The Limits of Free Speech

Poor Ol’ Walter

Full disclosure, the content of this article was originally supposed to be included in the article What is Free Speech. However, we admit, we sort of got off on a bit of a tangent with the whole cigar thing and, well, we just kind of ran with it. And then we felt the article would be too long so… Anyway, this whole Twitter fiasco over banning President Trump has raised so many questions and issues surrounding free speech that we still have things to say on this topic and, well, damnit, we’re going to say them. This is our blog after all.

As referenced in What is Free Speech, there are; perhaps surprisingly, limits to free speech in America. We say surprisingly because the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America seems pretty clear:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. – Bill of Rights

And yet Congress has, in point of fact, made laws limiting free speech in America. Specifically, we are referencing the federal felony enacted by Congress in 1917 as part of the United States Code Title 18, Section 871 regarding the threatening of a President of the United States. Soooooo…what now?!? How is that even possible? The plain language of the Bill of Rights clearly reads that making a law abridging free speech should be not be possible. As in, 100% impossible.

OK, sure, Congress makes up stupid laws all the time because it is full of complete and utter morons. We all know that. It’s obvious. But those idiotic laws created by halfwits are invariably eventually overturned by the Supreme Court. So surely this statute has been overturned by…HOLY SHIT!…it’s actually been upheld?!? What the hell? Are we in opposite world? Something is clearly amiss! We need to take a look at the history here and what we find is that the saga of the curtailment and censorship of free speech in America has a surprising long and twisted path.

The curtailment of the freedom of speech unconditionally and unequivocally guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, which is part of the Constitution of the United States, actually began a scant seven years after the adoption of the Bill of Rights in 1791. So a mere seven years to say whatever the hell you felt like saying. Then, in 1798, Congress adopted the Alien and Sedition Acts in a clear F’ You! to the First Amendment. This act prohibited:

“false, scandalous, and malicious writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame…or to bring them…into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them…hatred of the good people of the United States, or to stir up sedition within the United States, or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States”.

OK, first of all, can you spell i n s e c u r e? Come on guys, you can’t abide a bit of criticism? People gonna hate. However, this act expired three years later in 1801 after never being challenged in the Supreme Court. In fact, after the election of 1800, Thomas Jefferson pardoned everyone that the John Adams’ administration had prosecuted under the statute, and there were many. So, Jefferson…mad props, yo!

Alright, so other than state and local “obscenity” laws passed at the state and local level; hey, the Constitution only specifies “Congress shall make no law…”, everything remained fairly static up until the 1917 statute making it a federal felony to threaten a President of the United States. People have actually been convicted under this statute. Notably:

  • United States v. Stickrath, 242 F. 151, 153 (SD Ohio 1917) – “President Wilson ought to be killed. It is a wonder some one has not done it already. If I had an opportunity, I would do it myself.”
  • Clark v. United States, 250 F. 449 (C. A. 5th Cir. 1918) – “Wilson is a wooden-headed son of a bitch. I wish Wilson was in hell, and if I had the power I would put him there.”
  • United States v. Apel, 44 F. Supp. 592, 593 (D.C. N. D. Ill. 1942) – Regarding posters advocating the hanging of President Roosevelt
  • 2010, Johnny Logan Spencer Jr. for the poem “The Sniper” about the assassination of President Obama
  • 2010, Brian Dean Miller – “People, the time has come for revolution. It is time for Obama to die. I am dedicating my life to the death of Obama and every employee of the federal government. As I promised in a previous post, if the health care reform bill passed I would become a terrorist. Today I become a terrorist.”
  • 2017, Stephen Taubert – For threatening to hang President Obama

Wow, who knew that President Woodrow Wilson was almost as hated as President Barack Obama? Wasn’t that dude white? And yo, Stephen, you were a bit late to the game there bud. Huh…huh…“wooden headed son of a bitch”…classic.

All joking aside, that’s all awful stuff. We aren’t advocating for threatening a President of the United States, or anyone else for that matter. Which begs the question, why the hell does the President get such special treatment anyway? That’s complete B.S. Is the President a king or something? We don’t want people threatening us lowly plebes either we’ll have you know. But f’ it, apparently people can do that all day long. Lame. Regardless, how the hell is that law Constitutional pray tell?

To answer the above enquiry, we need to look no further than to Schenck v. United States in 1919. This Supreme Court decision states:

“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. […] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.”

Aha!! That’s where “shouting fire in a crowded theatre” comes from! Bonus! And thus we land on where the Supreme Court apparently starts to agree that Congress can, in fact, abridge free speech. Morons. Note that Schenck…really Schenck? That’s your last name? In any case, Schenck was convicted for distributing flyers urging resistance to the draft and the Supreme Court upheld this decision. OK, but sure, everyone makes mistakes, obviously the Supreme Court immediately started to walk back that nonsense. Nope, in fact, the Supreme Court double-downed on that B.S. circa 1942 with Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. Really…Chaplinsky?

In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the Supreme Court implemented the “fighting words” doctrine. Swear…swear to God, as crazy as that shit sounds, we are not making this up. You see, in 1940 a Jehovah’s Witness named Walter Chaplinsky was detained for distributing pamphlets accusing “organized religion” of being a “racket”. Setting aside the fact that the Jehovah’s Witnesses are, well; you know, sort of an organized religion and all while simultaneously setting aside that, well, the dude kind of has a point there… In any case, good ol’ Walter ends up calling a town marshal, and we quote: “You are a God-damned racketeer” and “a damned Fascist”. Poor S.O.B. ends up being convicted under New Hampshire’s “offense language” law and the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court of the United Freaking States upholds this nonsense, stating:

“There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or “fighting” words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.”

Honestly? In any case, it is not until 1969 that things start to get any better with Brandenburg v. Ohio. Damnit Ohio, always sticking your nose in things. In any case, this is where the Supreme Court started to walk back the ridiculous restrictions around free speech. Sure, it’s beyond unfortunate that this particular case essentially defended KKK member Clarence Brandenburg’s right to spew vile racial bigotry. And, what the hell, are all KKK members named Clarence? We don’t mean to stereotype but; damn, you meet a guy named Clarence and you know you are immediately thinking “This guy’s a Ku Klux Klan Grand Master”. Because… Anyway, this is essentially the start of the Supreme Court steadily narrowing the scope of what is regulated speech. Fortunately, that narrowing continues to this day.

Oh wait, except for New York v. Ferber, where the Supreme Court upheld bans on child pornography in 1982. Wait…a…minute…1982? Are you telling us that in 1942 poor ol’ Walter got fined for calling someone a “racketeer” and a “Facist” but it took you Supreme Court yahoos 40 more years to declare child freaking pornography illegal?!? Shame! Shame on you Supreme Court. Priorities. Priorities people. Honestly though, Supreme Court, we are 100% with you on the child pornography thing. Definitely not something that the founders of the Constitution could have ever dreamed of in their day. But the rest of it? It’s like you read the Constitution to say:

“Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, unless at some point in the future Congress just says “F’ it” and makes some laws to abridge free speech anyway and then it is OK.

But…it doesn’t say that. The Constitution…it doesn’t say that.

So, anyway, that is the condensed version of the history of the limitations on free speech in the United States of America. That is, until Big Tech tossed a veritable hand grenade of controversy into the whole heaping steam pile of excrement that is the Supreme Court’s history on this issue. Seriously, honest to God, we’ve…we’ve lost a considerable amount of respect for the Supreme Court researching and writing this article. You convicted poor ol’ Walter for calling someone a Fascist for Christ’s sake? Might as well lock up half the freaking country at this point, starting with Don Lemon.

So, what is the point of this exercise other than a long, drawn out excuse to once again point out what an idiot Don Lemon is? Well…you say that like it is a bad thing. Personally, we think that’s enough. The dude called like 74 million Americans fascist Nazi’s after all. But sure, what the hell, let’s make this an “and knowing is half the battle” moment.

OK, so let’s go with this. Perhaps you are wondering just why is The Objective Observer so concerned about free speech? Well, the reality is that it is because we; well, if we are being honest, we say some pretty messed up, crazy shit on this blog site from time to time! Not Don Lemon moronic messed up crazy shit calling everyone Nazis, but still… Seriously, have you read A Cure for the Flu or Vegetarians Are Still Stupid? Admittedly, no joke, we’re “out there”. So, you had better believe that we are concerned about free speech. Luckily though, we have a secret weapon at our disposal. Want to know what it is?


You see, WordPress is owned and operated by a Canadian firm. That’s right, SUCK IT! American Big Tech and all of you other censuring, freedom hating Americans, you can’t touch us here! Nyah, nyah, nee, nyah, nyah! And this is how Canada has become more free than America, the “Land of the Censured”.

Honestly, we…we truly hate Big Tech and other American censors. You’re…making…us…defend…Canada! Canada! Of all places! We truly despise you Big Tech, you…you…you…Fascists!! Oh…oh shit…we’re going to jail. We’ll be sure to say “hello” to Walter…

Seriously though, we…uh…we kind of feel bad for Walter that’s all.



Twitter and the Suicide of the Commons

A lot of attention has been paid to the recent action by Twitter to permanently ban (exclude) a sitting President of the United States of America. However, as is so often the case, everyone seems to be missing the vastly more intriguing bigger picture here. To an objective observer, what is most interesting about Twitter’s banning of President Trump is the fascinating case study this action represents in terms of the “tragedy of the commons.

For a bit of background, the tragedy of the commons is a concept first introduced by William Forster Lloyd in 1833. Lloyd was an English economist and he released a pamphlet where, per Wikipedia, “he postulated that if a herder put more than his allotted number of cattle on the common, overgrazing could result. For each additional animal, a herder could receive additional benefits, while the whole group shared the resulting damage to the commons. If all herders made this individually rational economic decision, the common could be depleted or even destroyed, to the detriment of all.”

A “common” in this context refers to public land that is free for anyone to use. Lloyd’s concept was resurrected in 1968 by Garrett Hardin’s article “The Tragedy of the Commons”. The name stuck. Since Hardin’s article, the concept has been applied to anthropology, economics, environmental science evolutionary psychology, game theory, politics, sociology and taxation. In short, one can sum up the tragedy of the commons as a situation where individual users deplete or spoil a shared resource by acting contrary to the common good and in their own self interests.

Now, over the years, there have been attempts to apply the tragedy of the commons to the digital world with varying degrees of success. The arguments tend to fall along the lines of overuse of digital resources causing pollution in the physical environment or a “pollution” of information causing things like misinformation, crime, terrorism, confusion, manipulation, etc. We have actually argued similar things when discussing open source here and here. And that goes as far back as 2008. What can we say? We’re brilliant and way ahead of our time like that. Can’t argue with awesome.

Back patting aside, we would argue that Twitter banning President Trump is a fantastic example of a digital, tragedy of the commons. To understand why this is the case, however, we need to define what it means to “consume” Twitter, demonstrate how Twitter can be classified as a “common good” and exactly how this common good “failed”. Let’s get to it.

OK, consumption. To fully “consume” Twitter (participate) you need to be able to read and be able to post. Only being able to read Twitter is akin to only being able to look at the scenery of some common land but be unable to graze your cattle on it. If you are unable to fully utilize a common resource, then that does not count as true consumption.

OK, Twitter as a common good. In the interests of not having to write an entire treatise on economic theory let’s summarize. Goods are either private, club, common or public. Goods are classified into these categories based upon their degree of excludability and rivalry. Excludability is the degree to which something is limited to only paying customers. Rivalrous and non-rivalrous pertain to the degree to which consumption reduces the ability of others to consume the resource. Common goods tend to be non-excludable and rivalrous.

Is Twitter non-excludable? Sure, up until they banned President Trump for life, Twitter was very much non-excludable. Anyone with Internet access was free to read and tweet on Twitter. Is Twitter rivalrous or non-rivalrous? Eh, that’s more of a gray area. One could argue that Twitter is rivalrous, non-rivalrous or even anti-rivalrous. Again, in the interests of not having to write a treatise on the subject, it’s somewhere on the spectrum of rivalry, meaning that there are at least some aspects of rivalry that fit the attributes of a common good. For example, once a username is claimed on Twitter, no one else can use that same username. Also, it is not zero cost for Twitter to scale as consumption increases. Those are examples of Twitter being rivalrous.

OK, so Twitter can reasonably be thought of as a common good. Sure, it’s an arguable point. One could also reasonably make the case for Twitter as a public good or, less likely, a club good. But, again, without authoring a treatise on the subject, we think that the definition of Twitter as a common good is best.

So, how did Twitter “fail” in a manner consistent with the tragedy of the commons? Well, the short answer is President Trump. By permanently banning President Trump, Twitter voluntarily threw the switch between non-excludable to excludable. Thus, Twitter effectively failed as this once common good suddenly became most decidedly excludable and thus no longer a common good. In other words, the self interests of a single individual “spoiled” the common good and thus Twitter #failed as a common good and became yet another victim of the tragedy of the commons.

Let’s review, the tragedy of the commons is a situation where individual users deplete or spoil a shared resource by acting contrary to the common good and in their own self interests. President Trump acted in his own self interests to such a degree that he caused Twitter to become exclusionary versus non-exclusionary. While perhaps not an “according to Hoyle” tragedy of the commons, this is still an example of commons collapse disorder. We just made that up. But anyway, that is why this case is so fascinating, this episode demonstrates that “over consumption” is not the only way in which a tragedy of the commons event can occur, which is wild.

If you think we here at The Objective Observer are crazy. Rest assured, we are not the only ones that think in these terms. There is an amazing article in The Hill that came out while we were still in the process of writing and editing this article. The article argues that Twitter and Facebook need to become nationalized public goods. The article doesn’t mention tragedy of the commons by name, but if Twitter and Facebook; the same logic holds for Facebook as well, had succeeded as common goods and not victimized themselves via self-inflicted tragedy of the commons, then you wouldn’t need to nationalize them in order to fix them. Both Twitter and Facebook have failed as common goods because they have firmly crossed over the line from non-excludable to excludable and thus, by definition, can no longer be considered common goods.

And, just to wrap this up, there is an element of irony here. There can be no question that President Trump’s use of Twitter greatly benefitted the platform. President Trump was a marketing gold mine, constantly keeping Twitter relevant and in the news. Tremendous irony then that Twitter chose to commit “Suicide of the Commons”, effectively killing themselves as a common good, over this one “selfish” consumer.


The States of America

The Man Who Divided a Nation

No, that title is not a typo. The title of this article is simply an expression of reality at this point. It is time we face the facts and drop the “United” from the quaint name “United States of America”. America is anything but united at this point and, well, there’s no going back. In fact, things are only going to get worse, not better. If you doubt this simple, undeniable truth or have a burning desire to understand the true culprit behind this division, read on.

In order to understand how we have arrived at this moment and the inexorable march we are on to an even more divided future, we have to dial up the way back machine and understand a bit of history of media and, in particular, news. If we focus on television news then from pretty much the invention of television up until the 1980’s, Americans primarily received their news from just three organizations, ABC, NBC and CBS.

Now, at this time, each of these organizations were essentially fair and honest brokers of news and information. What mattered was that the news of the day was reported factually and without opinion. And while there may have been slight differences in the news stories each organization covered or in presentation, the same core set of content was delivered with very little filtering. If we were to picture this improbable, by today’s standards, state of affairs, it would look something like the following:

The little blue dots are the audience. Hey, we’re writers here, not graphic artists, give us a break for Christ’s sake. More importantly than the god awful graphics, the takeaway here is that all Americans were essentially receiving the same information. While there were differences of opinion among Americans, we at least had a core, common set of essentially unfiltered facts that everyone agreed were true.

Importantly, we must point out the economics of this situation. As long as the available audience was every individual within America, there were enough viewers to support these three networks via advertising revenues. There was no need to “spin” the news as these organizations differentiated themselves through their entertainment programming. The news was the news and was a relatively small part of the overall programming.

So what happened? Well, technology happened for one. HBO and cable TV became a thing. Now, cable TV technically dates back to 1948 but after the advent of HBO in 1972, cable TV saw exponential growth in the 1980’s and reached 50 million homes by 1990. With it, cable TV brought dozens of news “channels”. News organizations like CNN launched in 1980, Fox News in 1996 and ESPN in 1979. Hey, some people only care about sports news. What are you going to do? Regardless, Americans now had a much greater choice of sources from which they could self select their news. And we thus saw the advent of specialization. CNN specialized in only news 24/7. ESPN specialized in only sports news 24/7. Later, Fox News specialized in a more conservative view of the news. The audience became more fragmented between these different channels.

And yes, we kept the old style logos for ABC, NBC and CBS because we’re lazy and not graphic artists to begin with. So tough.

Anyway, at around the same time this increase in channels and specialization was occurring in television, similar things were going on in radio. Whereas NPR had been the primary source of news via radio, suddenly conservative talk radio became a thing in 1988. And here we see a harbinger of things to come. Here we see the advent of the news being filtered through the lens of a single individual, like Rush Limbaugh, versus broad filtering of say, sports. Here too we witness the movement towards news analysis and opinion versus solely and dispassionately delivering facts. It’s a here’s what happened but more importantly, here is my opinion on what happened. Not saying right or wrong but this is an important portent of things to come.

What hadn’t changed? Newspapers. Good ol’ newspapers. Each major city only had one or two and everyone could be assured that the politics and opinion were relegated to the editorial pages. Here still could Americans get unbiased, unfiltered, fact based reporting on common information we all had access to and could all agree upon the facts. And then…yep, the Internet.

While cable TV channels continued to grow from dozens of channels to hundreds of channels, the Internet created not hundreds, but thousands, if not millions of new channels through which information could flow and be filtered. Things like the Drudge Report became a thing. Suddenly news websites were springing up all over the place and individuals could further self select and “tune in” to only the websites they liked. But nobody really got their news solely from the Internet back in “those days” (1990’s). And many news websites were just the online avatar of newspapers, radio stations and the like. And then came…social media.

Ah yes, here now arrives social media circa the 2000’s. The channels of information now become exponentially fractured yet again as individuals self select their “friends” and join specialized “groups”. Don’t like what someone is saying? Simply unfriend that idiot. Retreat from differing opinions into your own myopic tribe of facts and opinions. People started to now only receive their information via these “social circles”, solely via the Internet as it were.

Cutting to the chase, the end game here is that every individual eventually has their own custom “channel” of filtered information and this channel has little or no commonality of base content with anyone else’s “channel”. Nobody can agree on anything because nobody is talking about the same thing, the same base set of unfiltered facts. It is all just filtered analysis and opinion.

And here we must once again address the economics of all of this. The economics of millions of channels is vastly different than the economics of three, or just a handful, of channels that reach mass audiences. Instead, sources, news providers, must specialize in order to cater to and reach some specific, target audience. This is why certain news organizations, we won’t name names, have swung hard left while others have swung hard right. Take a look at the front pages of CNN.com, MSNBC.com, FoxNews.com. Oh shit, did we just name names? Damnit. Anyway, the disparity between the news stories covered is striking. Depending on the channel, the base set of content delivered is vastly different. How are two people supposed to agree on anything when there are zero facts and content that those two people have in common?

It is only going to get worse people.

So where do we go from here? We need a true and proper villain after all. Luckily, we can be much more specific about who is to blame for America’s current and future woes rather than simply the broad strokes of “technology”, the “Internet” and “social media”. In fact, if you are looking for someone to blame, we can pin that blame on one specific individual…

Al Gore

You see, Al Gore created the Internet. Note that this is, in fact, a correct attribution, unlike the false claim that Al Gore “‘invented’ the Internet”. Al Gore never, at any time, said that he invented the Internet. Never. Instead, Al Gore’s words were exactly as follows:

“During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.” – Al Gore

So, if you need someone to blame, blame Al Gore, it’s all his fault. With utmost certainty, it is Al Gore and only Al Gore that has doomed us all to live perpetually bickering and misunderstanding one another within this most divided, State of America. Jackass.


What is Free Speech?

Twitter, the New “Hope”

Given the Orwellian thought police tactics employed by Apple, Amazon, Google, Facebook and Twitter, discussions about free speech are all the rage these days. And there will likely be repercussions. Like Twitter perhaps having to take down the unofficial motto in their San Francisco office that reads “Defend and respect the user’s voice”. Whoops! And maybe Apple changing their motto to “Think Different…But Not Too Different from Us”. And Google, “Don’t Be Evil, Unless it’s to People We Don’t Like”.

Sure, we all know that there are limits to free speech in America. The First Amendment does not cover private institutions and all that. And you can’t just go around “shouting fire in a crowded theater”. Except that, well, you can actually…more on that later. The point here is that there are limits people. But, what exactly are those limits? Who decides the boundaries? And who passes judgement over what falls outside those boundaries? Is there a four judge panel like on The Masked Singer? Does the audience get to vote?

Now, these are all extremely interesting questions to ask in a country where it became eminently clear during the Bill Clinton years that we can’t even agree on the meaning of the word “is” for Christ’s sake. If we need a special counsel, scores of lawyers and months of testimony to determine the meaning of the word “is”, how in the world are people able to make any decisions about what is “threatening” or “misleading” or “hateful” or…or…or any of it?

And while we are on the topic, let’s be absolutely crystal clear about one extremely important thing. Somebody smoked that cigar…right, are we right? And that’s just, well, that’s just gross. But why doesn’t anyone ever discuss this? We need absolute clarity on this topic!

Was it Bill? Was he all like dragging that cigar across his nose while inhaling deeply and then lighting that puppy up? Because then that’s like both creepy and gross all at the same time. Or was it more like a romcom kind of thing? Bill is talking to Hillary in the Oval office, and Hillary is trying to refer to something on a white board and picks up the cigar as a pointer. Then she starts talking with her hands and waving the cigar around. And Bill is like all nervous and he’s trying to stealthily sneak the cigar out of her hand, but every time he’s close, she moves. And then Hillary fires that cigar up and is like sniff…sniff. “Bill this cigar smells bad.” states Hillary. “Well yes dear, but you always say all cigars smell bad” responds Bill nervously. “Yes but, sniff…sniff, this one reeks!” Hillary exclaims while sniffing her armpits and turning around, trying to find the source of the smell. And then, Hillary turns back around to face Bill and Bill is standing there holding a freshly opened can of sardines. “Sardine, dear?” Bill asks sheepishly. Cue laugh track and commercial.

All we’re saying is that somebody smoked that cigar. If somebody hadn’t smoked it, then that cigar would be in the Smithsonian along with that blue dress. Right? But it isn’t…so somebody smoked it. That’s it. That’s all we’re saying. We’re all in agreement? OK.

Anyway, getting back on topic, the entire point of all of this is that this whole cigar business gives us nightmares and keeps us up at night. What if it’s still out there? And you like buy it at a garage sale or something and then, and then, oh, it’s too gross to even think about! OK, no, damnit, that’s…that’s not the point. Deep breaths. Inhale…exhale. OK, the point is that if we can’t even agree on something simple like the meaning of a word like “is” how in the world can we expect that censorship could ever be applied equally and fairly?

Twitter actually has seemingly crystal clear rules around this kind of thing. For example, Twitter’s rules page, which is not exactly easy to find, states the following about “authenticity”:

Civic Integrity: You may not use Twitter’s services for the purpose of manipulating or interfering in elections or other civic processes. This includes posting or sharing content that may suppress participation or mislead people about when, where, or how to participate in a civic process.

Twitter obviously adhered to this rule and policy then when it permanently banned a sitting President of the United States over…wait…over exactly what tweet now? The tweet that got Trump banned was this:

“To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.”

Regarding this particular tweet getting Trump banned, for life, Twitter stated that the tweet about skipping the inauguration was “further confirmation that the election was not legitimate.”

Except, “is” is actually the third person singular present of “be”. So how can Twitter be so certain that tweet means what they think it means? What is the real meaning of “be going” in that tweet? Perplexing to say the least. Regardless, to any objective observer, Twitter, that’s a bit of a stretch. Clearly though, Twitter exercises these rules universally and with absolute uniformity, right?

So, this individual still has his Twitter account even though it calls into question an election? Even though Twitter’s rules state:

Misleading information about outcomes 

We will label or remove false or misleading information intended to undermine public confidence in an election or other civic process.

The post is clearly in violation of Twitter’s rules as it is clearly undermining confidence in an election, two elections in fact. But the post is still up on the site and that individual doesn’t have a permanent ban from Twitter.

But what are some of Twitter’s other rules around speech?

Violence: You may not threaten violence against an individual or a group of people. We also prohibit the glorification of violence.

Other than the problematic definition of the word “may”, this seems pretty clear. Is “may” referring to permission, possibility, general truths, accepting of a different opinion, a month? Without a special counsel, we might never know the answer. For now, let’s take it at face value and let’s just pull up Twitter and see how they are doing here and, oh…oh my…#fail

OK, OK, to be fair and objective, these folks are just hoping about stuff, not actually technically threating violence? Maybe? None of this is glorifying violence? We guess? So if Trump had tweeted “I hope people storm the Capitol” then he would not have been banned??? But, you know, not be going to the Inauguration. Boom! Over and done. Apparently the real lesson here is that if you want to spew violent hate speech on Twitter, just use the word “hope” somewhere in your tweet.

By the by, it certainly would be an interesting experiment to see what does or does not get banned on Twitter regarding the upcoming Inauguration because; you know, unfortunately it seems like something is going down on that day. Not that we are encouraging any violence or anything of the sort, but when Washington DC looks like a Pyongyang military parade? Something…something’s up. We’d love to be the optimistic observer, but; well, it doesn’t look too good right now.

So, anyway, here would be our predictions for hypothetical tweets on Inauguration day and how Twitter would “treat those tweets”, try saying that five times fast. We have also included Twitter’s likely reasoning based upon their rules and past performance.

“I will not be going to riot in Washington DC today”Banned – Twitter moderator comment: “Provides misleading information about how to participate in an event. Not going my ass, every one of those deplorable MAGA hicks is going to be there!“.

“I hope the military kills every last Trump supporter in the city today”Approved, Twitter moderator comment: “Hoping that something occurs is not a threat or threatening.”

“I hope people storm the Capitol again”Banned, Twitter moderator comment: “Obviously threatening.”

“It is righteous for Democrats, to immediately murder, behead and dismember all Republicans”Approved, Twitter moderator comment: “The meaning of the word ‘is” cannot be determined”.

Man, there are a lot of angry, messed-up people on/at Twitter. Those tweets are awful. Shame on you Twitter.



McCarthyism Reborn

The following is an excerpt from the Wikipedia page on McCarthyism with only the bold words changed for context:

Pelosism is the practice of making accusations of subversion or treason, especially when related to conservatives, without any proper regard for evidence. The term refers to U.S. representative Nancy Pelosi (D-California) and has its origins in the period in the United States known as the Conservative Scare, lasting from the late 2010s through the 2020s. It was characterized by heightened political repression and a campaign spreading fear of conservative influence on American institutions and of espionage by Russian agents.

The very real possibility exists of this future Wikipedia entry for, to an objective observer, the parallels between the dark period in American history known as McCarthyism and what is happening today in the United States are strong. Lest the reader believe these parallels to be overstated, let us start with the easy stuff. To this end, Wikipedia also provides this summary of McCarthyism in popular culture:

Since the time of McCarthy, the word McCarthyism has entered American speech as a general term for a variety of practices: aggressively questioning a person’s patriotism, making poorly supported accusations, using accusations of disloyalty to pressure a person to adhere to conformist politics or to discredit an opponent, subverting civil and political rights in the name of national security, and the use of demagoguery are all often referred to as McCarthyism.

Aggressively questioning a person’s patriotism. There can be little doubt that individuals such as Trump, Michael Flynn, Carter Page, George Papadopoulos and others have had their patriotism “aggressively questioned”.

Making poorly supported accusations. Again, see above. The entire Russian collusion hoax/scandal was significantly driven off of allegations in the Steele dossier, that were subsequently largely discredited and proven untrue by the Mueller report. The final finding of the Mueller report was that it “did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election.” Thus, one can only conclude that such accusations were, in fact, poorly supported. The same is true regarding the first impeachment of Trump. The impeachment failed in the Senate and thus one can only objectively conclude that the accusations there were also poorly supported. With the second impeachment of Trump, there is no question that the allegations are poorly supported. There were no hearings, witnesses or testimony presented and the impeachment was so rushed that crucial facts, such as John Sullivan; a liberal activist, purposefully inciting violence, were not fully known.

Using accusations of disloyalty to pressure a person to adhere to conformist politics or to discredit an opponent. See above.

Subverting civil and political rights in the name of national security. Again, referring to the Russia collusion hoax/scandal, there are numerous instances where the FISA court was lied to in order to justify surveillance of an American citizen. This was done in the name of national security to subvert civil rights. The reader can get more information on just one of the instances at CNN.

The use of demagoguery. The last four years regardless of whose side you are on. Check.

Given all of the above, it is easy, eeeeeeeeeeasy, to demonstrate how recent events smack of McCarthyism. But, if we have said it once, we have said it a thousand times, this isn’t the obvious observer, this is The Objective Observer. Simply calling out obvious McCarthyistic practices is not enough. Not nearly enough. Oh no, we are here to demonstrate how McCarthyism is being reborn within the United States of America as something new and equally terrifying.

You see, the McCarthy era was defined by a number of elements including:

  • Targeted a specific political point of view
  • Weaponized the FBI
  • Initial compliance of the media
  • Blacklists
  • The HUAC (House Committee on Un-American Activities)

Let’s do the list.

Targeted a specific political point of view. McCarthyism targeted the extreme left of political opinion in the United States at the time, communists, but ended up persecuting a wide swath of liberal, left-leaning individuals and organizations. Guilt by association. We see this today. Today’s Pelosism targets far right groups, such as Proud Boys and other white supremacists, yet clumps all conservatives together under this characterization. Don Lemon, and others, have made this specific characterization of lumping all conservatives as Nazi’s and Klansmen. Never mind that Democrats are on the same side of the political spectrum as violent factions such as Antifa and environmental terrorist organizations, not to mention individuals such as the Unabomber Ted Kaczynski and mass murderers Charles Manson and Jim Jones.

Oh, side note, never mind that classifying true, bona fide German Nazi’s as left or right is problematic at best. True German Nazi’s supported American left ideals such as liberalized abortion, state controlled health care and the elimination of individual gun ownership. In addition, Nazism opposed big business, supported state control of education and was fanatically environmentalist. State this platform at any Democratic convention and you’d likely get wide support. The Nazi’s were the Nazi’s. As historian Richard J. Evans in The Coming of the Third Reich states:

The “National Socialists” wanted to unite the two political camps of left and right into which, they argued, the Jews had manipulated the German nation. The basis for this was to be the idea of race.

It is wrong and intellectually dishonest to lump anyone together based upon the extremes. And Mr. Lemon ought to have better sense and at least attempt to be smarter than an amoeba by doing a bit of research. What we here at The Objective Observer are most concerned about is being lumped in with anyone as moronic as Don Lemon on the amoeba/Homosapian intellectual spectrum.

OK, back on track, the McCarthy era weaponized the FBI through burglaries, opening mail, and illegal wiretaps as well through “dirty tricks” such as anonymous letters, leaking information to the press, calling for IRS audits, and the like. Again, this one is easy. The FBI under James Comey was obviously weaponized. Some of the FISA warrants obtained were invalid or possibly illegal (still waiting on that Durham report). And leaking information to the press? Oh boy, we don’t have the time except to point out that Comey did that himself, which is what led to the Mueller investigation!

Initial compliance of the media. The media doesn’t like to talk about its complicity in fanning the flames of communist panic and McCarthyism, but, without question, the media was a crucial component in hyping up the threat from communism in America, which led to McCarthyism. The media only wised up once they became targets of this communist hysteria. Just as then, we see this today with main stream media outlets hyping up the threat from fringe right-wing elements. Perhaps they will wise up again once Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez makes good on her desire to “rein in our media environment so that you can’t just spew disinformation and misinformation.” Psst! CNN, MSNBC, etc. Heads up, they’re coming for you too…

Blacklists. Perhaps nothing more defines McCarthyism than the use of informal “blacklists”. Most famous of these was the Hollywood blacklist that was used to deny employment to actors, screenwriters, directors, musicians, and other American entertainment professionals. Odd that today Hollywood tends to blame the government for this blacklist while it was actually the entertainment industry itself that created and used the blacklist, not the government. Tis truly strange how revisionist history works. In any case, these informal blacklists were used to vilify and destroy the lives of thousands of Americans on the mere suspicion that someone held communist sympathies. And here we go again with the blacklists. Big Tech now has their own blacklist of conservatives. Wall Street has their blacklist. Even the media has their blacklist of conservative news organizations and journalists. To an objective observer, blacklists, whether McCarthyistic or Pelosiistic are wrong.

The HUAC (House Committee on Un-American Activities). Setting aside the blatant travesty that is the formation of it’s acronym, and that is no small thing considering it is a complete and utter abomination of acronymic convention; but setting that aside, the HUAC was a congressional committees setup for uncovering Communist subversion. Basically, think of it as anyone and everyone could be called to appear before the HUAC in order to defend their “loyalty” to America. Failure to appear, or an unfavorable “ruling”, tended to land you on an industry blacklist. We aren’t quite there…yet. However, as the Wall Street Journal has reported, Nancy Pelosi has expressed a predilection to re-instituting something akin to the HUAC in the past. And there have been calls for congressional committees to investigate certain Republicans in the wake of the Capitol Hill riot which disturbingly smack of a “prove your loyalty” type of affair.

At the end of the day, an objective observer would conclude that we are dangerously close to a rebirth of McCarthyism, a new era where instead of communists, conservatives are widely targeted as un-American and falsely accused of being traitorous and subversive on the basis of little or no evidence. All of the elements are there as in the 1940’s and 1950’s. There is an identified “enemy” of America, conservatives. The FBI has been weaponized against them. The media is complicit of the narrative and helping to stoke the flames of hysteria. We have the blacklists. Nancy Pelosi simply needs to take the next step of congressional committees to investigate the “loyalty” of conservative voices to earn her future, eternal infamy with a Wikipedia page titled simply, Pelosism.



Does Everyone Really Want Unity?

In the wake of the Capitol Hill riot there has been plenty of the obvious platitudes thrown around by all sides and the predictable calls for unity. But is unity what everyone really wants? Because, to an objective observer, it seems like exactly the opposite, that everyone is simply paying lip service to “unification” while actually taking actions to promote “division”. And let’s be clear for a moment about the definition for unification. Unification in the sense used here is when two opposing sides find common ground and work together to get things done.

First, it is difficult for any objective observer to view Democratic actions over the last four years as promoting anything but division. The liberal “Resist” movement was founded on January 19th, 2017, the day before Trump was inaugurated as President of the United States. Basically, the sole and specific goal of the “Resist” movement was to obstruct any and all of Trump’s policy objectives.

Now, granted; on the whole, the Resist movement was a complete and abject failure. Trump pushed through nearly all of his policy objectives during his four year term as President. This includes his goal of building a border wall. After all, over 450 miles of the border wall are built with another 200+ miles currently under construction. Trump also successfully reshaped the federal judiciary, appointing a jaw dropping three Supreme Court justices and 220 federal, lifetime appointed judges overall. Trump also created the first new United States military branch since 1947, Space Force. Trump succeeded in passing major tax cuts and reform as well as the first major criminal justice reform in long, long time with the First Step Act. Then there is Trump’s successful war on terror in defeating the ISIS caliphate and killing Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. In addition, Trump was successful in mustering the government and private sector companies to create a COVID-19 vaccine within months, something everyone predicted would take years. And the economy, despite the hardships brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic, by many measures is still doing quite well. For example, the Dow Jones Industrial Average is nearly 31 million, versus just shy of 20 million when Trump took office. Furthermore, Trump made major foreign policy strides with new trade agreements between Canada and Mexico, reframed U.S. Chinese relations, moved the United States Israeli embassy to Jerusalem and brokered numerous middle east peace agreements. Finally, Trump was also extremely successful in slashing over $16 billion in federal regulations, another core policy objective.

Regardless of the failure of the Resist movement, however, the movement still existed (exists). There is little question that Democrats in Congress and elsewhere did everything in their power to spread division and obstruct. This divisiveness and obstructionism only increased once Democrats took control of the House of Representatives. To an objective observer, these actions do not seem like the actions of individuals interested in true unification but rather division. This is perhaps most evident in the Democratic efforts to obstruct Covid-19 relief efforts, which could perhaps be characterized as purposefully damaging the U.S. economy and hurting Americans solely for political gain. Furthermore, calls from these same individuals now for “unity” really come across as “Now that we are in power you need to shut-up and fall in line or else”. That’s not the kind of unification we here at The Objective Observer are talking about though. Sure, in a dictatorship, everyone is “unified” in fear but that’s not “unification”.

This penchant for division continues to this day with the second impeachment of Trump. As more and more information comes out about the events of that day, such as John Sullivan, a liberal activist, inciting violence at the Capitol; the extreme rush towards impeachment, without witnesses or testimony, comes across to an objective observer as purely political and divisive. Quite the opposite of the lip service paid towards “unity”.

On the opposite side, Republicans do not seem all that interested in true unification either. The recent, continuing complaints against the election of Biden are perhaps all the evidence required. And, to an objective observer, it is hard not to think that there is an element of payback here. To an objective observer it strikes one as Trump exacting revenge for the bold and unprecedented attempts by Democrats to delegitimize Trump’s presidency through the Russia Collusion Hoax and a half-baked attempt at impeachment over a phone call with another world leader. Regardless of the truth, many Americans will similarly never accept Biden as a legitimate president and cling to what is sure to become known as the Election Collusion Hoax. OK, we just made that up. But regardless, tit for tat as it were.

At the end of the day, it seems like it is this revenge narrative that will likely take center stage despite the calls for “unity”. After all, 75 million American’s voted for Trump for president, a staggering number. It is quite likely that these 75 million Americans were paying attention to the extreme lengths the Democrats went in order to intentionally; and possibly criminally depending on the outcome of the Durham report, delegitimize, vilify and obstruct a legitimately elected sitting President of the United States. Hence, it is almost just as certain that these 75 million Americans are going to accept and return in kind this precedent set by Democrats with regards to how to treat a legitimately elected President of the United States that you do not agree with.

If Republicans turn to the same tactics used by Democrats for the last four years, can anyone really blame them or claim the moral high ground? Likely not. More alarmingly for Republican lawmakers, there is the likely possibility of revolt within the party if Republican lawmakers are seen as cooperating with Democrats. With near certainty, those Republicans seen as cooperating with Democrats will be viewed as out and out traitors within the party to the vast majority of those 75 million Trump voters. After all, Trump still maintains a 60% approval rating among Republicans. Those voters likely want revenge for the last four years of what they might understandably view as mistreatment of their President. So, unification? Not likely.

We could know soon enough regarding how Republicans handle the second impeachment of Trump. If the Republicans mimic the Democratic Resist movement, then they could legitimately decide not to do anything with regards to legislation until Nancy Pelosi hands the impeachment papers over to the Senate. They could then legitimately refuse to take up any legislation until the impeachment trial is completed. Further, Republicans could then drag the impeachment trial out for as long as possible. The impeachment of Andrew Johnson took 92 days from start to finish. It is likely that Republicans, if they were so inclined, could easily reach this mark or exceed it, meaning that Biden’s first 100 days, or more, in office would be effectively neutered. Then and only then would the subject of cabinet positions come up, which Republicans could then seek to delay and thwart. Biden could possibly spend the first year of his presidency accomplishing absolutely nothing at all other than getting his cabinet in place.

In the end, we will simply have to wait and see if everyone truly wants unification or continues to sow and spread division. We likely will not have to wait long.


What it Means to be Black

With Apologies to Jesse Jackson

So, there’s this South Park episode from 13 years ago called With Apologies to Jesse Jackson. Like most South Park, it’s fairly hilarious. This one explores the use of the word “nigger”. The premise being that if there were a word that hateful and vile applied only to white people that white people would make it illegal. I won’t belabor the plot here, you can read about that on Wikipedia. However, the episode ends with Stan telling Token, regarding the use of the racial slur, “I get it now, I don’t get it”. In other words, Stan being white will never understand how it feels for Token, who is black, to have that word used against him.

This is how I have always felt about being black. Myself being white, I have always firmly believed that short of doing a John Howard Griffin or a Ray Sprigle, I would never possibly understand what it is like to be black in America. In fact, we white people are told exactly this on a regular basis. But now, thanks to the ridiculous levels of hyperbole and insanity in American politics I can finally say “I get it”. I finally, finally understand how it feels to be a black person in America. Let me explain.

One of the core tenants of why white people cannot understand the black experience is that white people will never know the furtive looks, barely masked fear and white people crossing the street as a black individual walks down the sidewalk. However, now as a Trump supporter, I totally feel those looks and get those reactions. As I walk down the street bare chested and tatted up, with my great furry horned helmet on and my face painted red white and blue, I experience the same furtive looks, barely masked fear and people crossing the street in front of me. And all of this for no other reason than the fact that I am a Trump supporter. Solely because of my politics…

Similarly, blacks point out that white people cannot possibly understand the black experience regarding the harassment by cops when they are simply driving their car and minding their own business. But now I experience this as well, simply because the police profile me based upon my MAGA bumper stickers. I am constantly pulled over, berated and cited by police now. I have never been pulled over so much in all my life since I announced my politics to the world by putting all of those MAGA bumper stickers over nearly every square inch of the windows of my car…

I also now understand the outrage that blacks feel regarding how society and law enforcement treat black people versus white people. Black people are treated far worse. Blacks are arrested more and given longer prison sentences than whites. I finally understand this and get the outrage. While armed liberals rioted, burned down buildings, looted and murdered people, “autonomous zones” were setup in cities for them and they were even allowed to occupy a police precinct. But, if you are a conservative and try to walk, unarmed, through a broken window, you are immediately shot and killed. The shooting of an unarmed conservative, it makes me want to protest and exclaim “Conservative Lives Matter!”. I finally understand the outrage.

Finally, I truly get and understand how blacks feel about systemic racism, the feeling that the entire system itself has been rigged against them. Rooted in a politically biased foundation, systemic political bias against conservatives today is composed of intersecting, overlapping, and codependent biased institutions, media, policies, practices, ideas, and behaviors that give an unjust amount of resources, rights, and power to liberals while denying them to people of a conservative nature. It all makes total sense now. The levers of power between politics, Hollywood, universities, the media and big tech are all systemically aligned against conservatives. Finally, I get it.

So, if nothing else, I can thank 2021 for finally showing me what it is like to be black. I can now fully understand and appreciate what it is like to be the reviled minority underclass in America. And boy does it suck.


The Founding of a Nation

Political Violence is the American Way

So…this one is probably going to sound kind of bad. Just a heads up. Not trying to incite violence, insurrection or sedition or anything, just kind of following the logic through to a conclusion. So, you have been warned. You are almost certainly going to hate, hate, hate this article.

There has been a lot of talk about the violence at the Capitol lately. Lots and lots of media pundits chiming in with entirely predictable and boring analysis and calls for peace and unity and such. That’s all great. And along with this is pretty much universal condemnation of the violence that occurred at the Capitol. But it’s these condemnations of the violence, or more specifically, how those condemnations are being phrased that…well…that presents kind of a problem quite honestly, at least for any objective observer.

To point, a lot of commentators have expressly stated that the violence at the Capitol was “political violence” and that political violence is always wrong and is, and here it comes, “un-American“. So this is all fine and everything except where you say that political violence is un-American. Because, you know, if you really think about it, political violence is actually, well, in a way political violence is actually kind of the essence of America. OK, OK, that sounds really bad but it’s kind of hard to argue that the United States of America of today wouldn’t even exist without political violence.

See, we told you that you were going to hate this one. So, again, this is absolutely NOT a call to violence, insurrection and/or sedition. This is more about…well…it’s really… Honestly, we have no idea where we are going with this but here we go.

You see, it would be hard to characterize the founding of the United States of America as anything BUT political violence. To quote Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence.

“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” – Thomas Jefferson

Now, let’s face it, we call this the Declaration of Independence but this is basically a Declaration of War against Great Britain. At least the British thought so. There was this thing called the American Revolutionary War after all. So, the founding of America is actually one of political violence in the form of war against the current, existing government of the time, by what can only be characterized from the British point of view as domestic terrorists.

Granted, that’s harsh and one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter and all that. But facts are facts. America was founded on the very principle of political violence. We here in the states kind of wash over this fact and portray it in a very positive and patriotic light but, after all, the victor gets to write the history. Facts are still facts, however. America would not exist if it had not violently overthrown the British government in the colonies. And this violence was predicated upon political differences between the colonists and the government of Great Britain.

So, to say that political violence is un-American is, well, it’s kind of BS quite honestly. One could say that political violence is actually the very essence of being an American. Again, that sounds really bad when you say it that way but not sure it can be helped. As further proof, almost 100 years later we; well, we did it again.

You see, almost 100 years after America was founded through the use of political violence there was what? That’s right, the American Civil War. You see, it’s hard to characterize this as anything other than political violence or at the very least, politics that led to violence which is, well, it’s the same thing really.

Yes, the Confederate states initiated the violence when cadets at the Citadel fired on Fort Sumter but this didn’t have to end up in a war. The simple truth is that the North could have withdrawn troops from Southern lands, recognized the Confederate States of America and not gone to war. But, instead political violence in the guise of “preserving the Union” was chosen.

Again, we Americans tend to gloss over this point. Yay, the good guys won, slavery bad and all that. But, it was still a politically violent struggle, a war born from differing political views. If political violence had not been chosen, the United States of America as it exists today would not be here.

OK, so what is the point of this? Well, there is no point really. Too bad for you thinking everything has to have a point to it. Honestly, this article has been a really tough one to write. It’s just one of those things when you hear something repeated over and over in the media, “political violence is un-American” and you step back and think, “You know, that’s kind of wrong really. People sure do have a short memory.”. Or, people are just stupid and don’t know their history. Your choice.

One last thing, and we are going to state for a third time that the political violence that was seen in the Capitol was wrong and that this is absolutely not a call for violence, insurrection or sedition or anything close to it. But, don’t we as Americans reserve the right to resort to political violence when we see something despotic or evil in the world? We were founded that way, preserved the Union that way and this doesn’t even even mention all the wars America has fought over the years over what are, ostensibly, political disagreements. At the end of the day, an objective observer has to cry foul on the statement that political violence is un-American. It is, in point of fact, kind of what defines America. If one steps back and looks at the matter objectively, one can only reach the conclusion that political violence is the American Way.

Yeah, this one is going to get us banned.


Contested Elections, Violence and Impeachment

A History Lesson

So, almost without question, the House of Representatives is going to vote to impeach President Trump a second time. The arguments for and against are, well, they are all stupid quite frankly. To an objective observer, everybody is an idiot here.

The Democrats’ main argument for impeachment seems to be that Trump bitched about the election result and that this then caused the violence at the Capitol. Problem here is that there is a clear causality gap. Complaining about an election result is not incitement of violence. So, that’s a dumb argument.

On the other hand, the Republicans are calling for unity and arguing that impeachment will further divide an already divided nation. This is also a stupid argument. With this crop of Democrats led by Nancy Pelosi, you could argue that the sky is blue and it wouldn’t do you a damn bit of good. A cry for unity? As if.

What Republicans should be doing is reminding everyone of the history of contested elections in this country. Because it is a long one. And, in point of fact, if we were to compare this contested election to other contested elections in the United States, it’s actually pretty tame overall. Let’s do the list.

1800. Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Burr both get 83 electoral votes. Alexander Hamilton convinces the House of Representatives to elect Jefferson. Do you think Burr might have thought the presidency was stolen from him? Well, Burr shot and killed Hamilton in a duel so you do the math on that one.

1824. Talk about stolen. Andrew Jackson wins the popular vote and the most electoral votes but not a majority. John Adams comes in second in both. House of Representatives has to decide. House Speaker Henry Clay convinces the House to elect Adams as President after a month of literal back room negotiations. Then, Adams turns around and has Clay be his Secretary of State. Think Jackson was enraged? You bet. He referred to his “loss” as a “corrupt bargain”.

1860. Abraham Lincoln only won 40% of the popular vote but became President. Weeks later, the American Civil War. Enough said.

1876. Another pretty much outright stolen election. Samuel Tilden wins in both the popular vote and the electoral college vote but is one vote shy of a majority. One. Rutherford B. Hayes is second. Three states were too close to call and each party was accusing the other of fraud. Hmm, sounds familiar. Bizarrely, a 15 member panel is formed to decide the election comprised of seven Republicans, seven Democrats and one Independent. The Independent vote swings to Rutherford B. Hayes so he becomes President. The Democrats in the Senate actually threatened to block the official electoral count by filibuster. Again, sound familiar here folks? Anyway, the Democrats didn’t filibuster because of more literal back room negotiations.

1912. Tell you what, we won’t even count this one even though Woodrow Wilson won the white house with far less than 50% of the vote in many states. You can look this one up on your own.

1948. Remember the famous Chicago Daily Tribune headline “Dewey Defeats Truman”? Yeah, that was this one.

2000. OK, those last two are a bit lame but how Gore and W.? We all remember the hanging chads right? This one went on five weeks before the Supreme Court had to step in. No question that Gore and Democrats cried foul since Gore had won the popular vote by over 500,000. In fact, this is where the phrase full and accurate count came from:

“Let me repeat the essence of our proposal here today: seven days, starting tomorrow, for a full and accurate count of all the votes.” – Al Gore

To be clear, people were still calling this a stolen election and a coup d’état TEN YEARS LATER!!

2016. Hillary vs. Trump. OK, we definitely all remember this one. Four years of Hillary and Democrats claiming that the election was stolen as the result of Russian collusion no less. There was an independent counsel. Then when that didn’t work the Democrats impeached President Trump. Any of this ringing a bell here? Then, after that didn’t work there was like an entire year of rioting in the streets, like; literally, just last year. People were killed in those riots if memory serves. So is the incessant complaining about the election and the rioting causally linked? Are those two things related? Apparently, according the Democrats they should be? An objective observer would say no.

So, the takeaway here is that there has been a long history of contested and “stolen” Presidential elections in this country. No, seriously, 100% bona fide stolen elections. And we didn’t even cover 1960 where it there is actual, solid evidence that voter fraud in Illinois, cough; Chicago, stole the election from Nixon. Given the history, is it any surprise then that we might have claims of voter fraud and a stolen election this last go around? Shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone quite frankly.

Yet here we are impeaching a President over what amounts to bitching about the results of an election. But, as the history of Presidential elections shows, complaining about an election result is not incitement of violence. Unless you are Burr and you kill a guy over it. So…OK…there’s that one. Oh, and also, you know, that one that caused an all out Civil War. That one. So yeah, some rioting in Washington D.C. is actually pretty tame in comparison. Perspective people.

There’s a version of this that ends quite differently. One in which the country truly comes together. It goes something like this:

Republicans: “Hey, given the violence at the Capitol we are all reminded that what is important is the country as a whole. We need to come together, both Democrats and Republicans to heal this country and make sure that future elections are free from even the hint of election fraud so that this kind of thing never happens again. And, yes, we Republicans probably went a bit too far bitching and moaning about the Presidential election results, that’s on us.”

Democrats: “Hey, don’t feel too bad, we spent the last four years bitching and moaning about the election results in addition to doing everything in our power to undermine your guy. We agree that the country needs to heal and we are fully on board that elections, as Al Gore says, need to be fair and accurate. Let’s do everything in our power to make sure this never happens again.”

But nope. Impeachment. More division. Nobody focused on the issues of free and fair elections. And let’s be honest, there were issues in this election. Not saying “wide spread voter fraud”, but any objective observer would definitely say that there were some issues that need addressed.

Final word, what a missed opportunity for Biden quite honestly. Biden could have actually come across as a true leader and put his money where his mouth was during the campaign of being a President for all the people, not just some of the people by simply telling Nancy Pelosi to knock it off with the whole impeachment thing. Instead, he showed that he is just as partisan and divisive as everyone else. And that’s a shame.



Party Like It’s 1984

Sure, the term “Orwellian” tends to get overused. However, there can be little doubt to an objective observer that while it may have taken 37 years longer than originally predicted, we have finally arrived at Orwell’s imagined dystopian future. In fact, it could be argued that the world we are living in today is actually far darker and more terrifying than Orwell could have ever imagined. If you doubt the veracity of this claim, keep reading.

First, however, if you are not familiar with George Orwell’s dystopian social science fiction “Nineteen Eighty-Four: A Novel” then, well, quite honestly, shame…shame on you. But, more importantly, if you are not familiar with this seminal work then this article is going to make absolutely zero sense to you. And no, we’re not talking about semen, it’s the definition of seminal that means influential. Geez people. Get it straight. So, anyway, let’s bring you up to speed via Wikipedia:

Published in 1949, the story takes place in an imagined future, the year 1984, when much of the world has fallen victim to perpetual war, omnipresent government surveillance, historical negationism, and propaganda. Great Britain, known as Airstrip One, has become a province of a totalitarian super state named Oceania that is ruled by the Party who employ the Thought Police to persecute individuality and independent thinking. Big Brother, the leader of the Party, enjoys an intense cult of personality despite the fact that he may not even exist. The protagonist, Winston Smith, is a diligent and skillful rank-and-file worker who secretly hates the Party and dreams of rebellion. He enters into a forbidden relationship with a colleague, Julia, and starts to remember what life was like before the Party came to power.

OK, all up-to-speed, Cliff Notes style.

So, essentially what you have is a world where absolute power is consolidated into a single group of people led by Big Brother. This power allows Big Brother to constantly surveil everyone’s actions as well as absolute control over the distribution of information. This control over information can go so far as to erase or “unperson” people from history, as if they never existed. This is what makes the world imagined in “Nineteen Eighty-Four” so abjectly terrifying.

Now, let’s see just how close we are to Orwell’s dystopian future. We have a group of people led by Big Tech that enjoys an intense cult of personality, especially on Wall Street. Big Tech has the power to surveil everyone’s actions on the Internet, and let’s be honest, at home as well. Gee, thanks Alexa, you ridiculously over engineered alarm clock. And, Big Tech has the ability to erase information and alter history such as how they “unpersoned” Trump and Parler.com for example. Yep, that about covers it. Oh, we forgot the complicit media propaganda. But, let’s be honest, that’s been covered to death. This isn’t The Obvious Observer.

Think about this. Think about the power that we have ceded to, maybe not a government, but far worse, a few evil mega-corporations, Amazon, Google, Twitter, Facebook and Apple. I mean, if it was government there wouldn’t be an issue. Governments are so bureaucratic, bumbling and incompetent that they would take eons to achieve such power, like China, if they could ever get there at all, oh wait, right…China. But in any event, throw a few evil, money-motivated capitalistic corporations in there and it’s a whole new, infinitely more frightening, ballgame.

Is Big Tech watching you? Absolutely. We now know that Amazon is not really an independent third-party provider of hosting services that doesn’t know or care what data is in your application. They certainly did know what was in Parler.com’s application and apparently took offense to it. Google, Facebook, Twitter? Duh. It’s how they make their money people. They watch you, aggregate your data and sell it to advertisers and anyone else they can. Even Russian hackers apparently. So, yes, they are watching you…always.

Bit of a side note but apparently Jeff Bezos (the real Big Brother perhaps?) and Amazon invoked their Thought Police in an attempt to stake out a moral high ground with regards to Parler.com over a bunch of nut jobs ranting, raving and threatening violence. This, despite the fact that Amazon won’t lift a finger to combat child pornography on its platform. That’s not just legal adult content here folks, which; in a big F You! to the “Me Too” movement, is actually allowed by Amazon’s terms of service. I mean, Amazon sells that porn. Oh no, we are talking about horrific and absolutely illegal child pornography. So, Amazon effectively gives actual violence towards children a big ol’ thumbs up but then turns around with a big thumbs down to rants, raves and threats of violence. What? Priorities man.

Can Big Tech silence you? Ask Donald Trump. Banning Trump from their platforms wasn’t enough, they even went after alternatives to their platforms. To call this anti-competitive, well, obviously but probably the least of the problems here. Sure, the First Amendment only protects you from the persecution for free speech from the government. But free speech is a core American value. You either believe in free speech or you do not. Banning speech is, quite frankly, un-American, whether you are technically “allowed” to do it or not. Big Tech, particularly Amazon, Twitter and Facebook, is solidly un-American.

Can Big Tech erase you? Apparently so. Trying to bring up Parler.com, it’s like it never existed. Just like Keyser Söze…poof!…and it was gone. Parler.com has effectively become an unperson. Think about this for a moment. This is China level suppression and historical revisionism. In the West, we all remember how tanks in Tiananmen Square killed hundreds or even thousands of people. But behind the Great Firewall of China, if you weren’t alive in 1989 there’s probably a good chance you’ve never read about that protest since it is perhaps THE most censored topic in China. Essentially, through the control of information, China has “unpersoned” all of those people that were brutally squashed and murdered. Not only that, they “unpersoned” the entire event.

So, the America we are living in as of 2021 is not just “Orwellian” or on it’s way to becoming like Orwell’s imagined 1984. To an objective observer, we’re here folks. Welcome to 1984. It’s in many ways even more terrifying than what Orwell imagined. Instead of an incompetent government holding the reigns, we have the ruthlessly efficient evil corporations running the show. That’s insanely frightening quite honestly.

But, in the end, we are likely all doomed. Just like Winston, we will all be tortured and brainwashed until all traces of independent and rebellious thought are purged from us and we will finally reject our true love of free speech (Julia) and come to accept that we instead love Big Tech. Oh…wait…sorry, spoiler alert if you haven’t read the novel…our bad.

And no, nobody from China will ever read this article. Give Big Tech a few days to find it and nobody else will either…


Trump is the Devil

A Gaze into the Looking Glass

Recent events, specifically the violence on Capitol Hill, have further inflamed political debate within the United States and thus we here at The Objective Observer feel that it is necessary that everyone take a step back and take a long, objective look at the situation. Only then can we all reach a proper conclusion and resolution. After a long, thoughtful retrospective, we can only conclude that to any objective observer, Trump is most certainly the Devil incarnate while any and all Democrats should likely be beautified by the Pope and given sainthood. The facts are irrefutable. For example:

On January 6th, 2021, President Trump spoke to at a rally in Washington DC and said the following:

“Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy. And after this, we’re going to walk down and I’ll be there with you we’re going to walk down… to the Capitol and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women.” – Donald Trump

Now, obviously, to any objective observer this is a clear call towards violence and insurrection. It’s not even close. But, if further evidence is required, Trump then fanned the flames of hatred and anger by stating:

“I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your votes heard today.” – Donald Trump

Again, clearly inciting violence. Peacefully? Patriotically? Clearly Trump wants his supporters to be violent and treasonous. It’s obvious. But then, as if Trump’s calls for vicious assaults on democracy were not enough, Trump later doubled down on the violence by releasing the statement:

“Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!” – Donald Trump

Clearly Trump is demanding that his supporters kill and harm any and all Capitol Police and other law enforcement that get in their way. He even goes so far as to call out the enemies of his supporters by name!

Thus, given the evidence cited above, any truly objective observer can only conclude that Trump must be impeached for inciting insurrection and sedition against the United States of America.

Now, let’s contrast this with words from liberals and Democrats over the last four years that, if looked at dispassionately and objectively, obviously promote peace, respect, order and lawful actions only. For example, Maxine Waters clearly promotes those values when she said:

“If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them, and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.”Maxine Waters

Later, Maxine Waters doubled-down on this obvious message of peace and harmony on MSNBC where she further stated:

“The people are going to turn on them. They’re going to protest. They’re going to absolutely harass them until they decide that they’re going to tell the President, ‘No, I can’t hang with you.’” – Maxine Waters

Clearly with such carefully chosen words such as “harass“, Maxine Waters is promoting peaceful and lawful dissent. Again, this is obvious and doesn’t really need to be stated, but we here at The Objective Observer do like to make things as clear as possible to our readers.

Nancy Pelosi has also been at the forefront of promoting peaceful, lawful actions as well as choosing her rhetoric to not be inciteful or inflammatory in any way whatsoever.

During the Portland riots, Trump’s U.S Customers and Border Patrol (CBP) office released the following intolerant and clearly antagonistic statement:

“While the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) respects every American’s right to protest peacefully, violence and civil unrest will not be tolerated.”

Again, it shouldn’t be necessary to point out but clearly this statement is intolerant, it is right there in the text “will not be tolerated” and clearly it is antagonistic when it mentions words like “violence and civil unrest“.

However, Nancy Pelosi handled the affair with great statesmanship and an attempt to tone down the inflammatory rhetoric of the Trump administration, simply stating:

“Unidentified stormtroopers. Unmarked cars. Kidnapping protesters and causing severe injuries in response to graffiti.” – Nancy Pelosi

She further clarified her meaning by stating:

“First Amendment speech should never be met with one-sided violence from federal agents acting as Trump’s secret police” – Nancy Pelosi

Clearly, effectively calling the CPB Nazi’s is an attempt to bring the rhetoric back down to a tolerable level. Similarly, Pelosi should be lauded for her stance against mob violence such as when she spoke these words about statues being toppled during riots in various cities:

“I don’t care that much about statues. People will do what they do” – Nancy Pelosi

“I do think that from a safety standpoint, it would be a good idea to have it taken down if the community doesn’t want it. I don’t know that it has to be a commission.” – Nancy Pelosi

Again, the clear meaning of these words obviously cannot be construed as an endorsement of mob violence, it is exactly the opposite. Clearly Nancy Pelosi only has the safety of the mob as top of mind and thus this is clearly a statement of peace, happiness and safety for all of America.

Chuck Schumer has also clearly promoted peace and unity in stepping up to defended the institutions of the United States. To point, on the topic of the Supreme Court of the United States, Chuck Schumer said:

“I want to tell you Gorsuch, I want to tell you Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.” – Chuck Schumer

Unlike Trump’s words that were specifically and obviously inciting violence, Mr. Schumer here takes great pains to ensure that his words could never possibly be misconstrued towards promoting violence and instead only benevolence.

But Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer are not the only people that have been promoting peace, harmony and the American way. Other examples include:

“Get up in the face of some congresspeople.” – Cory Booker

“You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about.” – Hillary Rodham Clinton

“When they go low, we kick them. That’s what this Democratic Party’s about.” – Eric Holder

“What we’ve got to do is fight in Congress, fight in the courts, fight in the streets, fight online, fight at the ballot box, and now there’s the momentum to be able to do this.” – Tim Kaine

Not to be outdone, the mainstream media has also backed Democrat cries for peace, unity and tranquility:

“New details today on the incident that left Senator Rand Paul with six broken ribs – this might be one of my favorite stories.” -Kaisie Hunt (MSNBC reporter)

“I told Jeb Bush after the debate that I thought he should have punched [Trump]in the face.” -Nicolle Wallace

“How do you resist the temptation to run up and wring [Sarah Huckabee Sanders’] neck?” -Nicolle Wallace

And finally, Hollywood must also be lauded with their mature and intelligent response to a Trump presidency such as those reported in Breitbart News, among others:

  • Kathy Griffin ‘Beheads’ Trump in Graphic Photo
  • Madonna – “I’ve thought a lot about blowing up the White House.”
  • Snoop Dogg “Shoots” Trump in the Head in Music Video
  • Robert De Niro: “I’d Like to Punch Him in the Face”
  • Joss Whedon: “I Want a Rhino to [F—] Paul Ryan to Death”
  • Shakespeare in the Park Stabs ‘Trump’ to Death in Performance of ‘Julius Caesar
  • David Simon: “Pick Up a G*ddamn Brick” if Trump Fires Robert Mueller
  • Mickey Rourke Threatens to Beat Trump with Baseball Bat: “He Can Suck My F’cking D’ck”
  • Actress Lea DeLaria Threatens to ‘Take Out’ Republicans and Independents with Baseball Bat after Trump Win
  • Rapper YG Threatens Trump with “[F—] Donald Trump” Song
  • Marilyn Manson Kills ‘Trump’ in Music Video
  • Rapper Everlast Warns Trump: “I Will Punch You in Your F*cking Face”
  • Larry Wilmore Jokes About Suffocating Trump with ‘Pillow They Used to Kill Scalia’
  • Stephen Colbert’s Late Show Puts Stephen Miller’s Head on a Spike
  • Sarah Silverman Suggests Military Could Help Overthrow Trump
  • SNL Pete Davidson mocking veteran David Crenshaw who lost an eye during combat: “You may be surprised to hear he’s a congressional candidate for Texas and not a hit man in a porno movie”
  • “When was the last time an actor assassinated a president? I want to clarify, I am not an actor. I lie for a living. However, it has been a while and maybe it is time.” -Johnny Depp

So, with all of these examples, we can clearly see the stark difference between Trump’s immature, hateful and violent statements and the mature, loving and peaceful statements made by Democrats, the media and Hollywood. Well, we can see it because we are objective in all things. If you cannot see it, then perhaps you need to spend a long time looking into a mirror and contemplating what you see. For what looks back at you through the looking glass is the mirror opposite of yourself and only through deep introspection can you truly understand how your opposition perceives your image and actions.

And once you truly understand your opponent, then you will finally be able to “create a crowd and absolutely harass them, fight in the streets, kick them, punch in the face, wring necks”. In other words, beat them down, step on their necks and shoot them in the head, extinguishing their thoughts, opinions and all opposition forever. Figuratively speaking of course. Ho ho, ha ha, obviously nothing just stated could possibly be misconstrued towards inciting violence, it’s all just coded speech that intelligent people understand even if the deplorable masses do not.


Capitol Violence Four Years in the Making

What Did You Expect?

First, we need to make clear that violence is never the answer. And this article is in no way meant or intended to be taken as justification for the violence that occurred in Washington DC today, January 6th, 2021. But, let’s all be honest for a moment…

What did you expect?

The riot that happened at the Capitol today was not “weeks in the making” as some have commented. It is perhaps natural in times of crisis to seek simple answers, that the riots were simply about a contested election, that they were simply “Trumps fault”. Ah, if life was only so simple. No, the reality is that life is complex and the Capitol riot was really four years in the making. For the last four years the left and the media have done everything in their power to delegitimize a legitimately elected sitting President through leaks, misleading stories and flat-out fabrication.

Glossing over the whole Russian hoax/scandal/whatever that was, Trump has been called a Nazi and a racist. It has been widely reported that Trump hates women, is corrupt, hates immigrants, hates clean air and water, hates democracy, loves dictatorships and on and on and on. It might be stated with some confidence that no United States President or perhaps even no American has ever been more vilified than Donald Trump. Maybe Benedict Arnold. Is it any surprise then that the tens of millions of Trump supporters in the United States are pissed after four grueling years of such drivel?

What did you expect?

Not being content to simply vilify Trump, Trump’s supports have been viciously attacked and outright demonized for four long years as “deplorables”, racists, Nazi’s, ignorant, poor and again, on and on and on. Trump supporters have been denied meals in restaurants and generally ostracized by many, including the main stream media. Don Lemon on CNN was very clear in his opinion that Trump supporters should not be respected for their views. And don’t forget all of the times conservatives have been shouted down on campuses across the country. The list of examples is far too long for a mere mortal blog post to include. But can anyone deny the vitriol that has taken place against Americans by other Americans? Is it any wonder then that the tens of millions of Trump supporters are pissed after four years of such venom?

What did you expect?

For four years, the left and the media, which; admittedly, is very much redundant, have taken every opportunity to devolve politics and debate in the country, to vilify and impeach the President, insult Americans that identify as Republicans, deny conservatives services, protest, riot, shout down legitimate debate, employ cancel culture and; well, just be downright complete and utter assholes about things. Is it any wonder then that this devolution of political discourse led to actual violence in the Capitol? It was the left that set the new standard for political “discourse” in the United States. And, spoiler alert, it looked very much like what happened in the Capitol today.

What did you expect?

This is not an attempt to justify bad behavior with bad behavior. This is simply pointing out that actions have consequences. When you go to the lengths that have been gone to in order to vilify the opposing side, when you ramp up the political venom, when you attack the rank and file, when you make it acceptable to treat opponents as less than human, when you make it acceptable to violently protest and riot in the streets, when you redefine and set the new normal of what is acceptable behavior in the name of politics so radically…is it any surprise when you reap what you have sown? The left has done all of these things with extreme and vicious hyperbole. Seriously…

What did you expect?


Democrats are Traitors

How We are About to Lose the American Revolutionary War Nearly 250 Years Later

Not to throw gas on the proverbial fire of political debate in the United States this year, but facts are facts. If one objectively looks at the facts, the only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn is that Democrats are American traitors. To understand why this is the only reasonable conclusion to an objective observer, it is necessary to understand today’s voting patterns as well as the founding and history of the United States of America.

When considering current voting patterns, it is certainly no secret that large urban areas tend to skew towards Democrats while rural areas tend to skew Republican. There is evidence for this dating back for decades but is perhaps best demonstrated by the 2016 election map by county. In Ohio, for example, one can neatly see the counties represented by major population centers, Columbus, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Toledo and Youngstown. The same is true in nearly every other state. The question is, why?

Well, if one thinks about that question a bit it is perhaps not surprising in the least. Within rural locations, people look out their windows and see green grass, trees and blue skies. Those people might reasonably conclude that the environment is in good shape. In addition, within rural settings, sure there might be families that are richer or poorer but the sight of a true homeless person is rare. Finally, rural settings really only have minimal government facilities and services. In fact, many households in rural locations might only have a local county government that only provides minimal governmental services like plowing and patching roads and a fire station. Within rural America, self-reliance is the norm.

The opposite is true for urban population centers. Concrete and smog does not translate to a healthy environment. Urban centers include individuals making six figure salaries or more along with obvious homelessness. The income disparity is on stark display on a daily basis. Finally, people living in urban settings are much more dependent on the government for basic needs such as water, transportation (subways, etc.) and such things as museums, parks and libraries. Police and fire municipal services are also much more obvious. In short, urban America is far more dependent upon the government. Is it any wonder then that these two perspectives of living in the United States are diametrically opposed politically when their daily perceptions of the world are 180 degrees opposite one another? Obviously, this divide should not be a surprise to anyone.

But why is any of this germane to whether or not Democrats are traitors to America? Well, to understand this, we need to dial the clock back to the founding of the United States of America and understand what America looked like in the mid to late 1700’s. Consider that in 1775, the four most populous cities in the American colonies were Philadelphia, New York, Boston and Charleston with respective populations of 40,000, 25,000, 16,000 and 12,000. The remainder of the approximately 2.4 million people lived in small towns and on farms scattered throughout the 13 colonies. To put this in perspective, the most populous areas of America had a population density of just over 40 people per square mile. Today, the Boston-Washington corridor has over 930 people per square mile. That’s over 23 times as dense. As a whole today the average population density in the United States is 91 people per square mile. What this all means is that in the late 1700’s; at the founding of America, that America looked far more like today’s rural America than today’s urban America.

So if America at the founding of the nation looked much more like rural America today then it is reasonable to conclude that the individuals at that time had attitudes and views that were more similar to the attitudes and views of today’s rural folks versus those living in today’s large urban areas of sprawl. And certainly this is the case. The government of Great Britain was months of ocean travel away. The colonists had to be independent and largely self-reliant from Great Britain and Great Britain provided few real governmental services other than a military presence for security.

But, we must also remember that when fighting broke out on April 19th, 1775, there were those individuals living in America that supported the big government of Great Britain and fervently disagreed with American patriots. These are the individuals “who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety” and were called Tories. Tories were fans of big government and their views were 180 degrees opposite of the views of the American patriots. In short, they were traitors to the American revolutionary cause.

So then, why are Democrats traitors? It’s obvious. American patriots at the founding this country reflected the views and attitudes of rural America today and built those principles into the United States Constitution. The people 180 degrees opposed to those patriots were the traitors to the American revolution, the Tories. The people 180 degrees opposed to the views and attitudes of today’s rural Americans are clearly the Democrats living within the urban sprawl of large cities. Rural Americans = Patriots/Republicans. Urban Americans = Tories/Democrats. So, yes, it can be said without a doubt that Democrats are traitors to America as in the ideals, views and attitudes upon which America was founded and this further explains their hatred for the Constitution as the Constitution reflects the independent, self-reliant attitudes of rural America and not the “big government is the answer to all things” attitude of traitorous Tories.

And thus, if the current results of the 2020 election stand and Democrats gain control of the Senate, we are dangerously close to losing the Revolutionary War nearly 250 after it started. We are dangerously close to losing the ideals and principles upon which the United States was founded. The Tories, the traitors to America, will have finally won.


Why Roe is Doomed

“It’s My Body” and Why It Means the Abortion of Roe

The nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court by President Trump has certainly caused quite a bit of raucous lately. And it seems that this nomination has resurrected the abortion debate in the United States, a discussion that has been brewing just below the surface for decades. Let’s be clear, Roe is most certainly doomed, but it is not because of some frat boy named Brett being nominated to the Supreme Court. No, Roe’s ultimate demise will actually be caused by the pro-abortion movement themselves. Without question, the seeds to Roe’s ultimate undoing can be found in their favorite slogan, “It’s My Body”. I’ll explain, but first a little history is in order.

Roe vs. Wade is one of the most, if not the most, landmark cases in recent Supreme Court history. But, for as much as Roe has been discussed and debated since 1973, the year the Supreme Court handed down the decision, there is a surprising lack of general knowledge about the actual case. Never fear, it is fairly easy to come up to speed. In short, if one is objective about the matter and uses scholarly language, then Roe can be described as being a weak ass, horrifically conflated, piss poor decision made on a complete and utter shit show of a case. No, really, it’s almost kind of tragic just how bad the legal opinion was and the clownish circumstances that surrounded the case. For such a landmark decision, one would expect more…much more. And no this is not exaggeration, it’s actually a rather nice way of describing the case.

Let’s just start with the individual that started the case, one Norma McCorvey, otherwise known as “Jane Roe” in court papers. Ms. McCorvey was born Norma Nelson and is an individual who had trouble with the law at an early age. Like, at age 10, when she robbed the cash register of a gas station and ran off with a female friend to Oklahoma. That was when she was 10. Without belaboring this rather unusual childhood, eventually, Ms. McCorvey married at the age of 16, divorced, gave birth to her first child out-of-wedlock, developed a serious drinking problem and ended up abandoning her first child, Melissa, who was subsequently taken away from her in 1965. Despite being an avowed lesbian, Ms. McCorvey had a second child that was put up for adoption in 1966/1967. But it was with her third pregnancy that she would make history, so to speak.

In 1969, at the age of 21, Norma McCorvey; an avowed lesbian, became pregnant with her third child and returned to Dallas TX. McCorvey initially falsely claimed that she had been raped in the hopes of attaining a legal abortion exemption under Texas law. She later admitted that her story was a complete fabrication and sought to obtain an illegal abortion. However, the illegal abortion clinics had been closed by authorities. Eventually, two female attorneys who were specifically looking for cases involving women seeking abortions convinced Ms. McCorvey to file a lawsuit that eventually became Roe vs. Wade. So, obviously a poster child for women’s “rights”.

Now, the part of the story that almost nobody knows; I mean other than everything written above, is that Ms. McCorvey actually had the child that was at the center of Roe. vs. Wade. The child was not aborted but rather was put up for adoption, just as Ms. McCorvey’s second child. Perhaps even just as amazing, in the three years that it took to bring the case before the Supreme Court, Ms. McCorvey never appeared in court a single time.

Despite the fact that under the normal rules of standing and mootness the case would not generally have been heard by the courts or would have resulted in what is called an “advisory opinion”, that’s not what ended up happening. While Jane Roe’s appeal was moot because she had already given birth and thus would not be affected by the ruling and as such lacked standing to assert the rights of other pregnant women, the court allowed the appeal based upon a rather obscure exception phrased “capable of repetition, yet evading review”.

So…after all of this, the Supreme Court eventually hands down a decision in 1973 that decides in favor of Roe based upon the right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the district court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.” (emphasis added)

But, what do the Ninth and Fourteenth amendments actually say? Nobody ever bothers to look that up. Luckily, you don’t have to. The Ninth Amendment says this about abortion:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Here’s the issue with using this as a basis for finding a “right” to abortion. Hundreds of years of judicial and scholarly research agree that the Ninth Amendment does not confer any actual rights. As Professor Laurence Tribe has noted: “It is a common error, but an error nonetheless, to talk of ‘ninth amendment rights’. The ninth amendment is not a source of rights as such; it is simply a rule about how to read the Constitution.”.

OK, so surely the Fourteenth Amendment has much more to say on the subject of abortion. To wit the text of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution states:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article”

Let’s do these in reverse order and see which of these sections mentions privacy or abortion. Section 5, nope. Section 4, nope. Section 3, nope. Section 2, nope. Section 1, nope. You see, the context of the Fourteenth Amendment is that it was adopted in 1868 as one of the Reconstruction Amendments following the United States Civil War. The reason it exists is to address issues related to the equal application of the law related to former slaves. The Fourteenth Amendment has nothing, zero, zilch, nada to do with privacy or abortions. It’s a pure fabrication by the court.

OK, so that’s the history of Roe. It’s important to keep things in context here and actually know what you are discussing or have an opinion about. So, bad decision or not, the real question becomes, should the government be all up in your uterus with regards to whether or not you should be able to get an abortion. Now, to some degree, even with Roe, they are all up there and everything because the courts still allow abortions to be banned when the fetus is “viable”. But before that, should it be the government’s business? Well, probably not. However, if the pro-abortion movement gets its way and your body truly becomes “yours”, well then we have a major problem.

You see, when pro-abortion rights activists say “It’s my body”, they are evoking a statement that their body is, well; “theirs”. Essentially, the argument is that an individual’s body is that person’s property and that individual owns it. Except that, technically, your body isn’t your property, it’s a little more vague than that. You see, while suicide has been decriminalized in most states in the United States, you still can’t just go out and sell one of your kidneys to the highest bidder. Your body is not technically your property to do with what you will. But, many argue that it should be, that your body should be considered your exclusive property, particularly when you start talking about DNA.

Today, if someone gets my DNA genome, they could post it online for the entire world to see and they would technically not be violating any laws. But with the advent and rapid proliferation of DNA testing facilities where in their terms and services they claim a form of ownership over your submitted DNA, this issue of ownership is going to come to a head in the courts; quite probably the Supreme Court, sooner rather than later. And this is where the pro-abortion movement may have wished they would have chosen a different slogan.

Think about it, if your body actually truly becomes your property and since DNA is part of your body, well then “Houston, we have a problem”. Specifically, that problem is that the fetus growing inside a woman; that said woman wishes to abort, is technically no longer entirely her property. I know, what?!? Well, think about it, it is really only HALF her property, DNA-wise that is.

Now, I grant you, for people that do not understand the biology inherent in having babies this may come as quite a shock but babies actually have half of the DNA of EACH parent. A baby’s unique DNA consists of half of the unique DNA of the mother and the other half…drum roll…is the unique DNA of the male donor. Thus if DNA becomes property, well, then that baby is partially the male donor’s property as well. And at that point, Roe is pretty much done. Stick a fork in it, good night, game over, thanks for trying out.

So ultimately, Roe is doomed. There is no way that DNA does not eventually get ruled as property of an individual. So it will be an odd end to the abortion discussion but an end none-the-less and; God forbid, the utterly ignored concept of MEN’s rights (read fathers) will finally actually get its due.

Published July 24th, 2018


Immigration Idiocy

Of COURSE You Separate the Children from Their Parents!

Recently, there has been a rather remarkable discussion going on within the United States regarding immigration policy. This debate has achieved epic proportions, pushed the political rhetoric to a new low (seriously, calling people Nazi’s?) and led to ridiculous, childish and downright dangerous behavior. First, let’s all agree to calm down and agree that OF COURSE you should separate children from parents when people cross illegally at the southern border of the United States. I mean, what the heck are you people thinking, have you become completely unhinged and out of your mind? To an objective observer, the right course of action seems blaringly obvious. However, I will explain in detail why this is the only reasonable course of action.

So, before we dive into the meat of the subject, we need to all understand a little background. First up is really the status of immigrants that cross illegally over the border. Do the same laws and due process apply in such circumstances? While there is a legitimate Constitutional question here on whether illegal immigrants are really entitled to the same due process under the law, for the sake of this article, let’s all just assume that immigrants that cross illegally are entitled to the same rights of due process as citizens of the United States and therefore should also be subject to the same laws and treatment as United States citizens. Fair is fair, everybody gets equal treatment.

So, if everyone should be treated equally, the natural question that arises is, “How are United States parents and children treated?” Well, the short answer is that around 100,000 children of United States citizens are separated from their parents or responsible adults every year. That’s right, 100,000…which is like way more than 2,000 for those of you that are math geeks.

Professor Paul Chill of the University of Connecticut School of Law stated in a 2004 article that:

According to statistics published by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, more than 100,000 children who were removed in 2001–more than one in three–were later found not to have been maltreated at all. And that is only the tip of the iceberg. Because definitions of maltreatment are extremely broad and substantiation standards low, it can be reasonably assumed that a significant number of other children who are found maltreated, and for whom perhaps some intervention–short of removal–is warranted, are nonetheless removed on an emergency basis.

Now, when Mr. Chill mentions “extremely broad” and “standards low”, he is being extremely accurate. Consider the case of Debra Harrell, the working mother who was arrested for letting her 9-year-old spend summer days alone at a park crowded with families. Or the case of the widow who left four kids home alone for a few hours, only to have them taken by the state. Or perhaps that of Kim Brooks, whose nightmare began when she left her kid in the car while running a quick errand. In all of these cases, the state separated the children from their parents.

Where was the shock and dismay over these cases, and thousands others like them? Where were the cries of “Nazis!” or denying child protective services workers the right to eat at a restaurant or public shaming of said individuals? Not a peep.

So, I would submit to you that, were a parent or family to set out walking from an impoverished neighborhood in New York City bound for Texas (that’s about the same distance from Guatemala to Texas) with barely any food and water, subjecting their children to hunger, dehydration and crime that they probably wouldn’t make it out of New York state, let alone make it to Texas, before their children were ripped from their arms over cries of child endangerment.

But, let’s suppose that this family does succeed in making the arduous trek to Texas, all along the way subjecting their children to drug traffickers, local gangs, rape, murder, hunger and dehydration, and upon arriving find a local court house or other government facility and break-in, committing the offenses of trespassing and illegal breaking and entering. At this point, OF COURSE the parents would be separated from their children on the basis of child endangerment and after a potential year long stint and jail, the parents would likely be hard pressed to win back custody of their children…ever.

There would be no hue and cry over “Nazis” or stupid rhetoric and actions from anyone. Everyone would pretty much agree that those parents were irresponsible and put their children in a dangerous circumstance and had no right to continue being responsible for those children. People would pat the authorities and child protective service members on the back and say “Good job!”.

So, when you consider someone from Guatemala or other Central American country doing EXACTLY the same thing as our mythical family, OF COURSE you separate them from their children. They are putting those children in danger for crying out loud. And THAT is why what is going on today at the border is immigration idiocy.


Parkland Students Have Only Themselves to Blame

School Shootings and Suicide

Look, this is going to be short and to the point. And there’s no other way to say it other than to just come out and say it. Parkland Florida survivors have nobody to blame but themselves for what happened at their school. It wasn’t police (although they are definitely culpable), not the FBI (also culpable) or school guidance counselors, Florida Department of Families and Children, the shooter’s parents/family and most definitely not guns. No, the Parkland students themselves are to blame for what happened. Let me explain.

When someone commits suicide, we do not blame the rope that they used to hang themselves or the garage they use to suffocate themselves in. No, we actually tend to blame ourselves. What more could we have done to prevent that person from committing suicide? What signs did we miss? How could we have been a better friend, family member or coworker? But, those are mature, adult responses to a tragedy.

The problem is that Parkland students are not mature or adults. Like all teenagers, they are immature individuals who are self-absorbed and generally incapable of true human introspection. Thus, they angrily lash out at anything and everything that is to blame for what happened in Parkland Florida. But they should be blaming themselves. They are ultimately the root cause of why the shooter lashed out.

You see, the issue is that school shootings by teenagers tend to be a proxy for suicide. Both are the last, desperate acts of young individuals who have been bullied, teased, demeaned and made to feel so unpopular and outcast that they see no other way out other than suicide. Some are so angry that they wish to take their tormentors with them. It should therefore be no surprise that there are more school shootings these days considering that in the last decade the suicide rate among 15-24 year olds has climbed about 30%, from 10% to well over 13%.

And the root cause of all of this is the kids. Kids today are over-privileged, mean, cruel to others different than themselves, form cliques, tease unpopular students, make fun of other kids and are generally just downright immature. Most parents would be mortified if they saw how their kids actually behaved towards others when in school. And every adult that went to high school knows exactly what I mean. Until the root cause of the problem with our society is addressed, teen suicide and school shootings will continue, regardless of how many gun laws are passed or politicians given the boot.

Which one of those Parkland survivors lifted a single finger to reach out to that shooter and try to make friends with him or make him feel included? Even more, which one of those Parkland survivors teased the shooter? Talked about that individual behind his back? Made him feel an outcast?

Emma Gonzalez, what did you do to make a difference in that young man’s life? What did you do to make his life worse than it was already? David Hogg, how about you? Cameron Kasky, what did you do? Daniel Duff, did you make a difference in that young man’s life? For the better or for the worse? Did you try?

The reality is none of those kids did a damn thing when it really mattered. And so now, instead of introspection, they stamp their feet and shout and scream and demand “change”. How unfortunate that what really needs to change is not government or gun laws, but themselves.


The Climate Bomb

Population Control or Race to Oblivion?

While you are reading these words, poor people will have died from climate change. Most of them children.

If the above words look familiar, that’s because this story of climate change has been told before. One Dr. Paul R. Ehrlich penned an incredibly similar alarmist narrative in his book, The Population Bomb in 1968. But here’s the thing, the climate change narrative is simply a rehashing of The Population Bomb narrative which is itself simply a rehashing of a Malthusian catastrophe. The reality here is that climate change is simply a repackaging of a failed theory penned in 1779. And, I can prove it.

We can state the climate change narrative and population bomb narrative and the Malthusian catastrophe narrative with a single narrative.

“There is a variable x that is growing exponentially. This growth is caused by people. Continued, uncontrolled growth in this variable will result in the end of the world.”

If you never got around to reading The Population Bomb, now you don’t have to. You’re welcome. With The Population Bomb, the variable is, well, the human population and its exponential growth is caused by uncontrolled breeding/insufficient death rates. With climate change, the variable is CO2. But, and here’s the kicker, CO2 is simply a proxy for human population. Why? Because we are told that the rising CO2 levels have an anthropogenic cause (caused by humans) through breathing and the burning of fossil fuels for energy. Well, more population means more breathing and greater needs for energy and thus the burning of more fossil fuels. Hence, rising CO2 levels is simply a proxy for the growth of the human population.

The fact that CO2 is simply a proxy for human population is actually confirmed by Ehrlich himself and by a host of other sources here, here and here and, frankly, all over the place. Thus, what we really have in climate change is simply a “Malthusian” theory about the relationship between population growth and the environment suggesting that as populations grow, they will strip their resources leading to famine, hunger and environmental degradation. With Malthus and Ehrlich this was setup as the population outstripping the Earth’s ability to provide sustenance. With climate change this is setup as the population outstripping the Earth’s ability to absorb CO2 output. At its heart, this is what climate change is all about. In short, nothing new to see here, this same tired argument has been made since the 18th century. Always about overpopulation and always ending in catastrophe. In 1779, Thomas Malthus wrote:

Famine seems to be the last, the most dreadful resource of nature. The power of population is so superior to the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race. The vices of mankind are active and able ministers of depopulation. They are the precursors in the great army of destruction, and often finish the dreadful work themselves. But should they fail in this war of extermination, sickly seasons, epidemics, pestilence, and plague advance in terrific array, and sweep off their thousands and tens of thousands. Should success be still incomplete, gigantic inevitable famine stalks in the rear, and with one mighty blow levels the population with the food of the world.

— Thomas Malthus, 1798. An Essay on the Principle of Population. Chapter VII, p61

That’s some pretty dire, apocalyptic shit right there. But what I find more concerning really is Ehrlich, environmentalists and climate scientists take on solving the problem. You see, these “Malthusian” catastrophes are always setup as an “end of the world” scenario. This is done to scare people and justify all kinds of horrific actions intended to “save the planet”. Specifically, population control. Ehrlich writes:

“The essential point made about population growth is as valid today as it was in 1968: “Basically, there are only two kinds of solutions to the population problem. One is a ‘birthrate solution,’ in which we find ways to lower the birthrate. The other is a ‘death rate solution,’ in which ways to raise the death rate – war, famine, pestilence – find us” (p. 34). — Paul and Anne Ehrlich, 2009. The Population Bomb Revisited.

You see, the term “population control” is simply a polite way of saying “mass genocide of deplorables, mass sterilization of undesirables, forced abortion and eugenics”. This has been the environmentalist mantra since Ehrlich and continues to this day with climate science.

One can believe in climate change and reject its mantra of genocide, sterilization, abortion and eugenics. The failure of Ehrlich, environmentalists and climate scientists is that they blame all of the world’s problems on humans without ever considering human ingenuity and technological prowess. More humans means increased ingenuity and faster technological advancement. This has been proven since the 1960’s in that the growth in food production has been greater than population growth. The same is true of climate change and CO2. Human ingenuity and technology will prevail.


One Trick Pony

A “Final Solution” to Climate Change?

I think that the real problem that skeptics have with climate change advocates is the obvious political underpinnings behind mainstream climate science. Specifically, climatologists continually claim that the only solution to climate change is to stop burning fossil fuels in order to reduce CO2 emissions and replace the energy production with wind and solar. The problem with this is that such a statement ignores basic science, demonstrates an incredible inability to think critically and an unimaginable lack of imagination. In short, these climate change advocates are one trick ponies when it comes to controlling climate change. Somehow we are to believe that some of the supposedly “greatest minds in science” are too stupid to think of any other solution to climate change other than to stop burning fossil fuels by replacing them with wind and solar. Obviously, this is idiotic. The only rational explanation is that such scientists are politically motivated. This article will utterly expose this obvious political motivation by listing a plethora of alternative methods of controlling climate change that are both obvious and much more effective than replacing the burning of fossil fuels with wind and solar.

First, in order to understand the alternative approaches to controlling climate change, a little background is required. Specifically, one must understand the “forcing mechanisms” that cause climate change as well as the sources of CO2 within the atmosphere. With respect to climate change, internal forcing mechanisms include ocean-atmosphere variability and life. External forcing factors include orbital variations, solar output, volcanism, plate tectonics and human influences. If we accept that CO2 is a main driver of today’s climate change warming, then in addition to fossil fuel consumption we must also consider ocean-atmospheric exchange, plant and animal respiration, photosynthesis, soil respiration and decomposition and volcanic eruptions. Let’s take a look at all of these things and see what solutions we can come up with.

Let’s look at ocean-atmosphere exchange first. CO2 is a soluble gas that dissolves in the oceans and is taken up by marine plants. There is a natural cycle in which CO2 is absorbed from the atmosphere in cooler and more biologically active areas of the ocean and released back to the atmosphere in warmer, less biologically active areas. Using 2011 numbers, ocean-atmosphere exchange resulted in 330 billion metric tons of CO2 being released into the atmosphere. This is a huge number, an order of magnitude larger than burning fossil fuels. And yet, there is little if any research going into technology to influence this exchange for our benefit (reducing CO2 emissions). For example, we could reduce the rate of physical mixing that stirs deep water to the surface. Centuries of respiration produce high CO2 levels in the deep ocean and much of this CO2 is released when deep waters are brought up to the surface. We could also stimulate the growth of algae that consume CO2 on the surface and later transfer that carbon to the deep ocean when they die.

Orbital variations (Milankovitch cycles) have a large impact on climate. In fact, they are noted for their correlation to glacial and interglacial periods, and more of a glacial period is apparently just what we need right now. The IPCC does note that Milankovitch cycles drove the ice age cycles. To be clear, Milankovitch cycles are the result of variations in the Earth’s eccentricity (oval orbit versus a perfect circle), the tilt of the Earth’s axis of rotation and precession. Perihelion or Apsidal precession is the fact that the Earth’s orbit around the Sun rotates, tracing out a flower petal pattern and is a major cause of climate oscillation on Earth. While technologically daunting, we could potentially find a way to influence the orbital variations of the Earth to our benefit or nudge the Earth into a slightly farther orbit, thus reducing the solar input into our atmosphere.

Granted, that last one is a bit far-fetched, but it leads us to the concept of reducing the input of solar heat into the Earth’s atmosphere or reducing solar output. To reduce the input of solar heat into the Earth’s atmosphere, we simply need a “sunshield”. We could send up numerous spacecraft to the Sun-Earth L1 Lagrangian point and essentially block a portion of the solar radiation coming to Earth, thus cooling the planet. Conversely, it might be possible to develop technology to reduce the solar output of the Sun. Climates millions of years ago had many times the amount of CO2 that we have today but the Sun was weaker than it is today.

Another way to go would be to promote volcanism. Volcanism actually has a cooling effect on the Earth and releases relatively little CO2 compared with other natural processes. This is because volcanic eruptions release large amounts of SO2 into the atmosphere and the optical properties of SO2 and sulfate aerosols strongly absorb and scatter solar radiation. We drop a few MOAB’s down the neck of some inactive or active volcanoes and simply get them fired back up again or encourage an eruption. And we would only need one or two of these. The eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991 affected the climate substantially as global temperatures decreased by about 0.5 degrees Celsius.

We could also engage in a bit of continental reengineering. The position of the continents determines the geometry of the oceans and therefore influences patterns of ocean circulation. The locations of the seas are important in controlling the transfer of heat and moisture across the globe, and therefore, in determining global climate. We might, for example, blow a hole in the Isthmus of Panama to allow the Atlantic and Pacific oceans to mix more freely.

Obviously what we have covered thus far are solutions on a grand scale that are likely largely infeasible. Except for the sunshield. I mean, duh, if you are getting too hot, fire up an umbrella. But, let us move on to more terrestrial solutions that are far less science fiction.

First up is nuclear fission. This one here, more than any other, demonstrates the absurd political underpinnings of mainstream climate scientists. Why? Because the introduction of more nuclear reactors solves the problem of fossil fuel burning today yet is not promoted at all by climate scientists. Climate scientists can’t promote nuclear reactors because environmentalists hate nuclear reactors. And yet, today’s nuclear reactors are many times more powerful and efficient than solar and wind. Consider that to generate the United States baseload electric power it would take approximately $30 trillion dollars and an area the size of Indiana with wind power. For solar, it would take about $20 trillion dollars and solar panels all across our southwest deserts. For nuclear, we could to it for as low as $1 trillion dollars on a few square miles of land. Also consider that a sunshield would cost $5 trillion dollars, just saying. But, nuclear fission reactors never enter the conversation, proving that climate scientists aren’t really about saving the planet and only about the politics.

Similarly, we could invest in research to speed up the creation of a viable nuclear fusion reactor, which is probably only about 20 years away anyway. Nuclear fusion reactors are effectively the opposite of nuclear fission reactors and essentially replicate the process that powers the Sun. And yes, we have achieved nuclear fusion, and yes we are making major breakthroughs and no, nobody in climate science ever talks about it.

We could also promote more plant growth, probably something like algae or Azolla in the oceans or arctic. The process of photosynthesis removes CO2 from the air. The Azolla event in the mid Eocene epoch actually drew out 80% of the CO2 in the atmosphere, transforming the Earth from a “greenhouse Earth” state to the “icehouse Earth” state we have today. Yes Virginia, we live in an icehouse Earth state today, despite what climatologists might tell you.

Pollution. The human production of aerosols or pollutants actually has a cooling effect on the Earth because the pollutant particles reflect, absorb and scatter solar radiation. Nobody really wants pollution, but if pollution can save the planet, and that’s what we’re talking about here right? Saving the planet from the disastrous, terrible, awful effects of climate change that will destroy all of humanity? Then why not a little more pollution? Simple, effective and I guarantee we have the technology and yet, like nuclear fission, never enters into dialogues around controlling climate change because it is not what environmentalists want, further proving that climate change science is not about saving the planet but instead simply promoting environmentalist politics.

Now, let’s continue on with a much more controversial solution, wiping out large parts of the human and/or animal population. The average human releases 365 kg of CO2 into the atmosphere annually. This is generally considered a carbon neutral effect since the carbon expelled during breathing was recently taken out of the air by plants, which were eaten by said human to sustain their metabolic processes. Fair enough, but that only goes so far. You see, if we can grow more plants to help take CO2 out of the air, a sudden adjustment of the population, say wiping out 25 million North Koreans, that would remove 9 million metric tons of “anthropogenic” CO2 emissions per year. Some might view that as a “win-win” as it were. Good of the many outweighs the good of the few, or the one. Again, we are talking about climate change wiping out all of humanity correct? But, understandably, if you are a bit squeamish about intentional genocide to save the rest of humanity, we could always just kill all of the birds as that would solve global warming and also provide A Cure for the Flu. Again, win-win.

I could continue on with solutions, including things like banning all aviation travel, the most costly form of travel in terms of CO2 emissions and on and on and on without ever even approaching solar and wind solutions. Again, what this proves is that climate scientists are not really interested in actually solving the problem of today’s current climate change because we could do that today through nuclear fission reactors and pollution. No, their science is simply a sham to prop up environmentalist policies plain and simple. Otherwise, if the future of humanity was really at stake, then all options would be on the table. And yet, nobody talks or even hints at these alternative solutions or takes them seriously because the sole purpose of climate change science is to promote solar and wind power and to punish large, technologically progressive countries like the United States and transfer its wealth to smaller countries. It is a sham and it calls into question every piece of research, every model and every data point that has ever been conducted on climate change. And the scientists have done it to themselves because they have allowed themselves to become nothing but political hacks. Scientists, wake up. If you are really serious about the science then stop being a political one trick pony and actually get serious about solving the problem.


There are No Climate Change Deniers

Explaining Climate Change Skepticism

Climate change advocates impugn anyone and everyone that so much as raises an eyebrow over the various claims about climate change with the words “Climate Change Denier”. The trouble with this, however, is that it is inflammatory speech and is wholly inaccurate. It is inflammatory because it evokes the concept of a “Holocaust Denier”. This is not unintentional. It is inaccurate because there are no actual Climate Change Deniers. Well, OK, there might be but at the same level of volume as there are “Flat Earthers”. The problem is that the language is not correct, there is a deeper meaning to what is being referenced in calling someone that pejorative term that is not born out by the actual language. Understanding this will hopefully produce some more meaningful discussions around climate change.

Here is why there are no “climate change deniers”. Because everyone knows that climate change happens. Anyone that understands that there has been an ice age on Earth at some point in the past fundamentally grasps the concept that the Earth’s climate changes over time. It is fundamental. Therefore, calling someone a “climate change denier” is inaccurate because no one actually fits the ostensible meaning of those three words. That being said, that is not what is really intended by those three words in the first place.

What is actually meant when someone utters those words is that the person in question may not agree with the statement that the Earth is currently warming at a rate that is greater than the average, that this will continue indefinitely and that the primary cause for this is anthropogenic (caused by mankind’s actions), specifically from carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. You see, this is a very different thing than that someone simply denies that there is climate change because calling someone a “climate change denier” automatically makes that individual look foolish because, of course, the Earth’s climate changes over time. No reasonable individual would argue otherwise. But, if an individual is skeptical about any of the three real meanings behind that term, then they are labeled a “climate change denier” and made out to be a fool when there are legitimate reasons to at least be a little skeptical of at least one or all of those three underlying premises.

First, we must consider whether the current temperature increases are greater than average. The reality is, science does not know. There is no generally accepted “average” amount of temperature change. Why is that the case? Simple, we didn’t have satellites and other things measuring temperatures and CO2 levels hundreds, thousands or millions of years ago. Since modern temperature measurements didn’t begin until the 1970’s, scientists rely on archaeological evidence, glaciers, vegetation, pollen analysis, dendroclimatology (tree rings), ice cores, animal remains and fossils and sea level changes. This NOAA report does a decent job of trying to obfuscate the fact that there is no consensus “average” temperature change but proves this fact unequivocally. The report effectively states that only the last 150 years are recorded by instrumentation and that everything past that is inference and that “significant uncertainties remain”. So, could one be legitimately skeptical of the alarm over today’s temperature increases? Absolutely. If we do not know with certainty what an average is or really have no idea if temperature increases/decreases of similar magnitude have occurred in the past (and we don’t), then why couldn’t a reasonable individual be skeptical?

The IPCC’s fourth report, AR4, states that the Earth has warmed by 0.74 degrees Celsius from 1906-2005 OK, so considering that modern global temperature measurements did not begin until the 1970’s, could one also be skeptical of this figure? The answer here again is yes. It would be reasonable to be skeptical of temperature measurements made in 1906 as these would either be by devices that may not be calibrated to today’s standards or temperatures arrived at indirectly or through inference.

Perhaps more troubling, AR4 specifies that over the 50 years from 1956-2005 that the rate of increase is 1.3 degrees Celsius per 100 years or essentially 0.65 degrees Celsius over those 50 years. This is used to raise alarm over the current rate of climate change. Now, could one be skeptical of this? The answer again is, sure. And the reason, again, is that we do not know for certain whether any comparable such temperature change has occurred in the past or even what an “average” is. In addition, this presupposes looking into the future and assuming that the next 50 years will continue this increase of 1.3 degrees per Celsius. Predicting the future is really hard, so might one question or be skeptical of this? Sure.

Thus far, the analysis has shown that there are legitimate questions that could be raised by a reasonable, fair-minded individual regarding the first two premises that underlie the phrase “climate change denier”, that the Earth is currently warming at a rate that is greater than the average and that this will continue indefinitely. The primary arguments that underpin such reasonable skepticism being that methods of inferring temperatures beyond the last 50 years or so are indirect and potentially imprecise and that it is difficult to predict the future. Let us now turn our attention to the third underlying premise, that the primary cause for this climate change is anthropogenic.

First, can one be skeptical of an anthropogenic cause on the basis that there are other potential explanations? Sure, the list of natural causes of climate change includes orbital variations, solar output, volcanism and plate tectonics. The list of natural carbon dioxide emissions includes the oceans, animal and plant respiration, decomposition of organic matter, forest fires, and emissions from volcanic eruptions. If one just looks at human population growth, one sees that there are over 3 times as many humans alive today than in 1950. Hmm. Double the warming from 1950 to today versus the previous 50 years relating to double the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and 3 times the human population. Could one not reasonably conclude that the natural respiration of that many more humans is actually the main contributor to the increase in CO2 levels and thus the warming trend being experienced? Or, considering that we can only approximate the CO2 generated by ocean-atmosphere exchange, animal and plant respiration and soil respiration and decomposition, which account for about 750 billion metric tons of CO2 emissions annually, what if we are off in our estimates and those emissions are closer to a trillion metric tons of CO2 emissions?

Second, and perhaps more interestingly, the primary reason given for establishing an anthropogenic cause for climate change is a consensus among scientists. This consensus is established through a review of peer-reviewed, scientific papers that either support or deny this anthropogenic cause. Current estimates are that around 97% of such recent papers support an anthropogenic cause for climate change. Now, here is the problem with this. Scientific consensus has not only been wrong in the past, but spectacularly wrong in the past. Consider the following:

  • Prior to Einstein’s general theory of relativity, a magical “luminiferous aether” was considered by scientific consensus as the medium for the propagation of light. Einstein was actually still trying to work the aether into the theory of relativity as late as 1924.
  • Prior to the 1970’s, the scientific consensus for macro geologic processes was not plate tectonics.
  • Prior to the 1980’s, the scientific consensus was that there was no such thing as dark energy and dark matter. Scientific consensus was that we could see 100% of the matter and energy in the universe. We now understand that visible matter and energy represent only a small fraction of the matter and energy in the universe.
  • Prior to the 1980’s, scientific consensus would tell you that sauropods lived in lakes and that dinosaurs were cold blooded and extinct. We now understand these things to be entirely false.

These are just four examples of where scientific consensus was not only wrong but spectacularly wrong. Additional examples are numerous, including the consensus scientific beliefs in phlogiston, a flat Earth, an Earth-centric solar system, that there was no such thing as evolution, the “plum pudding” model of the atom and on and on and on. Science, particularly young science, tends to get things wrong. Spectacularly wrong. And climate science is at most 100 years old but in reality more like 30-50 years old. Physics, astronomy, paleontology and other sciences are orders of magnitude more mature and all of them have gotten things spectacularly wrong and likely have some consensus scientific opinions today that will eventually be proven wrong.

In conclusion, the term “climate change denier” is pejorative and wholly inaccurate. It is used to attack individuals that might reasonably question underlying assumptions and premises of a very young science. There is no reason for this and it is fairly unprecedented in the history of science for science to have become so political and descend into the realm of personal attacks and a concerted attempt to belittle opposing scientific views. The presumptions that underlie the term “climate change denier” can be legitimately questioned by a reasonable individual because the science, particularly in terms of historical climate change rates, is inexact. Finally, this reliance upon the supposed infallibility of this consensus science is ill-placed because scientific consensus has repeatedly been shown to not only be wrong, but to be spectacularly wrong in the past.

Published 6/8/2017


Solar Change Deniers

The True Lesson from Trump’s Exit of the Paris Accords

President Trump recently came out and announced the United States’ exit from the Paris Accords. In doing so, Trump claimed that the trivial, immediate concerns of jobs, economics and fairness to the United States were more important than vague, unspecific, purported, future harms to the environment from climate change. Climate change advocates were quick to denounce this point of view, arguing that a 0.2 degree Celsius reduction in global temperatures after 100 years is far, far more important. I must go on record and agree 100% with the climate change advocates. Obviously, putting trivial, immediate concerns ahead of vague, unspecific, purported, future harms is stupid, pigheaded and wrong. However, I must also go on record as saying that climate change advocates are also stupid, pigheaded and wrong for their continued support of the trivial, immediate concern of climate change. Let me explain.

You see, climate change advocates are concerned about the potential effects on humans from climate change such as rising water levels, increased violent weather and other matters that make life on Earth more difficult for humans. However, what they are missing is the very real threat of life on Earth being completely extinguished and the Earth itself ceasing to exist. These are the very real concerns of Solar Change. You see, billions of years from now the Sun will begin to change. As the Sun’s reserves of hydrogen become depleted, the Sun will change into what is known as a red giant star. The Sun will cool, becoming more reddish and expand, eventually consuming the Earth before collapsing into a white dwarf star. When this happens, all life on Earth ceases to exist. Anyone that does not believe this is simply a Solar Change denier, a science denier and a complete and utter idiot of the highest magnitude for the science behind Solar Change is absolute. It will happen.

Obviously then, through the same logic as climate change advocates (which kind of makes it sound like they want climate change…) what we need to do is to forget about trivial, immediate concerns like climate change and instead invest hundreds of trillions of dollars into preventing or delaying Solar Change. A 0.02% reduction in solar emissions means that the Sun will continue to burn for an additional 100 million years. That’s 100 million more years of life on Earth or 4 million more generations of humans, albeit each generation having to endure a bit more asthma in the summer. Who can argue with 100 million more years of life on Earth? Only pathetic, stupidly uninformed, moronic Solar Change deniers that’s who. Ptuhh! I spit on such filth. Besides, we simultaneously solve climate change, reduced solar emissions means a cooler Earther.

In order to achieve this lofty goal of a 0.02% reduction in solar emissions, what we need to do is focus on crafting a global agreement or accord on Solar Change. Such an agreement would naturally be voluntary and have no teeth, but would dictate in an extremely unspecific way that we must make technology investments into slowing Solar Change. Since third-world countries have so little Solar Change technology this will necessarily mean a huge transfer of wealth from prosperous nations like the United States. In addition, since China has a long history of Solar Change denial, or for whatever random reason we might invent, they would be exempt from such technology investments for a few million years or so.

Since the true fate of humans and the world is involved here, we must immediately end all unnecessary investments in frivolous pursuits such as green energy. What do a few degrees matter in the face of staving off the apocalypse? Also, since such an endeavor will require huge amounts of time and energy, we must divert all resources from trivial industries like movies, songs and entertainment, which do nothing but consume energy and resources without contributing at all to Solar Change technologies.

In conclusion, climate change advocates are absolutely correct that we must focus on vague, unspecific, purported, future harms at the expense of trivial, immediate concerns of jobs, economics and fairness. Unfortunately, they have also exposed themselves as Solar Change deniers, the worst possible villains in all of villainy. These Solar Change deniers must be denounced and stopped before their ignorance and abject evilness dooms us all.


Hooray for Kathy Griffin

Exposing All the Losers

Before we get started, I do want to state for the record that Kathy Griffin’s President Trump beheading photo is unquestionably the most vile, hateful, disrespectful, unfunny, desperate, stupid, foolish, idiotic stunt that I have ever seen. It calls into question her mental health and, frankly, her humanity and ability to productively contribute to a sane, peaceful society. OK, fair, her ability to productively contribute to society has always been in question, but; still, this act makes it even more obvious that she is incapable of doing so. And should she be prosecuted? It’s hard to prove intent. For example, there are those that claim that when Kathy Griffin speaks that her intention is to be funny. I have personally never seen any evidence of this so, you know, intent is a tough thing to pin down. Now, with all of this being said, I am so very, very glad that Kathy Griffin did what she did. Let me explain.

Look, what Kathy Griffin really did with her President Trump beheading is simply expose the true attitudes and intentions of President Trump’s detractors on the left, in the liberal media, the deep state and even Hillary Clinton. In one, stark, picture is worth a thousand words moment, Kathy Griffin exposed all of these factions and people who are effectively trying to “behead” President Trump for what they are. These factions and people are attempting to behead President Trump in no less vicious a way than an ISIS loser who would use a sword to behead someone. What Kathy Griffin did was to accurately portray herself in the role of a loser, which she is. And thus so is the left, the media, the deep state and Hillary Clinton, all losers. Hillary Clinton quite literally so…twice…at least.

Let’s do these in reverse order. Hillary Clinton is trying to behead President Trump through a de-legitimization narrative by quite pathetically lamenting about her Presidential election loss and trying to blame it on some sort of Russian collusion along with a long list of other ridiculous conspiracy theories. Loser. Literally a loser…to Trump. Sour grapes go away.

The deep state is also trying to behead President Trump by treasonously leaking information intended to disparage and harm their sitting President. Losers. Criminal losers this time. These individuals are life-long politicos who have no concept of anything outside of their little beltway bubble. They are losers in anything and everything that could be considered American and life in general.

The liberal media. Where to begin. The liberal media has reached a state now where they do not even pretend not to be biased or even concern themselves with trivial things like journalistic integrity. The liberal media is trying to behead President Trump by conflating weak, ill-sourced conspiracy theories and attempting to pass it off as news or by ignoring actual news and instead covering puff pieces about hand shakes, hand slaps, weight gain and other absolute drivel, all spun to present President Trump in a negative way. Losers. Not only losers at life but losers at their own “profession”. And yes, the air quotes. The liberal media are such losers they have actually destroyed any honest ability to refer to journalism as a true profession.

Finally, the left. The left are trying to behead President Trump through their efforts at stonewalling and obstructionism. Losers. These people are losers because they are elected officials whose jobs are paid for by the American people but have nothing but contempt for those same American people. These people are perhaps the biggest losers and they should lose more. The American electorate deserves a government that at least functions properly and this means cooperation between parties that do not always see eye-to-eye. That is not what we currently have. We currently have a completely dysfunctional government because a bunch of losers are in there intentionally mucking up the works.

This is what Kathy Griffin exposed in that single photograph. She exposed the true intentions of all of these losers and, actually, cast President Trump in the role of the hero, fighting and giving his life in an attempt to make his country great again, which is what all of our young men and women fighting terror overseas do and risk every day. Who knew that the potentially greater threat to America would come from inside, from a bunch of domestic terrorist losers? Probably only Khrushchev…

Published 6/1/2017


Freedom of Stupidity

Fighting Anti-Free Speech with Anti-Free Speech

The mayor of Portland, Oregon; Ted Wheeler, has recently come out and asked that allegedly alt-right rallies be banned from the city. This includes the “Trump Free Speech Rally” on June 4th, 2017 and the “March Against Sharia”, a nationwide demonstration characterized as anti-Muslim. Wheeler’s comments come after two men were stabbed to death after trying to intervene on what reports say is a bigoted, anti-Muslim tirade by a man directed at two women.

Now, let’s back up here a minute and look at this objectively. First, there are numerous reports that state that the incident that sparked all of this was an “anti-Muslim attack”. However, that’s not what it was. It was actually an “anti-Muslim rant”. Now, this is an important distinction because while such rhetoric is obviously despicable and vile speech, it’s still technically OK to go on an anti-Muslim rant according to the First Amendment. It is still protected speech. What is further interesting is that the New York Times includes a quote from a Mr. Khan that says about the two slain men that “They really stood up for the values of the Constitution.” I really hate to say it because this is going to land me in a lot of hot water but, technically; no, they didn’t. They actually acted exactly counter to the Constitution in trying to suppress free speech. I know, I know, everyone is going to hate me for saying this, but it’s actually a fact. Technically, it was the crazy nut job that was actually defending the Constitution…technically.

OK, so, now that you are all worked up and hate what I am saying, let’s move on to this business of banning demonstrations. And I don’t care or have to know about what either of these rallies is really about. But, can we all just agree that being against Sharia law does not make one anti-Muslim? I mean, because Sharia law sucks and is anti-free speech, anti-religious freedom and pretty much anti-Constitution? You can not be a fan and not be anti-Muslim for Christ’s sake. (See how I did that?) Thus, the mayor is effectively trying to defend freedom of religion by suppressing free speech and defending a philosophy (Sharia law) that is, itself, anti-religious freedom.

Look, free speech is a cornerstone of our republic. It is the very first Amendment to the Constitution for crying out loud. It cannot be infringed in the manner that Mr. Wheeler is trying to infringe upon it. For very important reasons. For instance, when Martin Luther King marched, protested and spoke, the powers at be at the time could have labeled it as “hate speech” against whites. Where would we be today had we allowed that to happen? And who is to make judgements about what is hate speech and what is not hate speech? See my article on Racism and Free Speech and you will have a deeper understanding that speech that you find vile, hateful and disgusting still needs to be protected. It needs to be protected because otherwise it leads to totalitarianism.

But, with that being said, I am willing to give Mr. Wheeler’s ideas a try. You see, because I consider free speech, true free speech, so important and so untouchable that I view Mr. Wheeler’s comments on the subject as hate speech against free speech. Obviously then, using Mr. Wheeler’s logic what needs to happen is that Mr. Wheeler and any another other duly elected official that has sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States needs to be immediately removed from office and banned from ever holding office again if they engage in hate speech against free speech. It’s only logical.

And if you don’t feel that is logical, then you understand the insanity of what Mr. Wheeler is pitching here. Look, at the end of the day, Ted Wheeler has the right to his views and he has the right to express those views; which is to say, he has the right to be incredibly stupid. It is unfortunate that Portlandians have such a dangerous and moronic leader of their fine city. Being objective about the matter, Mr. Wheeler is anti-Constitution, anti-American and anti-intelligent. He should be drummed out of office immediately by anyone that claims to want to live in a free society, not because he is engaging in hate speech against free speech, but because it should be obvious by now that he is incompetent at protecting our freedoms (his job as an elected official) and apparently incapable of understanding his own lunacy.

Published 5/30/2017


Trump Eats Baby for Breakfast

The Trouble with Unnamed Sources

While the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus has shuttered its doors, the three-ring circus is alive and well in Washington DC. Where once we might hear from the President of the United States or have a political scandal a few times a year at most, it seems that now there is a new furor at least once or twice a week. Much of this furor and circus are driven from reports that come from “unnamed sources” These unnamed sources are apparently seeking to embarrass or otherwise drive negative innuendo around the legitimacy of the current administration.

The trouble with unnamed sources however is that they are, well, unnamed. While this might seem more like a statement from The Obvious Observer versus The Objective Observer, this is an important point and needs to be explained in such a way that people understand. Unnamed sources are unverifiable. They are unnamed so no one can go to the source and ask “Did you say this?” More importantly, they may be entirely fabricated.

Now, before any “journalists” or other “Trump deniers” out there go bananas over me saying that the sources could be fabricated, let’s just jog your memory about Jayson Thomas Blair shall we? Remember that guy, who fabricated quotes, sources and stories for years at none other than the New York Times? How about the Killian documents controversy (Rathergate) where forged documents were used to call into question W’s military record? Or, more recently, Juan M. Thompson, another reporter that fabricated quotes and sources.

So, the problem for anyone that might get their shorts all in a bunch over me questioning the legitimacy of unnamed sources is, well, something that reporters pay far too little attention to these days, the facts. The facts are that reporters HAVE fabricated quotes, sources and stories. Fake news, in point of fact, exists and has existed for quite some time. The fact is that journalists have only themselves to blame for the erosion of public trust by failing to control the professional standards of their peers.

You see, the issue with unnamed sources is that unnamed sources can say anything and they do not even have to be real. Let’s imagine what unnamed sources might say about certain journalists.

Unnamed sources say:
Paul Krugman likes small children.

Unnamed sources say:
Phillip Bump is a proponent of rape.

Unnamed sources say:
Maureen Dowd thinks everyone should do drugs.

You see, these unnamed sources are entirely fabricated but it is reasonable to believe that Paul Krugman likes small children. I mean, when they aren’t crying or whining, children are adorable. Who wouldn’t like them? And Mr. Bump might very well believe that you should not discuss religion, abortion, politics or economics on a first date. And I am very certain that Maureen Dowd believes that everyone should get proper medical attention for their illnesses and ailments. So, I make up unnamed sources and then spin the “quote” to generate click-bait and introduce negative innuendo. Easy-peasy Jayson Blair reporting.

Trump himself has called into question these unnamed sources, referring to them as potentially fabricated, and this has driven the media into an outright frenzy. And all of the political pundits point to this as being an immature and stupid thing to do, in essence “throwing fuel onto a fire”. Nobody can seem to understand why Trump continues to do it other than that he is a moron. But, let’s take a step back and look at the facts objectively and follow it to perhaps a logical conclusion.

First, let’s dispense with the assumption that Trump is an absolute moron and evil. Trump is an incredibly successful businessman and his consummate ability to promote his brand is unquestioned. So, Trump is probably reasonably intelligent and has a knowledge of how to engage the media to his own ends. Second Trump has a history of being able to drive a narrative within the media to his own ends. He did this incredibly effectively during this past Presidential campaign, garnering huge amounts of free air time. Third, one of his chief advisors is Stephen Bannon, an individual who ran Breitbart News and certainly no friend of the established media. In fact, I am certain that Mr. Bannon would like nothing more than to eradicate the legitimacy of the media.

So, where might we take these assumptions and facts to some reasonable conclusion? Well, could we not hypothesis that Trump’s incitement of the media is, in fact, intentional and intended to drive a specific narrative to a specific end? What might that narrative and end be you ask? Easy, the narrative is de-legitimization of the established media with the eventual goal being that the established media is entirely viewed as illegitimate by a large majority of Americans and the world.

You see, by inciting the media, the media fights back and makes up more and more outlandish headlines on flimsier and flimsier material from “unnamed sources”. What if; what if, the Trump administration KNOWS that there was no Russian collusion but allows “unnamed sources” to “leak” information, knowing that the media, in their furor, will latch on to these reports and publish outlandish reports that will eventually be shown to be without merit. The phrase “enough rope to hang oneself” comes to mind. And no, that is not of a racist remark the same way that saying “I finally found a final solution to that Laplace transform problem” is not a racist, bigoted or anti-Semitic remark.

I mean, it has gotten so bad that if Trump ate an egg for breakfast, I would fully expect the headline to be “Trump Eats Baby for Breakfast” or “Trump Performs Late Term Abortion”. Both of these statements, while factually true regarding eating a baby chicken are intentionally spun to generate click-bait and introduce negative innuendo. But, Trump can’t win. If he doesn’t like eggs for breakfast and orders his chef not to cook them, then the headline would be “Trump Supports Ban on Abortion”.

You see, this is how a large portion of the American population view Trump and the media. A solid majority of people in this country just accept that the media is going to attack Trump regardless of what he does. And the media is going to attack Trump in a way that seeks to delegitimize his Presidency and spread around negative innuendo of misdeeds without any actual proof. I have to believe that Trump knows this and is therefore encouraging this kind of media behavior because, say what you will about Trump, he proved during the campaign that he was the only one with a true read and pulse on the American electorate.

Published 5/29/2017i

Are Democrats Traitors?

How We are About to Lose the American Revolutionary War Nearly 250 Years Later

Not to throw gas on the proverbial fire of political debate in the United States this year, but facts are facts. If one objectively looks at the facts, the only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn is that Democrats could very well be considered American traitors. While this sounds bad, don’t get too worked up about it. This is about understanding today’s voting patterns as well as the founding and history of the United States of America. You may or may not agree with the premise but read on and you will learn something.

When considering current voting patterns, it is certainly no secret that large urban areas tend to skew towards Democrats while rural areas tend to skew Republican. There is evidence for this dating back for decades but is perhaps best demonstrated by the 2016 election map by county. In Ohio, for example, one can neatly see the counties represented by major population centers, Columbus, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Toledo and Youngstown. The same is true in nearly every other state. The question is, why?

Well, if one thinks about that question a bit it is perhaps not surprising in the least. Within rural locations, people look out their windows and see green grass, trees and blue skies. Those people might reasonably conclude that the environment is in good shape. In addition, within rural settings, sure there might be families that are richer or poorer but the sight of a true homeless person is rare. Finally, rural settings really only have minimal government facilities and services. In fact, many households in rural locations might only have a local county government that only provides minimal governmental services like plowing and patching roads and a fire station. Within rural America, self-reliance is the norm.

The opposite is true for urban population centers. Concrete and smog does not translate to a healthy environment. Urban centers include individuals making six figure salaries or more along with obvious homelessness. The income disparity is on stark display on a daily basis. Finally, people living in urban settings are much more dependent on the government for basic needs such as water, transportation (subways, etc.) and such things as museums, parks and libraries. Police and fire municipal services are also much more obvious. In short, urban America is far more dependent upon the government. Is it any wonder then that these two perspectives of living in the United States are diametrically opposed politically when their daily perceptions of the world are 180 degrees opposite one another? Obviously, this divide should not be a surprise to anyone.

But why is any of this germane to whether or not Democrats are traitors to America? Well, to understand this, we need to dial the clock back to the founding of the United States of America and understand what America looked like in the mid to late 1700’s. Consider that in 1775, the four most populous cities in the American colonies were Philadelphia, New York, Boston and Charleston with respective populations of 40,000, 25,000, 16,000 and 12,000. The remainder of the approximately 2.4 million people lived in small towns and on farms scattered throughout the 13 colonies. To put this in perspective, the most populous areas of America had a population density of just over 40 people per square mile. Today, the Boston-Washington corridor has over 930 people per square mile. That’s over 23 times as dense. As a whole today the average population density in the United States is 91 people per square mile. What this all means is that in the late 1700’s; at the founding of America, that America looked far more like today’s rural America than today’s urban America.

So if America at the founding of the nation looked much more like rural America today then it is reasonable to conclude that the individuals at that time had attitudes and views that were more similar to the attitudes and views of today’s rural folks versus those living in today’s large urban areas of sprawl. And certainly this is the case. The government of Great Britain was months of ocean travel away. The colonists had to be independent and largely self-reliant from Great Britain and Great Britain provided few real governmental services other than a military presence for security.

But, we must also remember that when fighting broke out on April 19th, 1775, there were those individuals living in America that supported the big government of Great Britain and fervently disagreed with American patriots. These are the individuals “who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety” and were called Tories. Tories were fans of big government and their views were 180 degrees opposite of the views of the American patriots. In short, they were traitors to the American revolutionary cause.

So then, why are Democrats traitors? It’s obvious. American patriots at the founding this country reflected the views and attitudes of rural America today and built those principles into the United States Constitution. The people 180 degrees opposed to those patriots were the traitors to the American revolution, the Tories. The people 180 degrees opposed to the views and attitudes of today’s rural Americans are clearly the Democrats living within the urban sprawl of large cities. Rural Americans = Patriots/Republicans. Urban Americans = Tories/Democrats. So, yes, it can be said without a doubt that Democrats are traitors to America as in the ideals, views and attitudes upon which America was founded and this further explains their hatred for the Constitution as the Constitution reflects the independent, self-reliant attitudes of rural America and not the “big government is the answer to all things” attitude of traitorous Tories.

And thus, if the current results of the 2020 election stand and Democrats gain control of the Senate, we are dangerously close to losing the Revolutionary War nearly 250 after it started. We are dangerously close to losing the ideals and principles upon which the United States was founded. The Tories, the traitors to America, will have finally won.

Originally published November 12, 2020