marx's word for peasants, peons or the masses). The rise of the United States opened a window that for a time allowed brought about the end of slavery (at least in the West). The old devil has tried mightily over the past 200 years to restore the rule of tyrants and succeeded at the cost of hundreds of millions of people slaughtered in the name of some promised utopia for all. All anyone ever got was shared misery and death.

The devil's argument was always that free will was too dangerous a thing and that people should be ruled by a superior creature (namely himself). The rise of Nazism, Communism and other collectivist totalitarian socialist states is nothing more than Satan's effort to make himself the ruler of all and to take the place of God.

The good news?  It ain't gonna succeed. When you see these things, when knowledge shall be increased and men shall run to and fro, and when it becomes evident that our adversary is growing ever more frantic in his efforts to by force mold this world into his own image, then know that time is very short and we can look to the coming of Christ. Never forget. It will be a rescue mission, not a conquest. It will leave the world in ruin for a thousand years. And I, for one, believe that those who remain will destroy themselves. They have a pattern and for the first time in human history, they have the weapons with which to turn the Earth into a blackened husk.

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

© 2021 by Tom King

A Proposal for Improving Democrats' Image

Smiling Democrats Flee Texas

Texas House Democrats have fled the state of Texas to deny the Legislature the ability to form a quorum and pass the election reform bill, or as most Texans think of it, the "Election Fraud Prevention Act." Now we've started seeing plees for donations to help pay the cost of keeping our escaped legislators safely tucked away in Washington at the Plaza Hotel and dining in the finer DC restaurants. These are the representatives of the party of the poor and the working man. As a poor working man, I'd kind of like to see our Democrat saviors do DC the way a "working" man would.

Instead of the $189 a night Washington Plaza, perhaps the runaway Dems should move on over to the Econo-Lodge or the Dew Drop Inn. I hear their rooms go for $35 a night or less if you get two queen-sized beds and everyone doubles up (4 to a room). And they give you a free fly swatter and BYOB rat traps (bring your own bait). Four Democrats for $35 a night works out to $8.75 each or $446.25 for the whole batch per night. Right now they are staying at the Plaza at a grand total of $9,639 per night and drawing $221 per diem or $11,271 to feed and bed down the bunch of them. We could give them a generous $50 a day in McDonald's and Jack-in-the Box coupons and that would reduce the costs to a still-hefty $2,550 per day.

So the current plan runs $20,910 per day.

My proposed "Econo Plan" runs $2,996.25 (a savings of $17,913).

If they stay in Washington just 10 days, that's a savings of $179,913 for the vacation stay in DC for those hard-working Democrat leaders. Now that's real money. Now that would make a real dent in my part in the $28,000,000,000,000 national debt! AndI bet I could get them a deal on the plane fare home via Valu-Air through Priceline.com. More money saved.

https://www.texastribune.org/2021/07/14/who-paying-texas-democrats-walkout-voting/ 

 

© 2021 by Tom King

 

Ilhan Omar's Sharia Bypass

The Delinquents Only Get Worse if You Encourage Them

Big Tech Colluded with Democrats to Fix the 2016 Election

This is earth-shaking testimony from someone from their own side. Even though Dr. Epstein is a big time liberal, this really shakes him up. In this exchange with Ted Cruz (R) Texas, The former editor of Psychology Today claims that we are looking at a potential 15 million votes shifted to Democrats in the upcoming 2020 election. As it is, if they use the techniques they have already shown a willingness to use, Tech giants could easily have had the effect of shifting between 2.6 to 10.4 million votes to Democrats in 2018. We could easily have a Democrat Congress as a direct result of Google, Facebook and other tech giants colluding to influence voters to vote Democrats.

Facebook and Youtube and Google directly steer users toward ideas they support and actively suppress ideas they do not. Worse yet they are protected because they claim to be a neutral platform rather than a publisher. If the Congress were to remove that protection from tech companies, they would no longer be protected from libel suits and for deceptive practices. 

We are, like families of abusive fathers, protecting them from their own actions while they merrily abuse us without consequences.

If we allow this to continue, we will lose our freedom.  Period!  Google by manipulating search results and other means that cannot be detected and which no one is aware of and which are exclusively in their hands are colluding with the Democrat party in a way that makes the worst possible version of the Russian collusion hoax look pathetic by comparison.

This was done by means that cost these guys almost nothing. In 2020 15 million votes could be shifted without a paper trail or anyone's knowledge. If Mark Zuckerberg and the folks at Google and other tech giants support the same candidate, they can, without accountability, through deceptive manipulative search methods, search suggestions, answer bots, selective go vote notices and other deceptive subliminal methods throw 15 million or more votes to the Democrats.

We are at war with the left. God help us I can see where this is going and it's not a good place. Just watch the debates. These would-be tech gods are planning to seize control and even this very progressive psychologist that testifies in this video is appalled by the implications.

IF YOU HAVEN'T WATCHED THIS TESTIMONY BEFORE CONGRESS, DO IT NOW. YOU NEED TO KNOW.

Watch this video.

© 2019 by Tom King

Humanitarian Crisis - True Lies?

Detained illegal immigrant kids circa 2014

My leftist friends say there is no justification for separating children from their parents like this. Let me give them some justification then:

(1) The parents are being detained with other adults in detention facilities wholly unsuited for children - e.g. adult jails. It takes a few days to process them, after which their actual children will be returned to them and the reunited families will be returned to their countries of origin. This is standard procedure when cops raid a meth-making house and arrest the parents of children in the house. DHS takes the kids and puts them someplace safe. Same thing INS is doing.

(2) Among these "parents" who have no documentation are drug mules, smugglers, cartel enforcers, sex traffickers and terrorists. Because they are undocumented, it is not possible to definitively identify whether the adults arrested are the "parents" of the child (see Stockholm syndrome). For the child's safety he is placed in the custody of the Department of Human Services, one of those government agencies you guys on the left are so fond of, which has extensive experience managing displaced children and the children of incarcerated parents. So what are you saying? What DHS does with the children of American criminals is okay, but not good enough for the children of people arrested for violating our borders?  Interesting?

(3) Detention facilities are overloaded because the former president's open borders catch-and-release policies has attracted so much illegal immigration during his administration. When Trump started talking about a wall to shut down illegal immigration, it triggered a flood of illegals attempting to cross the border before the wall goes up.

So what are you Democrats proposing? Should we go back to ignoring the problem and signing up illegals to vote Democrat? Ultimately, illegal immigration is a form of slavery. It provides chicken processing plants, dairy farms, rose nurseries and farmers with a cheap source of underpaid labor and Democrats with a voting block that works even better than copying names off headstones.

President Obama did the same thing Trump's INS is doing. Obama (and Bill Clinton) actually wrote the policy that separates children from adult detention facilities. While the mainstream media did react to the issue back in 2014, the furor over it was much muted. Now, President Trump is dealing with a sudden flood of illegal immigration and is stuck having to protect children with the DHS resources he has. Suddenly, in 2018, the mainstream media is howling.

The difference? They liked Obama. They don't like Trump

 And I've got to hand it to Snopes on this one. They accurately reported that the claim that Obama's INS separated kids from families is true. I know they didn't want to say this claim was true, given Snopes' liberal proclivities, but this piece is pretty honest. While the conservative counter-hyperbole does play loose with the facts just like the ongoing liberal hyperbole over the family separation issue, the true story is still damning. And hyperbole wars are notorious for stretching the truth on both  sides. There was some mainstream media coverage in 2014, but that paled beside today's media hysteria. The media, back when Obama was president, stopped reporting on the situation when it started to blow back on their beloved leader. Up beside the howl of despair coming from the MSM these days, the media was relatively careful in 2014 about using terms like "atrocity" and "humanitarian crisis" when a Democrat was president.

They've taken it too far, though, in their efforts to unseat Trump over this issue, to the point of proposing policies that seriously endanger innocent kids.  The media coverage is far more vocal about the situation these days, than they were back in 2014. And its not about a humanitarian crisis. The kids are being protected actually. It's about politics. It's about unseating a kind of conservative president that the progressive left hates because he used to be one of them.
.
© 2018 by Tom King 

Time for Some Reparations.........for Christians

"

The infamous booing of the use of the word God

 I am warming to this whole idea of reparations.  I think there are three groups that I believe have a case for demanding reparations, or at least filing a lawsuit.  They are in order of victimhood.

1. Black folk. No other group in American history have been persecuted, abused and enslaved like African-Americans. The treatment was horrific and went on for many many years after the Civil War. This mistreatment was committed by an organized party of Americans who should be forced to pay reparations for their past crimes.
2. Illegal Immigrants. This group of people have been lured to the United States, shoved into villages of tar paper shacks without running water, electricity or sewerage (colonias). They have been employed to do menial hard labor and exploited mercilessly for ages. Again this system has been perpetrated for profit by an organized party of Americans who should be forced to pay reparations for this ongoing crime.
3. Christians. Bible-believing Christians have been the target of hate speech, loss of employment, marginalization and libel by media personalities and public figures. This has been perpetrated by a specific party of Americans in an attempt to oppress this American minority group

Chief Cochran

Case in Point:  Kelvin J. Cochran was fired from his job as fire chief of the city of Atlanta, Georgia. The reason? On his own time and not in any connection with the city, Cochran wrote a book that mentioned in a couple of paragraphs, the Biblical position on homosexuality. The chief was investigated and the panel found he had committed no acts of discrimination. Cochran had worked for President Obama as United States Fire Administrator, the highest fire-fighting position in the country. The man was the poster boy for tolerance. He started programs in every administration position in which he served to end racial and sexual intolerance, sexual harassment and discrimination on the basis of race and sexual preference.

Didn't matter; they fired him anyway.

Apparently if you are a Christian and you write a book for a Men's Bible Study group that mentions that homosexual behavior is considered a sin, you have committed the unpardonable sin in a Democrat run town like Atlanta. Chief Cochran's beliefs are, according to mayor Kasim Reed, unforgivable in a liberal Democrat-run city. Public officials who use political correctness as a bludgeon against conservatives (which this guy is not) and against Christians (which this guy is), cannot allow such ideas to creep in to society. The good old Washington Post claimed Cochran's actual sin was "distributing the book to employees" and offered vague "proof" that some employees of the Atlanta Fire Department had "seen" the book and complained. No mention was made as to whether those employees were Christians or in the Chief's off work men's Bible study group. Just the fact that some copies of the book found their way into the hands of some employees apparently was enough to get the chief accused of brainwashing his employees into.........what? Lynching some queer folk? Everything the chief did in his official capacity spoke against discrimination on any basis other than competence as a firefighter - not that requiring competence might not set off some social justice warriors, though. The courts have since ruled against the city in Cochran's favor.

To say homosexual behavior is a sin is unforgivable to the "progressive" left. It doesn't matter whether you discriminate against such people or not. Believing something the left wishes to promote in order to consolidate their power, is a thought crime. Apparently, the narrative is that one cannot believe homosexual behavior is wrong and just go out and suddenly want to lynch gay people. It matters not that we horrible Christians work alongside people every day who, according to the Bible, are sinning by committing adultery, being disrespectful to their parents, stealing, killing, lying, coveting, failing to keep the Sabbath, worshiping idols or kneeling to graven images, or claiming to be a Christian and thinking you can speak on his behalf (taking his name in vain). Evidently, only certain types of sin make us go crazy. Well that's a stupid idea with no basis in fact.

Hosing black folks on orders of which party do you suppose?

Do some despicable people mistreat others, lynch, murder and mistreat people on the basis of their race, religion or sexual orientation? Yes, of course they do. We call those people "bullies". They are an ongoing problem. If they aren't beating up black folks, they beat up on gay folks, or kids who go to church or Italians, or Irish, or Hispanics or old white people or whoever is the target du jour.  Right now, conservative Christians seem to be popular with bullies.

We, Christians, manage to get along with all kinds of sinners every day. We believe that Jesus tells us to treat others the way we want to be treated - no exceptions. If you can't do that, then you're going to hell. It's not negotiable. No unrepentant bullies allowed in heaven.  yet, the narrative that's being promoted is that unless you say LGBTQLSMFT or whatever, is okey dokey, you must be discriminating an you are an intolerant bigot. 

But progressives demands we all treat the alternative gender community as "special", rather like many of us treat developmentally disabled folk. That seems to me to be downright paternalistic. I know I'd get pretty sick of people running around telling people to mind their P's and Q's every time I stepped to within earshot. I'm not a child and neither are the people who engage in alternative sexual practices. If you wish to sin, do so. Don't stomp your feet like a child and demand that people pat you on the head and tell you what a good boy (or girl or transgender, lesbian, gay, queer, etc.) you are. If you want to demand something, demand to be treated like a fully functioning grownup with the right to commit any sort of sin you want to. It's a free country, or at least it is where the PC police aren't running things..

The Washington Post, a Democrat Party mouthpiece claims this never happened.

What I'm thinking is that we should start calling people bigots who discriminate against blacks, illegal immigrants, and Christians. We should all claim collective victimhood and sue the crap out of the Democrat party. To be fair, the Washington Post, good leftist newspaper that it is claims it really was Republicans more than Democrats who supported the Klan and Jim Crow laws. They go to great lengths in a recent article to absolve the Democrat party of all association with the 1924 Democrat Convention, nicknamed the Klanbake, in the media and among loyal Klan members who were rather proud of the impact they had on the convention. I grew up in the South where Republicans were called "nigger-lovers". And we were. I know I was. Jesus told me to love everybody. He never mentioned anything about skin color.

I really do think black folk in particular ought to sue the party responsible. So which party was responsible primarily for slavery, Jim Crow laws, separate bathrooms and fountains and rampant discrimination that continued for 100 years past the end of the Civil War and the abolition of slavery. Which party fought a bloody Civil War to protect its "right" to hold it's fellow human beings in bondage for fun and profit?  Who could it have been?
 In fact, anybody who has ever been discriminated against by officials of the Democrat part should all get together and sue the Democrat Party for reparations. I think that would be just a lovely idea!

© 2018 by Tom King

Encouraging Democrat Cannibalism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxASD4jHgCk

Poor old Morgan Freeman. CNN today descended on Mr. Freeman with a bevy of angry feminists all claiming he made inappropriate sexual comments or approaches to them over a number of years. Freeman is a died-in-the-wool liberal, with occasional inadvertent conservative lapses. You see his positively sensible statements posted on the Internet by conservatives. For doing this, Freeman may not be forgiven. That's what happen to Bill Cosby. Had the Cos remained on the plantation and not said things that could be quoted in Internet memes by conservatives, he'd have been just one more Bill Clinton. Like the proverbial lovable uncle you warn your daughter to not get too close to at family gatherings.

This propensity for liberal to cannibalize their own could well be a useful tool for conservatives. Let me suggest a strategy. I think what we should do is follow their leaders around and on the rare occasions when they actually do say something sensible, every conservative in America should quickly make up a meme of it and flood Facebook, Google Plus, MeWe and anywhere else they can think of with them.

WARNING:  You should not make fun or nasty comments when you post those memes. Be serious. Act like you admire that person. Post it like you are quoting this person as an authority and that you approve of what they said. Just circulate the bare-faced statement.

After about one to six months, if enough people do it, you'll suddenly see CNN report that "16 women came forward to accuse whoever-it-is" or some Democrat Congressman or pundit will call for an investigation of conduct unbecoming a Democrat. I think that we could effectively decapitate the Democrat Party by making conservative darlings out of them. Even Hillary has said some things that are the opposite of what she's trying to say now that can be quoted. Just make sure that what we quote is accurate and that we can document it. Even Bernie Sanders may have said something sensible once a long time ago when he was trying to win a senate seat. I can think of some Shelia Jackson Lee comments that could be tied to some right wing conspiracy theories. Think of it as chum in the water when you are fishing for sharks.

I have included the one above to get you started.

Happy guerrilla warfare!

© 2018 by Tom King

Unions, Parties and Killing Golden Geese

I have a friend who is a union man and we tend to get into some lovely conversations. I'm a conservative as you've probably figured out. Unions are pretty much NOT conservative and union men seem to take a particular delight in vilifying the president and the Republican Party, so sometimes the conversations get lively.

Let me make this clear. I feel about Unions the way I feel about Donald Trump. They both are doing some good, but sometimes they are their own worst enemies.  The idea of unions started out to be a good thing. The railroad union, in particular, to give it credit was able to work with the railroad companies to solve some of the problems of the economic transition that occurred in the twentieth century. The railroads were dying until finally the unions and the company figured out how to work together. That's how it should be done. 

But there are unions that don't do that. They ossify procedures, hiring and firing and pay rates. Unions can become so busy protecting specific jobs (and the Union income stream from dues) that the companies they work for keep folding. Hostess Bakeries was killed because their Union refused to budge. The union dug in its heels, the company couldn't adapt and folded. Retirement plans went away. So did a lot of jobs with the death of company and along with it, our supply of Twinkies and Hostess Cupcakes. Eventually someone else bought the brand but it was a near thing. 

Unions can do a lot of good, but too often in their blind hatred for the companies they work for, they kill the golden goose. I fault Unions for being so in the tank for Democrats. They do that because as in the case of Chrysler and then GM, the unions protect their turf so vigorously they frequently play a part in driving their companies to the brink. Let's face it, if a company can't make a decent profit, why should the continue to do business? Then when the company is on the brink, unions expect taxpayers to swoop in and bail them out, saving union jobs and failing companies. 

It's the same problem with environmentalists. These people want to somehow prevent the climate from changing. Unions want an unchanging job market. We are passing through climate changes as we always have. We are experiencinga titanic shift economically, as disrupting as the shift from a largely agrarian economy to an industrial economy. We are moving from an industrial to a tech-based information economy. Rather than preserve outmoded buggy whip manufacturing jobs, we need to be finding ways to adapt to the new reality.

The climate? Climates change. Get over it. We just have to deal with it. Clean up messes - absolutely. Stop polluting as far as possible. Of course. But do we have to create some vast centrally planned economy with an attendant huge army of bureaucrats to try and manage from Washington, a nation of 350 million individuals? That's absurd. The only way to do that is to simplify everything, stuff every peg, square, round or triangular into the same shape holes. That's why Marx was so in love with the idea of a homogeneous proletariat. If everybody (or at least most of us) were treated the same the theory was that they would be easier to manage for the leader class.

A nation of individuals is tough to make steady and predictable. Things change rapidly in a free market economy. Some businesses will close. Some will adapt. We're not asking mom and pop hardware stores to suddenly sell dresses because Walmart set up shot next door. But they can adapt  maybe sell hardware items that Walmart doesn't sell. They can offer higher levels of service that Wally World cannot offer because they have to sell such a huge volume of stuff.

In a time of upheaval, we have to change and adapt. In the past 200 years the world has changed in a profound way.  Two centuries ago we could be certain that, barring an attack by the nation next door and being carried off as slaves, for the most part however it was for your parents, it would be the same for you. After the huge scientific revolution of the 19th and 20th centuries, we came to believe that our lives would inevitably better than the lives of our parents.

It's ironic that the "progressive" movement that rose up seems to be attempting to reverse that course by making "progress" stand still. By insuring that everything from the jobs we work at to the very climate we live in stays the same, progressive behavior impedes progress. It's a losing battle. The world is changing and huge monolithic organizations and governments cannot possibly keep up. The reason America has thrived in this The future does not belong to those who learn something and then do that same something all their lives. That type of job is going away. The future will require us to learn how to learn, unlearn, and relearn something different. It will call for education that harks back to the old liberal arts education where we learn basic skills like math, writing, logic and computer skills and then layer on that first skill set you need to enter the workforce.

After that the worker has to stop worrying about fairness and start looking at what works to make that worker valuable to his employers. Here unions could play a role so long as they don't become the monolithic organizations, an image to the "beast" corporations they hate. If instead of propping up dying companies and industries we let the ones which try to kill themselves go ahead and die. We could spend that same money encouraging new companies to step in and start clean. We could train workers to do the new jobs using the new technologies and to meet the needs of a changing market.

The world is changing. There was a reason Chrysler was dying in the 80s and GM in the 00s. They probably should have. Someone or several someones could have bought the good parts and started clean. If the unions had been smart they'd have focused on working with newer, smarter, leaner companies. Sadly, too often the unions over time can become about accumulating power and fat budgets for the bosses instead of what they were about in the first place - a fair shake for workers on wages and safety. So when big bad corporations fall, unions probably should let them. Practically they never will.

There's a reason Detroit is rotting away. If you keep an industry barely alive and never get beyond treading water, an industry will rot and along with it the community that depends on that industry. Can corporations become corrupt? You bet, especially when they hook up with corrupt government which protects them. If one could allow a partnership of workers and the markets to which their labors provide goods and services to work as free markets can, we could keep corporations in line. But corruption doesn't just happen in board rooms. It can be found top to bottom. It happens in board rooms, union halls and city halls.

When owners and workers finally realize they are both on the same team and we get over envying the wealth of people who risk everything to start these companies, we might just see a greater sharing of the wealth. There's a reason Ford wasn't involved in the bailouts of the automakers. Henry Ford started the 40 hour week and assembly line and took care of his workers in ways no other corporate magnate did. There were free market reasons why he did right by his workers. Oddly enough he was very popular with people like Hitler because he was a capitalist who was also something of a socialist. Fortunately, his focus on his employees and treating them well hung with the company for a long time and kept them from falling into that adversarial relationship despite Ford's folly in embracing socialism.

It's amazing to me that very wealthy people cannot do the decent thing for very long, before they look round and decide to hook up with the government to try to take some of the responsibility for being decent people off of themselves. This protects their wealth, but puts the lion's share of the tax burden on the middle class through confiscatory taxation. Back in the 50s, when the upper tax rate was like 70%, very few of the 1%ers actually paid that tax rate. The rich were famous for hiring staffs of tax attorneys who helped them navigate the loopholes that the Democrats they support put into the tax codes. In the 50s and 60s the fat cats were supposed to pay 70%, but very few paid anything near that rate and some paid almost no taxes at all. 

There is no simple solution so long as we have vast complicated piles of regulations, laws and rules that hide the true intent of the government from the governed. It's not just evil corporations, it's evil government bureaucracies.

I think the devil's purpose is to keep us divided and fighting among ourselves. And what better way than to convince us to sling slogans at one another and lash ourselves to the mastheads of our ideologies. I used to do community organizing and it's so hard to get people to look beyond their pet ideologies and listen to each other. If you can, sometimes you can figure out how to fix the problem. Usually, people that figure out solutions that make sense just get pushed aside if they start talking sense that doesn't fit someone's ideology. Leaders on both sides of the ideological divide believe they need to keep the strife going in order to keep their jobs.

It's heartbreaking to watch the land that I love destroy itself from within. So it's good that Jesus is coming soon.

© 2018 by Tom King

New Weapons/Old Tactics in America's Political Civil War.

The current back and forth artillery barrage of accusations of sexual abuse against virtually everybody was inevitable in the war on men by liberal feminists. Progressives chose sides and used the feminists as troops in their war on American free market capitalism and constitutional conservatives. In every war the enemy can potentially catch up with every weapon you deploy. 

Republicans finally figured out that the sex, drugs, rock n' roll lifestyle enjoyed by Democrats made them vulnerable to the same tactics the Dems were using against them. The death toll in this Political Civil War is going to be horrific. Every politician, particularly male ones, is a target. Soon, someone is going to remember all those scandals with female teachers hitting on boys and go looking after sexual skeletons in lady politicians' closets.

Because the parties are still married to old-style political strategies, they're going to be like the Civil War and WWI generals in the face of new weaponry. The slaughter is going to be horrific. Whoever has any serious sexual naughtiness in their past is terribly vulnerable if they take up a life in politics. Their past will catch up with them, whoever they are. Everyone is taking potshots at one another. It makes it almost impossible for a person of principle to do the right thing.

The only guys that will survive are the rare few people with spotless pasts who will fight to protect their reputations and guys with hides like a rhino like Donald Trump who know how to use the media like a weapon. This calls for citizens who are willing to run for office, serve a term or two and leave behind a legacy of good law and lean government. We need politicians who aren't primarily politicians, but are people who know how to do things and how things work and don't care about getting re-elected or accumulating power permanently.

Such a crop of people, Democrats and Republicans would change this nation. I have little hope of anything like that happening before the end of time, but it's a nice idea. We can pray for a remnant of warriors to stand for the right in the midst of the storm.  That's probably all we're going to get. We may lose this battle by the world's standards, but by all that's holy, we will make a magnificent fight of it.

© 2017 by Tom King

Good Enough for Government Work

I knew an old contractor once who used to tell me when I was obsessing on aligning some 2x4 exactly along the line, "It's good enough for government work." He went on to further explain. "You know how they do it in the government. Measure it with a micrometer, mark it with a piece of chalk, and cut it with an axe!"

Actually, he left out two steps. Today government works like this:

1. First, a consultant conducts a quarter million dollar feasibility study, 
2. An engineer measures it with a micrometer, 
3. A contractor marks it with a piece of chalk
4. An undocumented worker cuts it with an axe. 
5. Then a Democrat takes credit for it or, if it falls down, blames it on a Republican.

© 2017 by Tom King

Hoist by Their Own Petards

I used to hear the phrase "hoist by their own petard" and imagine someone dangling from the end of a rope attached to a particularly sensitive appendage. The phrase with that thought in mind is particularly poetic these days, if not entirely accurate. Actually a "petard" is a bomb of the sort that sappers (military engineers) used to set under under walls to attack fortifications (from which we derive the term "undermine"). To be "hoist by one's own petard" is literally to have the bomb or mine, with which you are attempting to attack your enemy, blow up in your face and send you flying. Thus you are "hoist" by your own petard.

The Democrats have long been using undermining as a way to attack their enemies. One of the favorite weapons has been to attack sexist pigs (pretty much all Republicans) by finding people who have been sexually abused. Hillary Clinton famously argued that all such accusations must be given credibility as no one would ever make such an accusation falsely. She said this after destroying the multiple women who accused her hubbie of groping, fondling, raping, or propositioning them for sex. Even after he got caught getting serviced under the Presidential desk during a conversation with a cabinet official and lied bald-faced to the American people about it, Democrats lined up to defend him saying, "It was only sex!"

Of late, the Democrats are discovering how dangerous it is to attack your enemy with sexual petards while smoking long cigars yourself. The carnage has been spectacular taking down Senators, Congressmen, movie moguls, actors and journalists right and left. Women, apparently tired of being groped in the name of sexual liberation, have come out of the woodwork to accuse dozens of famous men (even one notable gay man) of everything from butt-grabbing and casting couch misbehavior to pedophilia and saying naughty words.

The Democrats should check the quality and stability of the sorts of explosives they are using to build their petards. While they've successfully damaged such notables as Roy Moore and Bill O'Reilly, they've also blown up long-time supporter Harvey Weinstein who has a whole bunch of embarrassing photos of himself with his arms around Hillary Clinton, Diane Feinstein and other Democrat women who all seem to be smiling and enjoying the embrace of the old Hollywood lech.

The list is getting embarrassingly long including such notables as Charlie Rose, Matt Lauer, Kevin Spacey, Al Franken, and Louis C.K.* The latest "shocking" accusation has been a complaint filed with Minnesota Public Radio against lovable 75 year-old liberal curmudgeon and humorist Garrison Keillor, who was terminated immediately by MPR. Kellor, ironically, recently defended Democrat Senator and professional comedian (ah, but I repeat myself) Al Franken over his sexual indiscretions saying that the accusations against Franken were "low comedy" and should be forgiven. Keillor went on to say, "A world in which there is no sexual harassment at all is a world in which there will not be any flirtation."

It is the irony of progressive liberalism that the so-called "party of the people" claims that it will usher in an age of liberation in which a utopia of sex, drugs, and rock n' roll will surely follow the worldwide adoption of the principles of socialism. Yet in every case, almost the first thing the new socialist dear leaders do is ban rock n' roll, make drugs unobtainable (even the pharmaceutical ones) and make sex a dangerous proposition. There have never been more grim societies than the ones that first promised to create a worker's paradise. Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and all the rest of them created grim societies based on repression and shared misery. The sex, drugs, and rock n' roll crowd were inevitably the first ones up against the wall.

Newsweek attempted to blame it all on Republicans claiming the Democrats had borrowed the technique of claiming sexual misconduct against political opponents from Republicans. "They did it first," is the liberal journalist's talking point, as though Bill Clinton boning the interns was the first time any politician was ever called out on sexual misconduct. Even Bill Clinton isn't safe now as both sides have opened fire with all their guns. Clinton, himself, the poster boy for "it's only sex", is currently being fed to the journalistic wood-chipper by fellow Democrats who, as Winston Churchill famously described it, "...are feeding the crocodile hoping it will eat them last."

CS Lewis more than a half century ago pointed out the danger of allowing ourselves to be governed by "omnipotent moral busybodies". The great danger in seizing for yourself the unearned moral high ground is that the morally superior almost inevitably morph into grim, judgmental, iron-pantsed hypocrites and if you've given them any power over you, they will be determined to exercise that power over you. Robber Barons, as Lewis pointed out, may eventually be satisfied and stop robbing you, but those who boss and bully you with the approval of their own conscience never get tired of it and always become progressively more oppressive.

Just sayin'.

© 2017 by Tom King

 * I've begun to think it's all part of a feminist plot to take over the world. Men are getting scarce anymore on news programs and the ones that are left have been very polite to their female colleagues lately. I'm noticing male journalists wear a kind of hunted look lately, sitting there alone, the only source of testosterone on a long talk show couch that reeks of estrogen and anger from one end to the other.

I Blame Democrats

It's really funny how desperately liberal Democrats want to pin the blame for Donald Trump on conservatives like me.  Well, I've got news, guys. I didn't vote for him or for Mrs. Clinton. What happened that got Trump elected was that a supposedly brilliant strategy by Democrats went terribly terribly wrong. First, millions of Democrats crossed over to vote for Mr. Trump (I have to call him that now that he's president) in the Republican Primaries because they were certain Hillary could beat him if they just could get stupid Republicans to nominate him. This they did.

Then, once he was safely nominated by the Keystone Cops over at the RNC, the Democrat strategerists nominated the only Democrat on the planet that could have lost to someone as abysmal as Donald Trump. To add insult to injury he was trained by Democrats. Up until this election, Trump was a lifelong Democrat. He donated to both Hillary and Barak Obama's campaigns. He was safely in the Democrat camp saying Democrat things right up until he decided y'all Democrats weren't going to make him president. He was getting old, so he decided to be a Republican for a while given that it was pretty much now or never.

You Democrats made him. Angry wishy-washy unprincipled "moderates" and low-information voters voted for him because they were mad about being talked down to like they were idiots by Democrats. And the hilarious thing is that you guys were surprised you screwed it up so badly. You believed your own press, your own propaganda and thought the Hildebeest was a shoe-in. You counted on the liberal East and West Coasts to carry the day and forgot about the leavening effect of the electoral college.

You people seriously screwed up. I don't know why you're unhappy though. Donald is a trained liberal and could switch hit any day now. Sure he's dismantling Obamacare. But he's still a nationalized healthcare guy like he's always been. He's just going to rename it Trumpcare. As long as his name's on the building, Trump could give a rats tukas what's in it.

Trump isn't my fault, nor is he the fault of genuine conservatives - many of us left the party over Trump in fact. But we can't help giggling over the discomfiture of the left over this one. Trump talked in 6th grade English in his speeches. Your leftist pundits chortled at that and assumed he must be stupid. You comforted yourselves that you were smarter with the superior election strategy. And while you were snickering behind your hands, Trump stole most of the lower half of the IQ bell curve voters from you. And you were shocked because you thought you owned those people. The left was arrogant and it camp back to smack them in the face. You guys on the left don't like it because Trump used the very same tactics you taught him when he was a Democrat to beat you at your own game when he went Republican.  Now we have (God help us) President Trump. Thanks to you.

Tough luck, buttercup; I don't feel sorry for you. Enjoy the next four years. Maybe if you push the whole Elizabeth Warren and the historical inevitability of a woman president thing hard enough, perhaps you can lose again in 2020 with Fauxchahontas and give us all another eight years of Donald Trump instead of just the four. Much as I distrust Trump, I must admit watching the arrogant hard left wing of liberalism squirm is kind of a treat for a crusty old conservative like me.

Almost as entertaining as watching 3 million overweight, half-naked, angry women march in the street to protect their right to murder their unborn children (which Trump will never take from them anyway) and for lots more imaginary rights they think they ought to have.  Even more interesting is watching the spectacle of the Donald actually doing some thing right for a change. And his open baiting of the media and the vast left wing conspiracy is going to rapidly become conservatives' newest favorite Reality TV show.

This might even be fun for a while, even though it also might wind up very badly. Who knows. It's those little mysteries of life that give life zest.

© 2017 by Tom King

Vote for Republicans Because........Gerrymandering

With the gradual takeover of heartland states by Republicans, we've begun to hear a lot of Democrat whining about a process called "gerrymandering". Well given it's origins, all that whining is nothing, if not, disingenuous.  

Gerrymandering, refers to the process of slicing and dicing districts to favor the incumbent party. It's why some congressional districts look like they were designed by chimpanzees. Gerrymandering, as it turns out, is actually named for Massachusetts Governor Eldridge Gerry who, in the early 1800s, famously sliced up one voting district into such a contorted shape that it looked vaguely like a salamander and, of course, favored his own party. A clever pro-Federalist newsman conjured up the term "gerrymandering" for what he viewed as a shady redistricting practice.

Typical gerrymandered congressional district

Eldridge was a member of the fledgling Democratic-Republican party which later became (you guessed it) The Democrat Party. So, the game was actually invented by the Democrats who only cry foul when it's Republicans doing the "gerrymandering". Yahoo news complained a while back because Republicans were, quote, "good at it".

Odd that you don't hear the same complaint from the mainstream media when Democrats are doing it. You can expect to hear more complaints from the media about gerrymandering's unfairness if Republicans do well this fall, even if Donald Trump turns out to be a disaster.  If the Democrats take the field, however, you won't hear nary a word of complaint about the slicing and dicing of voting districts except, of course, from conservative media.

Even if I hate Donald Trump, I'll vote for the down ticket conservatives because whoever wins those contests gets to carve up the districts, whether you think that's fair or not. Neither party will do away with gerrymandering either because it's one of the spoils of victory and both sides are arrogant enough to believe that they will be the victor to whom such spoils will go. Besides a properly gerrymandered district can insure you have a long and rewarding political career - at least for yourself it will be rewarding. For taxpayers, not so much.

© 2016 by Tom King

Why the Lesser of Two Evil's Is a Trap for Voters

Picture: © 2016 by Ben Garrison

I watched a remarkable video this afternoon by Pastor Gary K. Gordon explaining why choosing the lesser of two evils will always fail and is morally wrong. Gordon made a good point. The idea of choosing the lesser of two evils, trains the two parties of a two-party system to ignore their greatest supporters and spend their energies on winning the wishy-washy folks in the middle. 

Parties depend on their members to vote for the Party candidate on the very principle that the party candidate is the "lesser of two evils". Because both parties count on their base to always vote for the Party candidate who is less evil than the other party's candidate, the party bosses can on the undecided middle voter in an attempt to tip the scales enough to win.  Because the Republicans are focused on people to the left of the party's base and the Democrats are focused on the people to the right of their base in order to win elections, the parties inevitably tend to drift philosophically toward the noncommital center. In this way, the Party leadership needs only shift slightly toward accommodating their base should the blacks or the Christians get antsy, while still pandering toward the middle. 

The upshot is that the Democrats neglect their black supporters and the Republicans neglect their Christian supporters because they can count on them to vote for what they perceive as "the lesser of two evils".  What we really need are three or four strong parties so voters have an actual choice. This would go a long way toward training our politicians to be representatives of their constituents rather than political ballplayers only concerned about winning.

At the same time, though, we'd have to have voters who weren't so afraid of losing an election, that they weren't willing to take a leap and actually do the right thing.  As it turns out, losing an election in the short run might not be the worst thing if it teaches our representatives to do the right thing in the long run rather than doing the safe thing or taking the expedient course.

Ronald Reagan proved that doing the right thing actually was a winning political strategy. It's a pity the Republican Party didn't learn from that. They've become so "smart" at how to win elections in the short run, that they've managed to lose their party in the long run.

The Louisiana Theater Shooter is NOT a Tea Partier

Oh, the gun control folk are wetting their pants! Finally, a Tea Partier has murdered some people and therefore since one out of the last 20 or 30 serial shooters was a "Tea Partier", that proves we need gun control to stop them. And they sing it in solidarity like a Hitler Youth chorus line!

Well, they're wrong. The Louisiana theater shooter was NOT a "tea partier". First off nobody parties over tea. It's a "party" in the political sense of that word and the informal sense for that matter since the Tea Party has only a loose organizational structure at best and exists in total disorganization at worst with any nut job, who wants to join, able to claim membership.  To be fair, there is a language barrier at play here. When Democrats use the word "party" they use it (incorrectly) as a verb, i.e. to engage in sex, drugs and rock n' roll in a group setting. Tea Party members don't "party" in that sense. We may host a "party" to talk bad about Democrats, but we don't party in the same sense that liberals do.

The man in question (and I will not use his name for reasons I've explained elsewhere) had once signed up for an online Tea Party website account.  He never used it. An article in RawStory says he hated Obama, but then quotes him as saying he supported Obama's re-election (check this article link to verify).

The man was bipolar (manic-depressive) and obviously mentally ill. Local talk radio hosts, in fact, used to bring him on opposite Democrats because he said such outlandish things that it made the phones light up. In other words these people brought in a mentally ill person and put him on the air lined him up opposite to a Democrat, knowing full well the Democrat would torment him and make him babble incoherently on television and radio and look foolish. They admitted that they did this in order to boost their ratings.

He could hardly be called a Tea Party member (we don't call ourselves Tea Partiers - like I said, that's the Democrat meaning of "party", We don't party. Party is a noun in my part of the country, something you host, not something you do.

Sounds to me like the man was a clinically deranged person that leftists were allowed to torment till he cracked. These people should be ashamed of themselves and recognize that someone should have got this guy into treatment instead of using him to boost ratings for their shows. Shame on them all. Perhaps they will learn not to torment mentally ill people. They are all to blame for his crack up and for the deaths that resulted.

The RawStory article also claimed the guy "loved" Hitler, then I'd say that made him a socialist - Hitler was, after all a socialist and not a Republican. That makes him sound like some variety of lib (Libertarian or Liberal - there's not that much difference between 'em). And, as it turned out, his family had him committed in 2008, but it's very hard to hold a mental patient against his will anymore thanks to a set of laws that Democrats passed back during the Carter administration to "protect" people in mental institutions. The new law was a scattergun attemp to correct abuses brought on by sweetheart deals between government and mental institutions under previous largely Democrat administrations that virtually imprisoned mental patients with no way to get out.  The law was inspired by a Mickey Rooney movie. The resultant government "solution" to the problem simply turned loose hundreds of thousands of severely disturbed individuals onto the streets. Homelessness shot through the roof and the new law made it danged near impossible to commit anyone into care against their will until they had actually shot, stabbed or beaten someone. So despite efforts by his family to intervene, our shooter was able to sign himself out of treatment, after which his mental illness ramped on up to his final act of violence.

Great system you came up with there, guys!  I'm being sarcastic for those of you in San Francisco who missed that.  I know the folk in Lafayette, Louisiana certainly "got" it.


Just sayin'

Tom King © 2015