Monday, September 18, 2017

The Full Jason Stockley Verdict (Link)

By now you have undoubtedly seen and heard of the violent protests that have gripped the St. Louis area after the verdict in the Jason Stockley trial was released.  The verdict affirmed that Stockley--then a St. Louis police officer--legally and rightfully protected his life while in a self-defense situation with a heroin dealer who had backed into his car, fled, and then threatened Stockley when cornered.  Of course, the story told by Black Lives Matter, the local and national media, and the other usual "Blacktivists" that show up in these situations is quite different.  It is also quite wrong.

Read the verdict for yourself:  Here is a link to the FULL verdict released by the judge, which addresses every key point that the prosecution brought forth in the case. 

The Stockley Verdict

Again, join us every Tuesday at 2:00 CST for our radio show, America's Evil Genius, at  Also Available on the I Heart Radio app.

Until next time,


Wednesday, July 12, 2017

Russia or The Democrats--Which one is the National Security Threat?

So here we go again--the media is back on the Russia warpath.  This time they're harping about a meeting with a Russian lawyer who claimed to have dirt on Hillary Clinton.  Cue the cries of "impeachment" and "treason"...again.  Setting aside the fact that, at this point, none of the "horrible" allegations have been proven (just as all of the previous litany of "administration-ending" allegations turned out to be unproven), ask yourself this:

If it turned out the Trump campaign did get a bit of help from Russia to bring down Hillary and the there anything wrong with that?

Think about it--the main argument being made by the Liberals and Democrats is that Trump's supposed collusion with Russia opens us up to being vulnerable to a national security threat, or a "key enemy".  But is Russia really more of a national security threat than the Left and the Democratic Party in America currently are?  After all, consider some of the recent actions of Leftists/Democrats:

A Democratic House Member physically threatened President Trump

Democrat threatens Senator Jeff Flake, says protesters will have "better aim"

Violent Anti-Trump Protests in Portland

"Women's March" Organizer calls for Jihad against President Trump

And of course, how can we forget the shooting of Representative Steve Scalise by a crazed Democrat (is there any other kind of Democrat?) back in June?  Or the repeated cries from Liberals that Scalise had it coming because of his stance on government healthcare?

All of these are only a partial list--we could spend pages relaying the examples of Liberal violence against normal, hard-working Americans.  To say nothing of their constant calls for "tolerance" and "acceptance" of the Muslim Terrorists and Illegal Aliens that place you and I in danger each day.  I mean, hey...assassination attempts on  Republican politicians are something we're just supposed to accept--the "cost of doing business" if you will...but Islamophobia?  That's something we must *totally* abandon as a nation!  (Even though it's those very Muslims that are literally killing Americans in the streets).

There is no such thing as a "reasonable" Democrat or Liberal.  They are literally deadly in their intentions--whether towards each of us individually, or to the nation and our culture as a whole.  Their entire ideology is based upon tearing down our nation's history and ideals...and replacing them with their own twisted view of "utopia".  How can one possibly hope to do that be any means other than violent ones?

Now, Russia is certainly not a band of angels.  But for all the kvetching of their actions in the Ukraine or elsewhere...have any of these actions placed any of us in danger?  Has it been the Russians flying planes into our buildings or murdering Americans in the streets?  Is it Russians sneaking across the border and taking over our streets with their drug trade and their violence?

The answer, of course, is no.

When the average American wakes up in the morning and leaves his home--trying to make a better future for his family and himself...looking to protect the security and safety of his family and is not the Russians that worry him or are a danger to him.  Instead, the criminals and terrorists he must protect himself and his family from reside within those groups that are currently part of the Democratic "coalition".

No, it's not the Russians that are the national security is the Democrats and the Liberals.  Had the president colluded with Democrats, then that may very well be grounds for treason and impeachment.  But colluding with Russia?

Well, put it this way...if it did happen, then we should be thanking the Russians, not criticizing our President.

At the end of the day, it's the Democrats that need to be incarcerated or institutionalized...every last one of them.  If the Russians can play a role in helping bring that about, then good for them.

Though there's no proof that it's happened...but if it did, I most certainly wouldn't mind.

Tuesday, July 11, 2017

So Twitter is being a Douche...

Quick post here--tonight I found this article by Kimberly Morin, discussing a Democrat House member who has threatened President Trump:

Democrat House Member Threatens Trump. Hat Tip: Kimberly Morin at The Federalist Papers Project

Now, as with many interesting articles, I tried to share it on Social Media.  Shared it on Facebook, no problem.  But when I tried to link to it on Twitter--I got a message that my activity looked "automated", and they were protecting people from "spam" or "malicious" activity.

As though telling the truth about Democrats is somehow "malicious" or "spam".

So here's what we're going to do.  Clearly, Twitter has identified certain websites as "Evil, Conservative websites" (I'm not sure if that's specifically the terminology they use internally...but c'mon, it can't be far off from that, now can it?).  However, this website flies so far under the radar (at least up to this point) that I doubt it's on any such "lists".  So I've posted the link to the article above...and you can share the article on this website through Twitter, so that everybody can be exposed to this story.

Here's the link, once again.

When a door is locked, go through the window...

Wednesday, June 14, 2017

Democrats--Literally a Physical Danger to You

Since creating this website a few months ago, I've taken a certain amount of flack for it.  Of course, Liberals have been mortally offended by it--no surprise there...but I've found that even some Conservatives or Republicans whom I've interacted with have shied away from the website or from some of my comments.  To be sure, the idea that a political party has crossed the gulf from "disagreeable political opponent" to "national security threat that must be dealt with"--the very idea that this website is built around--is more than a little uncomfortable for many Americans of all political stripes and ideologies.  Promoting ideas of stripping Civil Rights and Constitutional Rights away from Liberals and Democrats (which I have done on this site and elsewhere, and which I will continue to do) seems antithetical to many people, even to many of those who are victimized daily by Liberals.  We want to believe that all of our fellow Americans have some good in them, deep down.  We want to believe that we can disagree without being disagreeable...despite the violence and attacks on our nation that we see from Democrats.  We want to believe that somewhere, somehow, there is some degree of common ground that we all have.  Make no mistake, those are very powerful and attractive desires...even if they are not true.

But as I write this piece on June 14, 2017, we are only about a half day removed from a brutal and cowardly attack on Representative Steve Scalise (and other Republican reps in the line of fire) by a deranged, Liberal, Bernie Sanders supporter.

It is days like this that are the reason that I created this website.  It is days like this that are why I have dedicated my life to the elimination of Liberalism and the Democratic Party in America.

Today we have seen a Democrat--a man who lived a seemingly normal life in Belleville, Illinois, a seemingly normal Midwestern town, albeit one that the Democratic Party is dominant in--attempt to assassinate sitting Republican office-holders.  This was a man who owned a business in Belleville, was married for years, and to most people on the surface, would have seemed to be a regular guy.  Not atypical from the average Democrat who is politically involved at the local level which you and I might see in any of our own neighborhoods.  And yet, beneath that surface was the same violent, destructive motivation that we've seen out of Ferguson thugs and "protesters" and roaming Antifa gangs who have committed destructive violence on College Campuses and our major cities.

After the attack, we saw countless Liberals on social media praising this would-be assassin...some of them commenting that, because of Scalise's opposition to Obamacare, he deserved what happened to him.  The examples of Liberals--most of them regular everyday folks who work alongside of us and live alongside of us--who took joy in this brutality are too numerous to name.  Likewise, over the last couple of years, we saw many of these same people take joy in the violence and destruction in places like Ferguson...we saw them align with thugs like Black Lives Matter who exist as little more than a group that glorifies criminals and who take joy in the deaths of police...we saw them praise the violence at Trump rallies during the campaign...we saw them approve of the violence and destruction in Washington on Inauguration Day.

In other words, this is no isolated fringe of the Demcoratic Party...

...this is who they are.  Who they ALL are.

The entire party and ideology is one, huge, lunatic fringe.  Not only are they a lunatic fringe, but they are a group of people who wish to completely destroy the pillars and traditions of our society--to say nothing of it's history--and to replace it with their vision of a Utopia of Equality.  And they are fine with killing in order to achieve this end goal.  There is no such thing as a "reasonable" Liberal.  There is no such thing as a "respectable" Democrat.  They all want America, as we know it, to be brought to it's knees and humbled.  They hate our nation, they hate our values...and by extension, they hate us.

They literally want to kill you and I.  Not just the Black Thug in the inner city...not just the drug-up college student with purple hair...but the kindly older woman or man who lives up the street from you that put the Hillary sign in their front yard last November...they may very well have you in their crosshairs.  The middle-aged feminist who works with you...she probably detests you and would love nothing more to hear of your demise.  And not only do they want you and I dead...but they want our nation, as we have always known it, to be dead as well.

This is why I have said, from the day I launched this website and long before on my radio program, that there cannot be reasonable discussion, compromise, or bi-partisanship with these people.  You cannot negotiate or collaborate with Liberals any more than you can collaborate with an axe murderer.  This is why I have advocated--alone, on many occasions--that the Democratic Party be literally outlawed in America.  That their voting rights, their representation in Congress, and their Civil Rights as a whole be denied to them.  It is clear they do not deserve them, and it is clear that to allow them to have rights and to participate in America will only do our nation harm over time.  And that it will only do physical harm to you and I.

No, I am not advocating for individual vigilante violence by our side towards the Left--this would only harm our cause in the long run (although I do believe that we should all be prepared and armed as we can be, in order to defend ourselves if and when we are attacked by Democrats, Urban Thugs, Illegal Aliens, or Garden Variety Criminals).  But what I am advocated is something far more pervasive.  I am advocating for the large-scaled disassociation of American society from the Left and from the Democratic Party.  Yes, I would like to see Democrats imprisoned simply for being Democrats.  Yes, I would like to have leaders of the Democratic Party run out of the country entirely.  Yes, I would even like to see Democratic voters put into re-education programs by which they could learn what it means once again to be an American, and by which we can facilitate their assimilation into normal society.

As we've seen today, our very lives depend upon it.

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

Who Really Deserves the Right to Vote?

People often proudly--and incorrectly--refer to America as a "democracy".  While there are democratic (small "d") elements to the way we undertake our government, we nonetheless have many safeguards within our Constitution and our form of government that keep us from becoming a true democracy.  However, overlooking the fact that most of our Founding Fathers would have been horrified at the possibility of our nation becoming a true democracy, many Americans--of all political stripes--take great pride in the democratic (small "d") elements of our government.  We consistently hear our fellow citizens discuss things like the 15th Amendment (granting Blacks the right to vote), the 19th Amendment (granting women the right to vote), and the 26th Amendment (reducing the voting age to 18) as positive aspects of American history, and even as examples of American Exceptionalism.

As a nation and as a people, we often take for granted the idea that our Republic works best the more people that take part in it.  Everybody in the political world talks glowingly of potential ways to increase voter turnout (even if some of them only pay lip service to it...while others who actually take the idea seriously seem to do so for only the most cynical of reasons--see Democrats and their efforts to allow Illegal Aliens to be able to vote).  On the other hand, nobody ever speaks positively about restricting voting or about reducing voter turnout (at least not publicly...I might humbly suggest that I'm one of the few writers or commentators who will talk about such topics publicly and without reservation).  It's almost a universal idea in America that the expansion of voting rights has always been--and further expansion will be in the future--an overall positive for our country.

However, when one strips away all of the feel-good sentiments, and even some of the national pride in our history...does it make sense?  Is it really sensible that the more people who vote, the better off we all are in the long run?  Is there any other meaningful area of life in which we expect a better job to be done if every Tom, Dick, and Harry takes part?  Would you prefer to go into surgery in the hands of a good, accomplished surgeon...or would you rather have your surgery performed by all of the random people from all walks of life who happened to show up on that day?  Would you trust your taxes to be done by a CPA or financial professional who thoroughly understands tax law...or would you be better off having your taxes done by a few thousand random people, most of which will have no background in doing taxes, and most of which could not care less if your tax bill ends up being as low as it can legally be?  Think of your it better that they be raised by you and your spouse, or would they be better off taking their life lessons from millions of random people across the country (one look at the kids who have been largely raised by pop culture should tell you the answer to that question).

Clearly, for a great many important concerns, quantity of input is not nearly as important or beneficial as quality of input.

Let's take this from generalities and into specifics--the Twentieth Century was a period in which we as a nation focused on expanding the vote.  From granting women the right to vote, to efforts in the South to make sure the 15th Amendment was fully adhered to, to the effort to lower the voting age and encourage young people to vote ever since that time...there is no doubt that expanding voter participation was a key focus area for much of the last century.  But what else did we see during the last century?  We saw large-scale expansion of the Federal Government (far more profound than any expansion seen at any other point in our history). We saw the constant expansion of a "Social Safety Net" that has not only placed our nation on the brink of bankruptcy financially, but which has brought about a moral  bankruptcy among our urban areas that has been even far more devastating.  We saw the legalized murdering of our babies in the womb, and an entire class of politicians taking office who have kept their power by promises to keep this "right" ensconced.

In other words, while it is true that we won two World Wars and had--for a period of time--one of the great economies the world has ever seen...much of the Twentieth Century sucked in America.  It sucked quite badly, indeed.

Now, is the expansion of the vote during the Twentieth century entirely to blame for all of these ills?  No, that would be way too simplistic and there were a multitude of other factors, of course.  However, I don't think we can discount the expansion of the vote as a factor in the rise of what could be called, for lack of a better term, the "constantly get re-elected by giving free stuff to my constituents and excusing their bad behavior" politician.   Hence, I think we need to take an honest look at the impact (mainly negative) of the expansion of the vote.

Now, does this mean that I want to repeal the 15th and 26th Amendments and take away voting rights from Blacks and Women?  No, not at all.  To me, denying voting rights strictly based on race or gender would not address the root causes of America's voting problems.  For example, according to exit polling in the 2016 Presidential election, 42% of women voted for Donald Trump (including 53% of White Women and 47% of Married Women). With respect to Blacks, 8% voted for Trump (including 13% of men).  In addition, these numbers are right in line with the percentages of those groups that voted for Mitt Romney in 2012 and for Republican candidates in prior elections (the idea that Trump would turn off female or black voters turned out to be a red herring, statistically speaking...Trump maintained roughly the same ground with these groups that GOP candidates before him had maintained).  So clearly, some people within these groups are making good, sound voting decisions.  Taking away voting rights from those 42% of women or 8% of Blacks that voted for Trump would not have a positive impact--either at the polls or in culture in general.  You wouldn't be getting to the root cause of the problem--you would end up treating the symptom, and not the disease.

It is not race or gender that creates a bad voter--instead it is attitude, culture, and character.  In short, it has been the expansion of Liberal voters who have done us harm over the Twentieth century.  So when it comes to addressing the problem, how do you do so?  I mean, it would be comparatively easy to say "we should take away the right to vote from women and blacks", but it's far more difficult to construct an environment where you take away the right to vote from Liberals.  That will take far more subtlety.  In fact, it would be impossible to simply take away the right to vote from those who claim they are Liberals, because after all, they could simply lie and claim to be of another political philosophy.  So instead, perhaps it would be more beneficial to focus on certain other factors and behaviors that are indicators of Liberal attitudes.

What types of factors, other than the imperfect factors of race or gender, could we restrict in an attempt to increase the quality of American voters instead of the quantity?   It is a vexing question, to be sure.  And while I don't claim to have all the answers, the following suggestions could at least be a decent starting point.

Eliminate Voting & Congressional Representation from Major Cities

On one hand, this might seem a bit harsh.  But consider--when you are in a job interview, your potential employer considers your previous track record of employment as a key factor in whether or not he will hire you.  When you begin a new romantic relationship, you ask questions of your potential mate about their previous relationships and history (perhaps even asking mutual friends and accquantainces as well) in order to determine if there are any red flags that would indicate you should not engage in a relationship with them.  When you hire a plumber, contractor, or landscaper, you ask for references and examples of their previous work before you decide to allow them into your home.  Why should voting be any different?  We have a curious phenomenon in this country--a phenomenon in which our most impoverished, crime-ridden, corrupt, destitute cities have been under Democratic control for decades (Here is an article where I discussed this very concept, complete with examples).  You can drive through any of these cities (but please, make sure you lock your car doors before you do so) and see the track record and the results of the decisions those city dwellers made.  Again--these places haven't been under Republican control for any problems or issues (or, potentially, any successes...though there haven't seemed to be many) are entirely a reflection upon the citizens, their politics, their decision-making, their priorities, and their morality.  Given the shape that most of these Democratically-controlled (big "d") cities are in, it should be clear that these people do not have the decision-making ability, or morality to make good decisions (politically or otherwise).  Therefore there is no "upside" to allowing them to vote or to have Congressional representation.  Let's start working toward taking those rights away from those who live in our major cities (make no mistake, I know it will be a LONG road, necessitating one or more Constitutional Amendments...but looking at the track record of the people that live in our cities, doing so is the only rational way forward).

Religious Tests

The onset of mass secularization has played a significant role in the violence and cultural rot that our nation has seen over the last century--not coincidentally the same period of time that so many of our political problems have come about, along with the constant pressures to expand the voter rolls. For much of the Twentieth Century, we have given the "old college try" to the idea that morality is relative, and that all moral and religious viewpoints should be welcomed and have a seat at the disastrous results.  If history teaches us one thing, it demonstrates that Christian values and a Christian culture are the best roads to lead to a peaceful, productive, society (see American History prior to 1950 for a rather profound example).  But what about the First Amendment???  Doesn't that demand a "separation of church and state"?  No, actually it doesn't.  Wouldn't religious tests be prohibited under the First Amendment?  Nope--in fact, early in our history, most states had such tests for holding public office, and it was never a Constitutional issue.

Doubt me?  Here's a video I did back in 2014 discussing our misinterpretation of the First Amendment and "separation of church and state". Prepare to be blown away if you haven't been exposed to these facts before.

At the end of the day, it is clear that only committed Christians have the morality, mindset, and mentality necessary to make good decisions at the polls.  So using religious tests to determine voting rights, or the right to hold public office, is a completely logical step forward.

Raising the Minimum Voting Age

Remember that earlier in this article, I said that I had no interest in repealing the 15th or 19th Amendments.  I do not have such trepedation about repealing the 26th Amendment, however.  For those of you in your 30's, 40's or older, take yourself out of the political realm for a moment and just think of life in general--did you make more bad decisions in your teens and 20's, or today?  Unless you are an absolute freak of nature, you answered that you made far more bad decisions in your teens and 20's.  As we hit middle age, we so often look back on those days and realize how lucky we were to escape them with minimal damage from our poor decisions (and, sadly, many people in that age range who make bad decisions never get the chance to make it to middle age and look back on those days to engage in such introspection).   

Even those of us who managed to stay away from the drugs, STD's, and other dangers still look back on our lives and recognize areas where our decisions fell short.  Speaking politically, I can honestly say that I never voted for a Democrat for the Presidency in my 20's...but as I look back, I wasn't nearly as attentive and involved in politics as I am today--because I didn't yet realize the vital importance of the politics in our society.  In 1996, for example, I just sort of tuned out of the primary process and just started paying attention around time for the general election (and even then, I really only paid a cursory amount of attention).  I pulled the lever for Bob Dole...but as I've gotten older, that decision nearly makes me ill.  I sure do wish that I'd have been a lot more involved in 1996 and backed Pat Buchannan during the primaries rather than just tuning out and "accepting" the inevitability of Dole.  Had the Travis Cook of today--in his early 40's with life experience and wisdom today that I could never have conceptualized back then--been around in '96, I sure would have done things a lot differently.

So raising the voting age is sensible to me, even as I look back on my own political decisions from my 20's.  What would be the best cutoff?  Different opinions abound, of course...but I think that the age of 30 gives most people enough life experience and responsibility to have the "skin in the game" necessary to make good political decisions.  Some would complain that this plan would keep young people in the military from being able to vote--and this is a valid concern.  So perhaps he have a caveat that if you are in the military (or honorably discharged), you can vote at 18.  After all, a 25 year old soldier certainly has life experience that most people twice his age could never compare with.  Also, this would encourage more young people to join the military--something that our society will need going forward into the future, as Muslims, North Koreans, and other assorted enemies (both foreign and domestic) are gathering on our doorstep with the worst of intentions in mind.

No doubt the ideas I've put forth will seem radical--perhaps they are.  But the seriousness of this problem demands that we think outside the box, at least to some degree, in order to resolve it.  One thing is for certain--the direction we have been going in terms of voting rights during the 20th Century has been an abject failure.  It is time to re-think that approach entirely.

Sunday, April 30, 2017

Is It Time for Another Kent State?

"All of it began the first time that some of you  who know better, and are old enough to know better, let young people think that they have the right to choose the laws that they can obey as long as they are doing it in the name of social protest."--Ronald Reagan, speaking about student unrest at a late 1960's press conference.

"If there is to be a bloodbath, let it be now"-Ronald Reagan, speaking on campus violence during an early 1970's campaign speech.

 By now you have seen--on countless occasions, no doubt--the footage, photographs, and descriptions of the violence and chaos brought about by Leftists protesters whenever "controversial" (Read:  "Anyone whom they disagree with and who contradicts their vision of a socialist utopia") speakers visit a college campus.  We have seen their actions lead to the cancellations of speeches by Milo Yiannopolis, Richard Spencer, Charles Murray, Gavin McInnes, and others.  Last week, they claimed perhaps their biggest scalp yet, when a speech by Ann Coulter at Berkeley was abandoned by it's sponsors, the Young Americans Foundation.

Are we to expect that this violent style of "protest" is only a temporary fad from the youthful Left?  I doubt it, given even a cursory understanding of human psychology.  When humans engage in behavior--even "bad" behavior--an an attempt to obtain something...and they end up being given what they want, do they stop the "bad" behavior?  No...instead, the result reinforces that behavior, and they engage in more of it, because they have seen that they get what they want from it.  It is a basic aspect of human conditioning (or, in a more concrete sense, it is something than the parent of any two-year-old can tell you).  And it's not like there are not examples throughout history of this.  Back during the Kennedy administration, JFK (who tried to stay away from discussions of Civil Rights as much as he could, despite what revisionist history written after his death would tell you) ultimately only intervened in the enrollment controversies at The University of Mississippi because he thought it might quell the rioting that had been taking place in the Black neighborhoods around the country.  This, of course, did not work as we saw throughout the 1960's (and even onward to today and the "Black Lives Matter" movement) that the rioting and violence only ratcheted up.  After all, if some violence resulted in some demands being met, then why wouldn't they think that more violence would result in the meeting of more demands?

Appeasement, quite clearly, does not fact, history shows that it only makes the situation worse.  So what is the best way to deal with these violent Snowflakes?  I say you deal with them by calling their bluff.  The next time Atifra, Black Lives Matter, or whatever other collection of youthful thugs and miscreants threaten to "demonstrate" at one of these speeches, the answer is not to become concerned about questions of security and cancel the event and to back down...instead, the answer is for President Trump to activate the National Guard to go in with the speakers. 

And if the "protesters" start with the violence, then the National Guard and local police should start shooting.

And I don't mean with rubber bullets, either.

But wouldn't returning fire on the Snowflake "protesters" result in Americans finding sympathy for them and taking their side?  Hardly.  Look at the example of the Kent State "massacre" in 1970.  While it's true that in modern times, historians have painted the incident at Kent State as sympathetic to the "protesters" of the time (and while many people today believe that the National Guard were in the wrong back then), the American People who were living at the time of Kent State didn't look at it the way we do.  A Gallup poll at the time showed that 58% of Americans blamed the Kent State students for their own deaths, while only 11% were critical of the National Guard.  And this "anti-protest" feeling continued permeating through society to the point that Richard Nixon won re-election in a landslide in 1972.

Ultimately, the modern Snowflake does not think we, as a nation, will respond to their violence and disruption in a meaningful way.  So they hold our college campuses and our city streets hostage as a result.  However, if we meet them with overwhelming force--and we certainly have the means to do so--the game will change.  They will retreat to the holes from which they crawled out of, and will be far less of an issue going forward.  And all of this can be done without the risk of endearing the Snowflakes to Mr. and Mrs. Joe Six-Pack in Middle America.

America is under assault from these's time we defend ourselves.  Yes, part of that occurs on an individual, personal basis of course.  But it also must happen as a society--to send in the National Guard and the Police--with all of the "militarized" equipment that Liberals complain about...and it's time to treat this as a war.

Because, ultimately, a war is exactly what this is.

Sunday, April 16, 2017

Democrats say we don't "Care"...Well why should we???

A few weeks ago, as all of the debate was going on within the GOP and the Trump Administration about repealing Obamacare and what we should replace it with (or, more importantly, whether or not we should "replace" it at all), Democrats stood from afar and criticized all of our efforts and all of the ideas we were debating.  They could do little more than criticize from afar, as their influence in national politics is--thankfully--as small as we've seen it in quite a long time.  With few options left to them other than bitching, moaning, and complaining (or, as those inside the beltway would refer to it, "public discourse"), the current Chairman of the Democratic National Committee tried to launch a rhetorical bomb at Conservatives and Republicans.

DNC Chairman Tom Perez stated, " know what embodies their program?  'I don't care'", and then went on to say, "...because they don't give a shit about people"

Strong words, to be sure.  And predictably, within hours (or was it minutes?) every Republican talking head was on every cable channel, outraged, demanding that Perez walk back his invective.  And given that the purpose of these talking heads and party hacks is to raise money and win elections--and little more--I suppose such a reaction from them was understandable...predictable even.  But I, a Conservative voter who doesn't make his living trying to raise political money or engineer elections, had a far different reaction...

...he's right, I don't care!

In fact, I don't give two shits about all of those who would lose "their" healthcare coverage of Obamacare were to be repealed (though I've always maintained this healthcare isn't legitimately theirs to begin was instead stolen from those of us who are now paying higher premiums and who deal with higher deductibles.  At the very least, the resources that fund the health insurance they now claim as their own were stolen from those of us who have always been able to purchase our no, I don't look at that insurance as being "theirs")  What obligation do I have to sacrifice for my own needs and my own family's needs just so that the needs (or wants) of others can be met? 

Democrats often roll out the number of people who have health insurance who didn't have it before Obamacare (a number that seems to increase every time a Democrat refers to it--usually somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 million...and it's debatable how many of that number actually wanted to purchase health insurance to begin with).  But if we are brutally honest with ourselves, is that number--whatever it may be--any sort of real comfort to those of us who have been negatively impacted by Obamacare?  The great thinker and author, Thomas Sowell, once wrote, "There are no solutions...only tradeoffs".  Well, given the tradeoff we have seen since the birth of Obamacare--some people covered who wouldn't have been covered before (some of which may not have even desired health insurance to begin with--particularly the younger among them) at the expense of higher insurance costs & deductibles and lesser coverage for those of us who had insurance before--why on earth would I (or any of the millions of others who were negatively impacted as I have been) be comfortable or accepting at all of such a tradeoff?

In short, I care far, far more about the situation and resources of myself and my family than I ever would about the situation and resources of anybody else...and it would seem to be unnatural, senseless, and counter-productive to expect me to arrange my priorities otherwise.

This isn't to say that I take issue with the concept of charity--I most certainly do not.  However, charity is a voluntary action--something that individuals do of their own volition in order to help those truly in need.  As such, charity can be a laudable endeavor and--more importantly--an endeavor which brings about far more positive results for those it intends to help than government programs and initiatives often do.  If a church or charitable organization wishes to use voluntary contributions in order to feed, clothe, or provide shelter for those in need (or even provide health insurance), then I'm all in favor of it--and I might even donate to the cause myself.  But attempts by the Federal Government to engage in "Forced Charity"--where our resources are taken by force in order to "help" those that the government deems to be less fortunate (the definition of which is usually created by the special interests who ultimately profit from such legislation)--is something I will oppose and fight with every fiber of my being...whether we are talking of health insurance, education, or the countless list of other social programs that our Federal Government have engaged in that have bankrupted our nation and, in the vast majority of cases, have resulted in far more harm being done to the "less fortunate" than they have resulted in good.

God commands us to give of ourselves to help others.  What God does not command is for us to rob our neighbor in order to "help" somebody that some secular bureaucrat has defined as "less fortunate" (after that bureaucrat has taken his own cut, of course)

So often, Democrats and Liberals seem to approach political questions and issues from the standpoint of "community" or "society"...and while I'm sure that, on the surface, such an attitude sounds appealing when one is speaking publicly and when one doesn't actually consider the implications of such an approach...does any sane person actually approach their day-to-day decisions in life from such a perspective?  Is there any rational person out there who would say, "I would voluntarily reduce the quality of healthcare my own wife has access to so that somebody across town can have some healthcare"?  Is there someone out there with a scintilla of sanity who would say, "I'll sacrifice the quality of my own child's education so that some random person somewhere else can have an education"?

If such a person exists somewhere in the world, then they are King of all fools.

It is natural for any human being to prioritize their own family's well-being over that of some artificially constructed idea of "society" or "community".  And yet, for decades, Liberals and Democrats have expected us to engage in such an unnatural shift of priorities.  Previous generations of Republicans and even Conservatives took the bait somewhat--hopeful as they were that there might exist some way to satisfy all masters and provide both for the well-being of their own familes and provide for the well-being of the "community".   But this new generation of Conservative, Republican, or whatever you want to call us (there hardly seems to be an all-encompassing term that describes this most recent generational evolution in Conservative politics) has learned from history.  We realize that all of these behemoth government social programs have been a disaster--not only in the amount of our own treasure they have robbed from us and squandered, but also in the sense that they have most often contributed to the pathology of the communities they were intended to "help".  And many of us are finally putting our foot down and saying "no more".

So no, Mr. Perez, I don't care about anyone else's healthcare.  I have no legal obligation to do so, just as I don't care about anyone else's education...or anyone else's housing...or anyone else's needs, however you may define them.  If your party wants to begin making inroads into those many states and areas in which you have been getting destroyed in election upon election, then perhaps you should start telling us how you can remove impediments to our own success, rather than telling us how we must sacrifice for the benefit of others...many of which would do us harm if given half an opportunity to do so.