Sunday, June 17, 2018

Instinct over Institutional Thinking

The shortest distance between two points is a straight line.

In terms of mathematics and geometry, we all know this...we learned it in elementary school.  However, as I progress through this life, I find that sentence to apply to most--if not nearly all--areas and situations that human beings encounter.  When dealing with any problem or issue, the most direct, obvious approach so often turns out to be the correct course of action.  The instinctive, the obvious...they so often turn out to be true.  And yet, it seems to be human nature that we don't trust those instincts.  When confronted with a problem or a question, we seem to so often ignore the most knee-jerk, direct, and obvious instinctive answer that comes to mind...and instead we move heaven and earth to look for a direction that is more complex, more thorough, or more complicated.  And time and again, we seem to be disappointed with the results of the complex, reasoned, "rationalized" approach that we choose.

Poker players have a phrase for this phenomenon:  "Think long...Think wrong".  Most any poker player can tell you--often in great detail--about times in which their opponent made a large bet, and they instinctively knew whether they should call or fold...but then that player thought about it...and thought about it...and thought about it...and then changed their mind from what their original instinct was.  And they turned out to be wrong.  Having played my share of poker myself, I can say that some of the biggest pots I've lost are those in which I thought through a situation too much and talked myself out of my instincts...and from my experience, the opposite rarely happens.

Whether you are a poker player, or whether your interests take you in a far different direction than playing cards and chips, there is no doubt you can think back in your own life and remember multiple situations where your instincts would have served you well--if only you hadn't allowed your mind to talk yourself out of your instincts.  When it comes to relationships, issues at your job, interactions with neighbors and other people, or a countless list of other aspects of most likely can think of multiple situations from your own past which make you think "I really wish I'd have stuck with my gut".

So often we allow ourselves to be seduced by complex, complicated, convoluted lines of thinking that--nevertheless--do not demonstrate any higher likelihood of actually resolving whatever issue or question we are dealing with.  But they sound better because they are so complex.  And we feel just a little smarter than our fellow man because we regurgitate these complex, Rube Goldberg approaches to the questions that daunt us.  And then, we scratch our heads wondering why the issues we've tried to resolve don't end up being resolved at all.

The shortest distance between two points really is a straight line.

Of the many elements of President Trump's personality that are problematic to his critics (but which seem like a breath of fresh air to we who support him), perhaps the most egregious is his penchant to trust his gut instinct above the advice, the protocol, the structure, and the institutional zeitgeist within which much of our politics and foreign policy have functioned for much of the last 100 years.  There are many examples of this, but consider for a moment the lead-up to, execution of, and post mortems since the President's summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. When the President initially engaged with the North Korean leader--making it very clear that the United States was willing and able to wipe him and his nation off the planet if they didn't denuclearize--the "experts", the diplomats, the journalists, and many of the government officials were aghast.  "You can't do that!!!!" was the refrain from that segment of society.  "It will lead us to World War III" so many of them said.

And then, when this approach actually bore fruit and brought Kim Jong Un to the table--with little if any leverage in his corner, it must be noted--we were again told what a horrible mistake it would be to actually meet with him.  The chattering classes and the "experts" provided us with all kinds of reasons why it would be abhorrent to meet with "Rocket Man" or "Lil' Kim".  You would be giving him legitimacy on the world stage, they said.  But isn't "legitimacy on the world stage" ultimately nothing more than an abstract, made-up concept that, in terms of concrete reality, doesn't actually amount to anything of significance?  But yet, the "experts" were so appalled that we would risk such an abstract and insignificant thing by having this summit.

And what were the results of the summit?  Well, truly we may not know the real results for years to come...but in the short term, the summit resulted in at least the commitment of North Korea to denuclearize, while The United States had to give up very little (War Games exercises...which we can engage in any number of other places in the world).  Now, how North Korea will (or won't) follow up on this commitment is something that only the sands of time can reveal...but the first step has been taken.  And it's a first step we as a nation have been unable to achieve with North Korea in the last 60 years.  Coincidentally, that 60 year period is the same amount of time that the "experts", the diplomats, the chattering classes, and the Intelligentsia have been forming our foreign policy and approach to North Korea and the rest of the world.

In other words, North Korea is a clear case where the vaunted institutions that we are told are the "experts" in such things ended up being exposed for what they really are--wannabe emperors with no clothes.  For six decades they have ignored gut instinct, basic human psychology, and straightforward approaches to dealing with North Korea for a series of complex, convoluted, confusing, and non-sensicle approaches to North Korea that were all "too clever by half" as our British friends might say.  Their approach didn't move the theoretical football one inch down the field...but yet we continued to allow them to call the plays--their lack of results notwithstanding.  Perhaps there was some sort of comfort in deferring these problems to those whom we were told were the "experts"...perhaps the excuse of "Well, that's how it's always been done" was placating to the American People in it's own right, and we just didn't scrutinize these institutions (or the institutionalists who form them) until recently.

But ultimately, the actions of these institutions ended up contributing far more to the problems we are trying to resolve now, as opposed to helping us make progress in these endeavors.  And it took a President (backed by a legion of Americans who are finally asking the question, "If these people are such experts, then why haven't they solved this North Korean thing before now?") who was from as far outside the beltway cacophony of intellectual incestuousness as one could possibly be to hit the reset button and--unthinkable to many--actually trust his instinct.

And his instinct worked...where their virtual Rube Goldberg machines of diplomacy and protocol had repeatedly failed.

The shortest distance between two points really was a straight line.

Now about that border wall...

Wednesday, February 21, 2018

From my 2/20 Radio Show--A discussion of the 2nd Amendment and how it applies today.

My radio show on 2/20 was among the most important shows that we've done in the history of our "America's Evil Genius" radio program.  We analyze the questions of school shootings as well as AR-15's and so-called "Assault Weapons" through the lens of the Second Amendment--and put these debates into the context of why our Founders wrote and ratified the Second Amendment to begin with. For convenience and ease of distribution, I have split the show into two portions and have uploaded each to Youtube.

Here is Part One:

Here is Part Two:

Please share among all you know who care about our most fundamental of all Civil Rights...our Gun Rights!


Wednesday, February 14, 2018

We don't have a gun problem, we have a Socialism problem.

Given the tragic events at Parkland High School in Florida today, you no doubt have heard scores of people on TV and the internet blaming guns for the tragedy.

But the guns didn't cause this loss of life, what you see in this picture caused this loss of life:

That is Nicholas Cruz.  Wearing a T-shirt that is glorifying Communism, and giving the "Resist" hand gesture.

If you need more details, Pamela Geller is reporting on this killer's social media footprint, including ties to various "resist" groups and pro-Islamic groups

That, right there, is the root of the death and destruction.  It is no different than the Liberal who shot Congressman Steve Scalise...the man who shot up the Country music concert in Las Vegas (after a history of being seen at Anti-Trump rallies)...the man who attacked Rand Paul in his front yard...the fires, property destruction, and attacks on cops that we have seen at the various "protests" that erupt whenever an urban thug is brought to justice by a cop...the violence we have seen at many Antifa protests...the attacks by Left wingers at Charlottesville...

...the pattern is too pervasive to be ignored.

This is not a gun issue--we've had guns in our nation since day one, and far more access to them in the past than we have today.  It's not even a question of the "evil" AR-15 "Assault Rifle"--America has had semi-automatic rifles for most of the 20th Century, and semi-automatic handguns for far longer than that...but only recently have we had the problems with mass shootings and violence.  Let's stop scapegoating the very tools that good, law-abiding Americans need to defend themselves from scumbags like this.

Instead, let us be adult enough and sober enough to realize the true cause--it is Liberalism, Socialism, Communism.  Whatever "ism" is your preferred term, they are literally trying to destroy America and kill any and all of us who love this nation and this country.  It is time to institutionalize or incarcerate every last Democrat, Liberal, and Socialist in America.

Our lives depend on it.

Saturday, February 3, 2018

How Do You Punish the Democratic Party for Their Collusion With The FBI?

When we began this website nearly a year ago, it all sprouted forth from one question that I asked on my radio show:

"What do you do when a sitting political party crosses the line from simply being a disagreeable political opponent...and they instead raise to the level of a national security threat?"

That question was uncomfortable for a lot of people when I asked it on my program, and when I went through the process of fleshing out this idea on the air.  And it became even more uncomfortable for some when I created this website.  It is understandable that we would all like to believe that those who have been elected to public office--even those we vehemently disagree with--would never turn their backs on our country, would never become a danger to us, and would never attempt to perpetrate a coup (silent or otherwise) upon our shores.  Yet, given the memo that was released by the House Intelligence Committee yesterday (You can read the entire memo, as well as some bullet points of the key findings, here), we now know this to be the case.  We know that a Presdential candidate, and her political party, colluded with the FBI first in an attempt to steal a Presidential election, and when that wasn't successful, then to spy on the new administration in an attempt to remove President Trump from office.  That's simply not "politics as usual"...that is a cohesive attempt to infiltrate our highest levels of power, and to procure control of our government for anti-American means.

At this point, I will try and resist the urge to use the phrase, "I told you so"...

But now that we know all that we know, we are confronted with some sobering--and difficult--questions.  What does a nation and a people do next, once actions like this come to light?  What should be our first priority when treasonous actions--the likes of which we haven't seen since Julius & Ethel Rosenburg, at the very least--are brought out into the open? 

No form of government is perfect--as with anything created by human beings, there will always be weak points or areas of vulnerability.  I think that America's history demonstrates that our Founding Fathers came closer than most to that "perfection" that we all seek after when creating a nation or a government, but even they didn't quite achieve group of humans can.  Within our government and our justice system, we do have mechanisms in place to deal with individuals who commit illegal actions or who--even worse--deal in election fraud and even treason.  It is my fervent hope that the Department of Justice will follow through with these mechanisms, not only with the highly-placed FBI agents and Democratic Party officials who were involved, but also that they will included Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in this dragnet, as they, ultimately, were the key players.  So we have a roadmap for what we do with the individuals--arrest, trial, conviction, and then prison or execution--it is only a matter of whether or not the nation has the political will or gumption to follow through with that process.

However, that process only deals with the individuals who were involved...what about the political party that spearheaded these actions?  That's the one weak point here...under our form of government, we do not have a clear mechanism for dealing with political parties and individual voters  who aid and abet acts of treason.  In other words, the Democratic Party needs to be punished for this just as the individuals named in the memo need to be punished...but how can that be done under our current system?

That question is a quite vexing one, indeed.  The bottom line is that the Democratic Party must be removed from political and societal life in America.  That is the only level of justice that would be appropriate, given the findings of the memo.  Likewise, registered Democratic voters must be prohibited from voting--they must be expunged from the voter roles.  After all, they played a key role in aiding and supporting the party that engaged in these actions, and furthermore, are out there even today supporting those actions on social media, in the op-ed pages of newspapers, and elsewhere.  Clearly, those voters are part of the problem, and they must be punished as well, right along with the Democratic Party.

But how?  How can the punishment that is required in the eyes of justice for the Democratic Party and their voters be implemented within a government system that hasn't accounted for that possibility?  It's a vexing question, indeed.  Our only hope in the short term is to pressure individual states to remove the party from their ballots and to purge their voter roles...but of course, there will be an endless amount of court cases that would stem from that.  I don't pretend to have the answer to that question today...but I do think this incident can serve to wake us up as to a "weak point" in our form of government and our judicial system.

We need to have a Constitutional mechanism by which political parties and their individual voters can be punished when they engage in anti-American or treasonous action.  It's all a gray area--legally--at this point.  It's time we begin looking at possible drafts of a new Constitutional Amendment in order to account for this.

For more discussion on this and other topics related to the recent treason of the Democratic Party, join me on my radio show, every Tuesday afternoon at 3:00 EST, 2:00 CST, on  We are also available on the I Heart Radio app, as well.  In addition, you can go to the website and download my archived shows at your leisure.

May God bless America during this difficult time, and give us the wisdom and the gumption to do what must be done in order to save our Republic.

Sunday, January 21, 2018

Government Shutdowns & Priorities

As I write this piece, the federal government is still shut down.  By the time you read this, the shutdown may or may not be resolved (recent history indicates that these shutdowns don't last long, and that they generally get resolved in a matter of days).  But this hasn't stopped the media from completely freaking the F out at the prospect of a government shutdown with all of the supposed calamity & distress it would cause.

But as I look around today--roughly 40 hours or so into this government shutdown--I certainly haven't seen any disaster.  The lights are still on, planes haven't fallen from the sky, there's plenty of food in the fridge and at the local supermarket, and life pretty much seems to be plugging along just like normal.  Nothing especially different about today when compared to the day before, the week before, or the month before.

Perhaps this should indicate to us that the federal government really doesn't provide much of value or consequence in our daily lives to begin with...

But no matter how minimal the actual impact of a government shutdown is (or isn't) when it comes to the day to day lives of regular Americans, a government shutdown is significant, nevertheless.  In terms of the "language" of Washington, a threat of a government shutdown is effectively a Hail Mary "All In" moment, if you will.  Given the "all or nothing" dynamic of such a move, a shutdown is not something that a party engages in on an issue that is anything but their highest priority.  Essentially a last resort when it comes to political strategy--the execution of a government shutdown signals to the American People, in unequivocal terms, what the top priority is of the given party that causes the shutdown.  Effectively, it tells you what that particular party prioritizes above all else.

This is not to say that the strategy (or even the execution) of a government shutdown is inherently a negative thing.  As with any strategy, it is something that can be used judiciously in important situations where it is warranted, just as it can be misused for situations that are not appropriate.  When the Republicans shut down the government during the Obama administration, it was because they were making a last-ditch effort to stop Obamacare.  Attempting to prevent this monstrosity of an entitlement in a desperate attempt to keep it from taking hold in America and causing the negative consequences--both financial and physical--that we ultimately saw once Obamacare was executed.  Given the disaster that government healthcare ultimately is, I would say that shutting down the government (even permanently--though the Republicans ultimately did not have that level of gumption) is a legitimate means of averting such a disaster.

Now that the shoe is on the other foot, what is the cause for which the Democrats have shut down the government over?  What issue is so important--so vital in their minds--that they are willing to "die on that hill" in terms of the issue?  What is the issue that we can rightly assume is their top priority, given that they have shut down the government over it?

That issue would be the protecting the "rights" of the children of Illegal Aliens.

Set aside all of the political labels and back-and-forth blame game that constitutes the rhetoric of both parties during the shutdown...and think of the implications of this decision from the Democrats.  They have literally made the safety, security, and well-being of Illegal Aliens their top priority.  It is these Illegal families for which they are willing to put all of their chips in the middle of the table for.

In other words, the Democrats clearly prioritize the lives of Illegal Aliens and their families over the lives, the safety, and the economic security of actual hard-working, law-abiding, American families.  Your challenges, your safety, and your well-being are no longer a top priority to the Democratic Party (if, indeed, they ever were).

Over the next ten months, Democrats will come into Flyover Country and try to win votes...try to win House seats, Senate seats, Governorships, and any other office they think they can contend for.  And as they do so, they will try to convince you and I that they have our best interest at heart...that they are a better fit for us and will look out for our interests better than President Trump and the Republican Party do.  And there is no doubt, the GOP has it's issues.  There is an establishment wing that has sputtered and opposed this President at every opportunity...and it's sensible that we in Flyover Country would have some distaste in our mouths about much of the GOP...

But when push truly came to shove, when the Democrats had to definitevly demonstrate their top priority...was that priority your family and mine, or was that priority the families of Illegal Aliens?

This goes beyond party, and beyond speaks to something, instead, far more basic.  An American political party has just prioritized non-citizens--criminals, even--over and above American citizens.  I don't care what twisted rationale they come up with for doing so, I don't care what fancy words they try to use in order to justify the decision they made...such an action is unacceptable for any party, or any American citizen to engage in.  There is simply no reason, or no set of circumstances, which can justify or excuse this prioritization.

And so, while I don't care about whether or not the federal government is shut down (in truth, I believe large parts of the federal government should be shuddered permanently...but that's probably another column for another time), I certainly do care about why the shutdown happened, as the answer to that "why" question demonstrates in absolute terms who and what the Democratic Party stands for.  As such, I come back again to the central theme of this website--that the Democratic Party has moved beyond simply being an opposition political party, and has become a legitimate national security threat.

When they are willing to shut down our government in order to advance the cause of dangerous, law-breaking, non-Americans...can any other conclusion be drawn?

Monday, January 15, 2018

That time I discussed Shithole Countries on the BBC

With President Trump's recent alleged comments regarding "Shithole Countries", I had the opportunity to go on BBC radio and defend this type of language and these comments.  My interview aired on BBC World Service as well as BBC Africa (meaning, presumably, that I am now thoroughly hated on two separate continents).

Here is a link to the audio of my appearance on BBC Radio


Tuesday, October 24, 2017

Protesters: You Still Haven't Convinced Us

Protests, protests, protests.  They are everywhere.  Whether it's spoiled, millionaire football players taking a knee during the national anthem, or whether it's urban thugs & millennial snowflakes marching through the streets while vandalizing buildings and physically attacking police officers, (Hellllllooooo, St. Louis!  I'm talkin' to you!!!), you practically can't turn on a television, pull up a website, or (in some cities) drive downtown without smacking headlong into a group of malcontents protesting the "plight" of Blacks in America when it comes to policing.

But is any of it having an effect?  For all of the screaming, shouting, chanting, visuals, sound bytes, and (at least in the case of St. Louis recently) brick-throwing...what is the actual point of any protest?  Well, in theory, the point of a protest is twofold.  First, to make the public aware of an issue or problem that you find significant.  Secondly, you hope to then convince the public that they should join you in resolving that issue--usually by backing legislation and politicians that will change laws in an attempt to deal with the issue in question.

On the first count, those protesting against police and supposed "Black Oppression" have certainly been successful--for whatever any of us think of the "cause" at hand, there isn't a one of us who is not, after the last couple of years, fully aware of the grievances that the assorted protesters have.  No matter what proverbial rock you have been living under, you can likely recite the complaints and criticisms of these protesters upon command...every TV station, Newspaper, and major social media site has made certain of it.  Let's be clear--there is not an American alive today who has not been made aware of the issues being raised by these various protesters.

But it's that second point of protesting that has fallen short--the goal of persuading the general public that your complaints and issues are valid, and that we should join in with you when it comes to making the changes that are being demanded by protesters.  After all of the protesting, violence, yelling, screaming, etc over the last two years...are movements like Black Lives Matter seeing folks in Middle America or Flyover Country flying to their defense? fact, it seems as though the opposite is happening.  Bypass the newspapers and political commentators for a moment, and go to social media or to the comments section of any news story on a protest...what do you see?  You see a deluge of comments that are very negative towards any of these type of protests, and a definite frustration with the vitriol towards police and basic patriotism.  And these comments and reactions aren't just simple mean-spirited barbs...more and more often they are comments showing the genunie frustration of normal, everyday Americans with these protests--not only with the anti-cop and anti-American messages they are sending, but also with the added danger they are bringing to the daily lives of regular, law-abiding citizens who live in cities where they occur.  On the larger scale, we are seeing TV ratings and attendance in the NFL (who has coddled the millionaires who are disrespecting our flag) fall like a rock, and we are seeing more and more pushback at protests around the country.

And this is no small thing.  After all, if these protesters--both the millionaires and the thugs alike--truly want the change that they are demanding...then they will need to advance these causes through the lawmaking bodies that exist.  You know--your State Legislatures, Governorships, etc.  Now, in order to move the change you want through these lawmaking bodies--and to get them codified in terms of new law--how do you do this?  You do this by convincing those who are not organically drawn to your cause, so that they will pressure their Representatives, Senators, and other elected leaders to fall in behind them and support those causes.

But if those people are getting frustrated with your actions...and if they still aren't convinced that "police brutality" and "Black oppression" are things that exist...then you get nowhere.

And your cause gets nowhere.  More than that, people start actively fighting against your cause.

At the end of the day, we in Normal, Real, Regular America have heard your grievances.  And, believe it or not, we do understand the positions you are taking.  But we don't actually believe them.  You haven't convinced us...and yet, we keep seeing you commit violence, threaten cops, and disrespect our flag...

...and though this is somehow supposed to convince us to change our minds?  You're kidding, right?

Think for a moment about the movement's led by Martin Luther King.  They were nonviolent, of course...but much more than that, they were set up aesthetically to show his followers simply trying to live the same, normal, American life that the rest of us do.  Taking a seat on a bus, eating a lunch counter hamburger, that sort of thing.  He portrayed his followers as being unable to participate in the same normal lives that the rest of America was a message that the general public could relate to.  And it worked.

What you didn't see MLK do was vandalize buildings or set cities on fire.  You didn't see his followers burning the flag or throwing bricks at police.  You didn't see his followers kneeling for the flag.  In other words--these modern protesters are exhibiting behaviors that regular Americans cannot possibly relate to.  And cannot possibly justify.

At this point, these modern protesters have only two options remaining.  Option #1 is to continue doing what you're doing--pushing a message and a narrative that the rest of America hasn't bought, and continue using violent, anti-American means in order to do so.  This option will not end well, as it will simply force the rest of America to take a more defensive, protective approach when dealing with you.  Your cause will not advance at all, in fact it will only get set back further.  Option #2 is to stop for a moment, step back, and realize that you have articulated your message...the rest of America has considered it...and we have said "no".  From that point, perhaps you can realize that your message had no validity in the first place, and begin focusing on how to better assimilate the urban community into America once again, instead of constantly fighting against it.

That second option is the only one which can work out well for the urban community.