Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

My Facebook page is full of complaints by Liberal friends. They’re hurting now because ignorant racist misogynist Trump voters rejected Hillary.  They demand that Trump voters be respectful of their feelings.  Don’t gloat over winning: reach out, be inclusive, help heal America.  They’re unfriending family members who crow about Trump winning because if they did that, they really can’t have been very good friends to begin with.

In other words, Liberals demand a ‘safe space’ on Facebook. Everyone is entitled to an opinion as long as it agrees with theirs; dissent is hatred.  Winning requires surrender.

Yeah, well, I remember the attitude they showed to us when Obama won.

Man, am I sick of Liberals.

Joe Doakes

My sense of sportsmanship pretty much foreswears all but tongue-in-cheek gloating.  I may have been the last generation raised with the idea of “sportsmanship” – and that’s not a good thing.  We’d be a better place.

But yeah, Joe, I totally hear you.

If They Gave Pulitzers For Great Writing About Important Topics

There was a time when “Cracked” magazine was “Mad” magazine’s downmarket, cheap competitor; “Guitar World” to “Guitar Player”, “Hustler” to “Playboy”.

I have no idea what this online world has wrought – but while Cracked has turned into a hit-generating listicle mill, it has come to feature some excellent writing.

Now, forget the market talk.

In fifteen years, I’ve been trying to come up with an article that would explain this nation’s rural/urban divide – the divide that’s driving the Trump candidacy and the surge of animus behind it – as well as this article, by David Wong.

Just an exerpt, from the exposition:

If you’d asked me at the time, I’d have said the fear and hatred wasn’t of people with brown skin, but of that specific tribe they have in Chicago — you know, the guys with the weird slang, music and clothes, the dope fiends who murder everyone they see. It was all part of the bizarro nature of the cities, as perceived from afar — a combination of hyper-aggressive savages and frivolous white elites. Their ways are strange. And it wasn’t like pop culture was trying to talk me out of it:

Ruthless Records
“… And Into Some Nightmares”

It’s not just perception, either — the stats back up the fact that these are parallel universes. People living in the countryside are twice as likely to own a gun and will probably get married younger. People in the urban “blue” areas talk faster and walk faster. They are more likely to be drug abusers but less likely to be alcoholics. The blues are less likely to own land and, most importantly, they’re less likely to be Evangelical Christians.

No, it goes way way way beyond that.    This may be the best thing I’ve read on the internet all year

Read the whole thing.  Forward it to your friends – especially blue-state fops who really just don’t get why Trump is a thing – and why he may just be the tip of the iceberg.

Return Of The DFL Dictionary

One of the features that originally put this blog on the map was “The DFL Dictionary” – a list of the Democrat party’s perversions of the English Language.

It occurs to me – the feature hasn’t been updated in close to eight years.

So today I’m going to start working on an update

New Terms:  Here are some of the new terms I’d like to try to define:

  • Rape Culture
  • Safe Space
  • Trigger
  • Systemic Racism
  • Black Vulnerabilty
  • cultural normalcy
  • Vagenda of Manocide
  • Mansplaining
  • Voter Suppression
  • Wage Gap
  • Consent Text
  • Privilege
  • Cisgender
  • Shaming
  • Police Brutatily / Police Overreach
  • Race based
  • Hands Up Don’t Shoot
  • “Justice” (saka “Racial Justice”)
  • “Oppressor”
  • Social Justice Warrior
  • Privilege
  • Appropriation
  • Supremacy
  • Xenophobic
  • Misogynistic

I’m open for new definitions of these terms (and I have a few myself, but most of you are smarter than me).   If you’ve got a definition or two, throw ’em in down in the comment section.

And then…:

What Have I Missed?:  I know I’ve missed some terms.  Throw ’em in down in the comment section!

La Generalissima

On her Twitter page, Minneapolis city Council woman Alandra Cano refers to herself as a “Third World feminist” – or did, before she blocked me for questioning her thuggish ways last winter, when she published personal addresses, emails and phone numbers of her critics who had written her on the city of Minneapolis website.

I couldn’t speak to the “feminist” part, but Cano certainly has the basics of banana republic tactics down; her response to the ethics charges that came out of the episode last winter (on which My coverage led the entire Twin Cities media) is a big game of “I know you are, but what am I, and if you say anything I’m going to her you twice as hard and quote.
No my coverage led the entire Twin Cities media) is a big game of “I know you are, but what am I, and if you say anything I’m going to her you twice as hard and quote.

No, really:

“I disagree with the findings and have kept screenshots of the ways other Council Members, including CM Frey (Ward 3), Bender (Ward 10), Glidden (Ward 8), Abdi (Warsame, Ward 6) and others have used city property for ‘political purposes.’” She goes on, threatening to “speak out against the vote and circulate a press release to the media about the issue with the screenshots I’ve gathered since January of 2016” if the Council moves forward with approving the Ethics findings.

John Edwards of Wedge Live responds:

Cano responded to the stories about her email on Facebook, saying: “When a person of color speaks up, it should not be misconstrued as a “threat” to society, it should be respected as their truth.” Whatever Cano’s intent, the reason people interpreted her email as a threat, is because she constructed it that way: if you vote against me, I’ll put out a press release with incriminating screenshots. This is not to say Cano can’t make an argument that she’s being singled out unfairly, or that she can’t produce evidence to support her defense. But if she was trying to make that argument, she obscured it by writing an email that looked like blackmail.
Alondra Cano really has been the target of vicious racist attacks because of her support for BLM. Separate from those vile attacks, Council President Barb Johnson and some of Cano’s other colleagues really have gone out of their way, to a sometimes comical degree, to trash her in the local media. But it’s also true that Cano picks too many unnecessary battles, irritating her colleagues in a way that transcends race and ideology.

That an elected member of a party with sole control of a major city thinks she can complain about others’ “privilege” is a laugh riot.

And while she may or may not be a “third world feminist”, she’s certainly got the Chicago tinhorn ward-heeler thing down.


National Public Radio spent the weekend essentially on wall-to-wall coverage of the Smithsonian’s African-American History Museum over this past weekend.

And other than the spectacle of the President of the United States trying affect an Alabama accent, the event – and the museum – sounded interesting, and very much worth a stop the next time I’m in DC.  Whenever that might be.

In stark contrast stands the Minnesota African-American museum, which, notwithstanding three million dollars in various kinds of financing, grants and gifts, has been auctioned off to satisfy creditors:

The latest chapter in a complicated, seven-year tangle of funding struggles and work disputes took less than two minutes in an auction held Tuesday at a counter in the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office. Attorneys for the construction, plumbing and electrical companies that had previously won a court judgment for unpaid work at the museum joined together to purchase the property for $1.3 million: the total amount a judge found that they are owed. The group was the sole bidder at the public auction.

Supporters of the museum are now trying to strike a deal with Minneapolis Community and Technical College to display some items and exhibits, but the museum is without a permanent home — and some financial backers are out thousands of dollars in investments.

Leaders of the museum have not spoken publicly about their plans. The museum’s president, Nekima Levy-Pounds, declined to comment and its last executive director, Lissa Jones, could not be reached for comment. Other prominent supporters, including founder Roxanne Givens and state Sens. Bobby Joe Champion and Jeff Hayden either declined to discuss the museum’s sale or could not be reached for comment on Tuesday.

It might be possible to look at the facts of this episode and not conclude that the whole thing was a means of transferring wealth from taxpayers and non-profits to favored members of the political class.

I’m not sure how you get there, but it’s possible.

Charitable Exhortation

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

In what conceivable way is my charitable giving any of my employer’s business?  

 More annoying – they pick some charity they want to fund and hit up everybody to contribute.  I nominate the National Rifle Association.  No?  Why not?  Why does it have to be the United Way funneling money to Leftist causes?

 A “charitable contribution” is, by definition, a non-governmental activity for which my contribution is tax-deductible.  Why would a governmental entity be encouraging government employees to reduce the tax revenues from which we’re funded?

 Joe Doakes

It’s not like tax revenue ever really drops…

Deplorables Like Us

Hillary “regrets” the “gross generalization” of saying:

“…you can put half of Trump supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables,” Clinton said. “Right? Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic, you name it.”
She added, “And unfortunately, there are people like that and he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people, now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets offensive, hateful, mean-spirited rhetoric.”
Clinton then said some of these people were “irredeemable” and “not America.”

Candidate says something stupid on the campaign trail that the media gingerly reports during the weekend news dump, and quickly walks it back Saturday? Dog bites man.

Democrat noise machine (non-profit and mainstream media divisions) leap into action to support the “gross generalization” within hours, waving polls of deeply suspicious origin about?

Dog licks dog.

Here’s the problem with the “gross generalization”; Hillary Clinton doesn’t take a dump if it’s not part of a plan.  This was no accidental “gross generalization”.

The other problem?  The things she accuses the “irredeemable deplorables” of are nice and non-specific; each deserves a section in the DFL Dictionary (more later this week.    They resemble nothing so much as Article 76 of the Soviet Constitution – which basically covered nonspecific crimes against the state that weren’t articulated anywhere else – sort of an extrajudicial wild card.

Question government “human rights” policy?  Or even debate that racism is anything but a social construct of white Americans? You’re racist!

Point out the bias built into domestic abuse law, or even question the result of modern feminism?  You’re sexist!

Stand for traditional marriage?  You’re a hatefui homophobe!

Advocate caution and protecting our economically disadvantaged with immigration policy?  You’re xenophobic and probalby Islamaphobic!

Are you in the irredeemable half of the “not voting for Hillary” public, or not?

Depends on where they need you to be.  Only they know for sure.

Hillary’s “generalization” was a slander of half the American people.

The Raj

Dana Loesch once noted via subtitle that “you can’t govern a country you’ve never been to”.  I might add that it’d be hard for the mainstream media to cover a nation none of them understands – but that’s another article.

The easiest way to govern people that you never see, and don’t care to bother to understand, is to tell them what they really want and need.  And the American Left is doing that via the notion that the great mass of Americans in largely-red “flyover land” – the expanse between the Hudson and the Sierra Madre that America’s political and major media classes regard with such frigid fear – consistently “vote against their interests” by voting Republican.  The phrase “voting against their interests”, where “they” are people you don’t know, whose lives and values you don’t understand, used to remind me of a zookeeper wondering why the cats in the panther exhibit turned up their nose at Panther Chow – but that underestimates both the panthers and the zookeepers.   It’s really more like the relatoinship between plantation owners and their serfs – but not that kind of plantation owner, y’understand.  No, the kind that cares about his/her serfs, and wants to do right by them, and who is hurt when they, being unruly knaves, spurn his/her benificence.

And being good plantationers, they occasionally try to understand their subjects.

Of course, those attempts invariably fail – run aground on their patronizing, condescending, usually classist assumptions.

The NYTimes bestseller list first saw this phenomenon with the best-selling What’s the Matter with Kansas by Thomas Franks, in which the writer – a Kansan who fled the state for New York – prescribed a generation of Kansans (and by extension other flyover staters) becoming, or at least voting like, Ivy Leaguers.

I personally saw it in Gail Collins’ inadvertently comical trip to Williston, in which she looked at the roughneck oil-town environs through her Park Avenue contact lenses, and in the documentary “The Overnighters”, which pounded oil workers into sociology-class stereotypes with the energy of a Nigerian metalsmith turning an oil drum into a cook stove.

So when a Berkeley sociologist1 Arlie Russell Hochschild goes to rural Louisiana  to chronicle the lives of Tea Partiers, you’d think you could predict the results.   The book is called Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right, and it’d seem you’d be right. No, I’ve not read it, and likely won’t.  But the surprise is in the review itself, in the Washington Post, whose article on the book is titled “A Berkeley sociologist made some tea party friends — and wrote a condescending book about them“.  

I’ll invite you to read the whole thing.  But this reminded me of Gail Collins standing in the line at McDonalds in Williston:

When she lands in Louisiana, Hochschild realizes, “I was definitely not in Berkeley, California. . . . No New York Times at the newsstand, almost no organic produce in grocery stores or farmers’ markets, no foreign films in movie houses, few small cars, fewer petite sizes in clothing stores, fewer pedestrians speaking foreign languages into cell phones — indeed, fewer pedestrians. There were fewer yellow Labradors and more pit bulls and bulldogs. Forget bicycle lanes, color-coded recycling bins, or solar panels on roofs. In some cafes, virtually everything on the menu was fried.”

Dear God, no yellow Labs or solar panels? How do you live?

And I’m trying to imagine this bit here…:

Hochschild preps for her conservative immersion by reading “Atlas Shrugged,” because we know tea party types are into that. “If Ayn Rand appealed to them, I imagined, they’d probably be pretty selfish, tough, cold people, and I prepared for the worst,” this acclaimed sociologist writes. “But I was thankful to discover many warm, open people who were deeply charitable to those around them.”

…had Hochschild changed her subjects from rural whites to Urban blacks, and Ayn Rand to Malcolm X.  

She’d never do lunch in Berkeley again.

The second American Revolution will be against our fellow Americans.


Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

The Ad Hominem logical fallacy is an attack on the speaker’s credibility, rather than on the facts at hand.  A Liberal using that fallacy would say: “His opinions are wrong because of who is expressing those opinions, regardless whether he’s correct on the facts.”  

 I want to know the word for the opposite of Ad Hominem, where a Liberal would say: “His opinions are correct because of who is expressing those opinions, regardless of whether he’s right about the facts.”

 I thought of Appeal To Authority but that’s where the authority actually is an authority, for example, citing Paul Krugman as an authority on economics.  It’s still a logical fallacy because it substitutes Krugman’s opinion for proof of the facts at hand, but it’s not quite the right fallacy.

 I’m thinking of the Liberals saying Obama is Black and therefore Obama-care must be good, anybody who opposes him must be evil, based on his skin color and not on the merits of the proposal.  He’s not an actual authority on health insurance so Appeal to Authority is the wrong fallacy.

 I was reminded of it by the recent article on Thug in Pastels starring Javier Morillo, who advocates the same ideas as any Left-Wing union stooge but from the unimpeachable position of a Gay Hispanic man.  Liberals treat him as if his opinions are right because of who is expressing those opinions.  He’s untouchable, so his opinions are untouchable, whether or not they’re correct on the facts.  What’s the word for that?

 Is it the Halo Effect? 

Joe Doakes

Figuring out the logic of the left could keep an army of philosophers busy for years.

“You Are A Horrible Person”, She Explained

It’s becoming a tradition; every year, the Star Tribune editorial board theatrically laments the “death of civility” in Minnesota politics.


Or, to be accurate, the paper – like most other media outlets in the Twin Cities – laments the fact that occasionally, someone hurts a liberal’s feelings.

Last week, the paper ran an op Ed by a Susan Mallison. And, let’s be honest – the episode she relates was pretty darn uncivil:

I wore my Hillary shirt to the fair. As I stood at the Star Tribune booth at the bottom of the Grandstand ramp, suddenly a man approached me so closely that he was invading my personal space (nose to nose). He sneered at me and snarled, “Do you like my picture?” as he pulled something out of his pocket. I was very frightened by his actions, and felt, at that moment, the picture he was shoving toward my face would be of his penis.

It was a picture of Hillary wearing prison garb. I recognized the picture as the image at the Minnesota Republican Party booth that I had seen earlier. The man had mounted it on cardboard, covered it with plastic wrap and was carrying it around in his pocket. Presumably he was looking for people wearing Hillary shirts in order to threaten them.

That’s a little scary – and, let’s be honest, no different than experiences I have had from the other side.   The Strib will never, ever, ever take the faintest shard of interest in any of those, naturally.

But when Susan Mallison cries out “who killed civility”, the response is “after all, Sue, it was you”:

I intend to proudly continue to wear both my Hillary T-shirt and the button that I bought at the DFL booth at the fair. The button says, “Love Trumps Hate.”

The purple faced, outraged caricatures like those that Ms. Mallison relates to us are the comic book version of the real incivility in this state, and in our society: The lumpen, plush bottom, ELCA-coiffed, Volvo driving, Garrison Keillor upsucking, Whole Foods shopping, free range alpaca wearing plush bottomed yoohoos who pin on their DFL issued flair and carry the message that “either you are with us, with the DFL, with Herself, or you are full of hate”.

These are the people who have debased the term “hate” unto meaninglessness.

In your own way, Susan Mallison,  you are no better.


Joe Doakes emails us a link to a post by Clayton Cramer, who compares murder rates in Idaho and western Canada:

Idaho: 2.0/100,000

For the Canadian provinces:
Manitoba: 3.43
Saskatechewan: 2.13
Alberta: 2.52
Yukon: 6.88
Nunavut: 10.93

Yet all those provinces have Canada’s restrictive gun control laws.

Alhough, at least anecdotally, people in Saskatchewan and Alberta were the least obedient to Canada’s gun control laws when they were passed.

But I digress:

Idaho at that point had a shall-issue concealed weapon license law (now,  no licenses are required).  I can buy a gun without background check or waiting period, either at a licensed dealer or a gun show.  Friends own machine guns, completely legally.  Idaho is very similar demographically to Saskatechewan, Alberta, and Manitoba.  If gun availability or porous borders make , Idaho should be substantially worse than those Canadian provinces, not better.  Of course the gun control nuts don’t care about murder rates; this is really about cultural disparagement.

And cultural conquest.

Lie First, Lie Always: I’m Shocked. Shocked, I Tell You

“Why are you gun fondlers so paranoid”, the snarky but uninformed “gun safety” parrots chant in smug unison.  “Why do you oppose universal background checks?”

“It’s ‘Human Rights Activist’, you closet commie” I gently correct them.  “And it’s because while the same criminals who aren’t going through background checks now aren’t going to start when they become ‘universal’, it will be used to compile a list of gun owners”.

“Pshaw”, they say, which surprises me, since I haven’t heard the word “pshaw” since I watched a Ma and Pa Kettle short when I was a little kid.  “That’s just paranoid”.

And I respond “As usual, at best, you’re uninformed, and at worst, you’re lying“.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), the go-to federal oversight agency, conducted an audit of ATF and found it does not remove certain identifiable information, despite the law explicitly mandating it do so. GAO conducted reviews for four data systems, and concluded at least two of ATF’s systems violated official protocols.

One of the data-collecting systems called Multiple Sales (MS) requires that multiple firearms purchased at once must be reported to ATF by the federal firearms licensee (FFL). ATF policy requires that the bureau internally removes particular data from multiple gun sales reports after two years if the firearm has not been traced to criminal activity. GAO found that ATF does not adhere to its own policy. In fact, “until May 2016, MS contained over 10,000 names that were not consistently deleted within the required 2 years.”

Every bit of information you give government gives government an opportunity to use it against you.

Shades Of Things To Come?

Why does the American political class spend so much time jabbering about “gun safety”, about gay marriage, about climate change?

To distract you from the economy, and the oncoming deflation of a huge entitlement debt bubble that is going to have drastic impact on…well, everything.

The California pension system – which is a bellwether for most blue-state-model pension systems around the country – is starting to groan under the strain of the contradictions it labors under (emphasis added):

As Steven Malanga has noted, both of these union-managed funds are notorious for pulling political stunts even as they face gaping shortfalls, going on a misguided “green” investing binge that flushed taxpayer money down the drain, and pulling out of tobacco companies on moral grounds just before those stocks began to rise.

But the underlying flaw with the funds is not their politicization. If anything, these kinds of moves are a distraction from more pressing crisis of public employee retirement systems: That state legislatures have epically over-promised the level of retirement benefits they can reasonably provide, and obscured this reality by presuming levels of investment returns that are impossible to sustain, especially in this era of historically low interest rates.

The choice is pretty stark – massive reforms, including a shift away from defined-benefit pensions for public employees, and other tough choices.

Politicians from both sides hate tough choices – but it’s the blue model that’s given us this debt, and it’s the blue states that are facing the most immediate fallout.

Minnesota’s public plans are – depending on your political point of view – either better-administered, or do a better job of laundering the money.  Maybe it’s a little bit of both, combined with a state that has a better income-to-debt ratio than California for now, but the pain might strike us later.

Emphasis is on “later”.


Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

When did protesting become an all-purpose Get Out Of Jail Free card?

 Black Lives Matter want to protest police brutality, so they walk down the middle of the freeway.  That costs the taxpayers money paying cops overtime to guard the protestors and paying highway crews overtime to clean up after them, money which is NOT going to repairing our failing infrastructure of roads and bridges.  The cost per protester might easily be thousands of dollars.  

 If I wanted to film the chase scene for a movie set on that same stretch of freeway, I’d have to get a permit, film at non-rush hour, pay the cops and pay for clean-up. Why should those services be free for protesters?

 Add in the societal cost of blocking I-35 during rush hour last year, or blocking I-94 on 4th of July Weekend, the thousands of hours lost by people who couldn’t get home, the tons of additional pollutants discharged by idling engines, the emotional damage to families caused by “Are we there yet” and “Stop crying or I’ll give you something to cry about” making this the Worst Vacation Ever . . . the protesters have much to answer for.

 Arrest them, charge them with a crime, sentence them to time served and a one-dollar fine PLUS restitution.  Let’s see how serious they are when the real cost of their anti-social activities are laid at their feet.

 Joe Doakes

The whole point of “civil disobedience” is accepting the consequences of doing something illegal and confrontational, to highlight the injustice – especially if it’s really, really unjust.

Water cannon blasting black school children?  Highlighted injustice pretty starkly.

People blocking interstates, keeping other people from getting to/from work with no consequence to themselves?  Not so much.

Obama’s Dumbest Idea Yet

Remember all the wondrous things Obama wrought by nationalizing the healthcare system?

Remember?  Heck, you’ve barely started feeling the pain!

But wait.  It gets worse.  Now, he wants to nationalize the police:

The report urges the federal government to federalize police training and practices, via the use of federal lawsuits, grants and threats to cut federal aid. So far, Obama’s deputies have cajoled and sued more than 30 police jurisdictions to adopt federal rules in a slow-motion creation of a national police system, similar to the slow-motion creation of a federal-run health-sector via Obamacare.

Obama also used the press conference to insulate his federalized police program — and his allies in the Black Live Matter movement — from popular rejection after the five police were murdered by the anti-cop African-American in Dallas.

“The danger is that we somehow think the act of a troubled person speaks to some larger political statement across the country — it doesn’t,” Obama insisted. 

This has the potential to be the most corrosive domestic part of an already toxic legacy.



Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

President Obama promised to transform America.

A college degree is no longer a sure investment.

Real estate is no longer an escalator to wealth.

Government bonds pay the lowest rates ever.

Race relations have never been worse.

Bathrooms are confusing.

Once, at least we had . . .

The Rule of Law, but

Now that’s gone.

So . . .

 What’s the survival strategy for the Second Clinton Presidency?

 Joe Doakes

You did see “Red Dawn”, right?

Rule Of Law

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

Conservatives are upset the FBI’s recommends no prosecution of Hillary for her email crimes.  They say the fix was in, and this line proves it: “To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.”

 In other words: crimes that are okay for Hillary to commit, are not okay for others to commit.  So don’t worry, our national security will remain safe from betrayal by Little People.

 Any reasonable person would know they were committing a crime, probably treason.  But no reasonable prosecutor would bring this case.  Why is that?  Well because they know that the Clinton’s are untouchable, and that The Won will grant a pardon if they do try to bring it, and that the person bringing the case will be utterly destroyed in the vendetta that Shrillery will launch on them; see Ken Starr.

 But a reasonable prosecutor and reasonable federal agents persecuted some previously unknown shlep for a video that was used as the excuse of the death of the Ambassador in Benghazi.  In a pre-planned terrorist attack, that can never be called that because, among other things, it may have been planned based on information obtained from Hillery’s closet server.  

 Joe Doakes

That whole “of, by and for the people” thing is rapidly fading from “inaccurate” to “cruel joke”.

Wrong About Rights

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

Liberals want to strip gun rights from people on the No Fly List.  The only civil rights group standing up for the constitutional rights of citizens is the National Rifle Association.

 But wait, didn’t the ACLU also object?  Sort of.  The ACLU objects to using the No Fly List in its present form to deny civil rights.  If there was an easier way to get your name off the list, the ACLU would be fine with using it to block gun purchases.

 That idea flips constitutional law on its head.  The Founders explained in the Declaration of Independence that Rights come from God, not from government.  The Constitution exists to protect our Rights from the government.  Therefore, the government should not have the power to arbitrarily take away Rights and then allow citizens to beg to get them back (ACLU version).  The government should bear the burden of proving why the citizen’s Rights should be taken away BEFORE the Rights are taken (NRA version).

 To see how absurd the ACLU’s plan is, try substituting other rights.  “Journalists on the No Truth List are forbidden to publish anything bad about Hillary Clinton.  But you can request a special waiver to get off the list.”   Or how about “Women on the No Fetus List are forbidden to get an abortion.  But you can submit an application to get your name removed from the list.”  Can you imagine the ACLU’s response?

 Justice Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion to the new Whole Women’s Health abortion case, saying: “ . . . our Constitution renounces the notion that come constitutional rights are more equal than others.”  Too bad it’s only a dissent; the country would be better off if more people believed that.

 Joe Doakes

The big problem is that a majority of Americans have no idea what a “right” is.


Andy Aplikowski – long of the “Residual Forces” blog – writes re the Brexit on Facebook:

So it appears the only people still whining about ‪#‎BREXIT‬ are:

1) European politicians who will lose power.
2) American politicians afraid of Federalism and State’s rights catching on in the US.
3) Filthy rich who lost a “crap ton” of money due to stock market and currency corrections.

The rest of the world doesn’t seem to be permanently affected. Maybe we should have more votes of no confidence in the people who are screwing up the world.

Line up the petitions.  I’m good to go.

A Banana Republic, If You Can Keep It

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

The IRS has released a list of nearly 500 conservative groups it targeted for extra scrutiny to delay their fundraising abilities and thereby allow Democrats to outraise, outspend and out-advertise their way to winning the election.

I’m so old that I can remember the President of the United States insisted there was not even a smidgen of corruption at the IRS.

 With this new information, I guess the President will be outraged to learn he was misled, heads will roll, people will be fired and prosecuted.  Hell, the President might even step down out of sheer embarrassment, knowing that his party intentionally violated the civil rights of millions of Americans for the benefit of Democrats in Congress. 

 Joe Doakes

Ya gotta have faith.