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.