The flow of the following three questions is important because they expose the racist mindset of those who “convicted” Mr. Arpaio, and the flaw in their racist thinking.

These questions are simple yes and no, a person should answer them honestly according to what they believe.

1) Do you believe different races exit?

2) Do you believe people from Mexico are a different race?

3) Do you believe that groups you consider to be different races should be arrested and convicted of crimes based on a racial quota system, completely ignoring the actual rates of crimes within their communities?

Those who were behind Mr. Arpaio’s “conviction” firmly believe all three, and it’s precisely why they subjectively convicted him. The “profiling” charge is a smoke screen, and questions 1 and 2 firmly expose the racist mindset behind that charge as well. But the main thing the Left is concerned with in terms of “racial justice” is that there be quotas in the rates of arrest of what they consider to be “different races”, regardless of the crime rate for a given community or group.

Now, all of this said, I think Mr. Arpaio should truly be investigated for, and possibly removed from office for, poor record keeping, misappropriation of funds, mistreatment of prisoners and fraudulent clearance of cases.  These are not proven allegations but there is substantial evidence behind each of them.

To read a report issued almost 10 year ago about these problems by a conservative think-tank, please take a look at the Goldwater Institute document:

Mission Unaccomplished: The Misplaced Priorities of the Maricopa County Sheriff ’s Office

While it appears there may very will be corruption or incompetence on Arpaio’s part, these problems do not prove racism, which has been the main thrust of the Democrat move to oppose and remove him.  Indeed, the Democrat’s own racially based strategy of opening arms to immigrants such as MS-13 gang members would result it it’s own brand of miscarriage of justice and jeopardy to citizens.

But in terms of simple racism, Mr. Arpaio is not necessarily the racist, those on the Left are.



Real Multiculturalism

The thought occurred to me the other day that when the Left says “multicultural”, what they really mean is “monocultural”, and you’d better not try to integrate any culture with any other! This is the ~opposite~ of real multiculturalism. Real multiculturalism is a coming together, with an acceptance of non-fault aspects of all other cultures in celebration. It is “e pluribus unum”, out of many, one. But the Left’s radical monoculturalism is “e unum puribus”, out of one, many. They are against real multiculturalism.

John Wayne weighing in (sorry for the campy music, and warning, some graphic images):

I asked a friend from high school to answer three simple yes / no questions, and they flat-out refused to answer them honestly and publicly. The questions were:

Do you believe in any of the following three modern Democrat planks:

1) Different races exist

2) Skin color is an indicator of race in some instances

3) People should be treated differently based on their race / skin color (in terms of college admissions, treatment when they commit fault, etc.)

The reason the person flat-out refused to answer because the party that was the party of racism and differential treatment in 1860 and 1955, the Democrat party, is still the party of racism and differential treatment in 2017.  And the party that was the party of considering all people the same and treating them equally in 1860 and 1955, the Republican party, is still the party of considering all people the same and treating them equally in 2017.

Please feel free to ask these three questions to friends and family, and ask them to answer what they truly believe, in all honesty, simply yes or no.  If they answer yes, do not judge or attack.  Thank them and then reason, explain, and invite.

Be sensitive, these questions expose the real source of racism in our society today.

Love And Acceptance

It is so incredibly cruel and destructive for those on the Left to tell people in effect: Yes, you are defective. You were born in the wrong body. You can only ever be a caricature of what you are supposed to be.

These are some pretty gory details ahead and you need to read them. You need to understand what the Left is doing to people.

When a guy goes for an operation to pretend to make him a gal, he is not left with XX chromosomes, or the parts of the opposite gender. What the operation produces is a wound cavity surfaced with a mixture of replaced skin and scar tissue. The wound cavity produces no lubrication and doesn’t have any self cleansing properties. Anything that goes in dribbles right back out. The wound cavity smells like a wound cavity, and is so prone to infection a man who undergoes the procedure must then live within minutes of emergency care for the rest of their life. From then on when they use the restroom it’s prone to spray instead of stream, which make messes and adds to the smell, lack of cleanliness and chances for infection. They are left with a fraction of the sensitivity they had before. And for the rest of their life their male body will try to heal the wound cavity back up solid. Because of this the man will have to insert a large stretching device between his legs and leave it for 45 minutes at a time, at least three times a week, every week, for the rest of his life, or the wound will heal and close. That’s part of why it’s insanity for the military to lay out $250,000 in order to wound a soldier to the point where he 1) can’t be away from emergency care for concern of infection, and 2) has to be out of action three times a week for 45 minutes at a stretch. The man who undergoes the procedure is often crushed because it does not make them a woman as they desire. It makes them a castrated fellow. They have the same bone structure, the same voice, the same shoulders, and now they have a fraction of the feeling, other men don’t want to be with them and they have real disabilities trying to prolong the wound cavity, for as long as they try to keep it.

This is the height of cruelty. Instead people should be counseled to accept and love themselves ~as they are~. They are not a mistake. They were not born in the wrong body. They can love themselves, embrace themselves. That is the real message of love and acceptance.

The environmentalist movement has always been anti-human.  Recently TheBlaze posted an article about how the push for cheap, plentiful, clean energy is not what environmentalists really want because that allows humans to keep reproducing and multiplying.  Chilling and sobering thought, and it’s based in reality.

Every couple of years the Great One, Mark Levin, reminds us on his radio program about a seminal book review written by a National Park environmentalist, David Graber.  The review was for the book The End Of Nature by Bill McKibben.

In Graber’s review he plainly states that the planet would be much better off with fewer people, and that removing about a billion would be a good start.  He wrote in the L.A. Times on October 22, 1989:

I, for one, cannot wish upon either my children or the rest of Earth’s biota a tame planet, a human-managed planet, be it monstrous or–however unlikely–benign. McKibben is a biocentrist, and so am I. We are not interested in the utility of a particular species, or free-flowing river, or ecosystem, to mankind. They have intrinsic value, more value–to me–than another human body, or a billion of them.

Translation:  Any other animal besides mankind, and any other natural feature such as a tree, rock or lake, is more valuable than the lives of a billion people.  I’m not reading that in to Graber’s statement, that’s what he – and many radical environmentalists – actually thinks.

Graber then continues:

Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet. I know social scientists who remind me that people are part of nature, but it isn’t true. Somewhere along the line–at about a billion years ago, maybe half that–we quit the contract and became a cancer. We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth.  It is cosmically unlikely that the developed world will choose to end its orgy of fossil-energy consumption, and the Third World its suicidal consumption of landscape. Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.

Graber, and other radical environmentalists today, are hoping for most or all of the human race to be literally destroyed from the planet.  He is waiting for, “the right virus to come along”.

Stephen Hawking has recently suggested that the danger to the world of a rogue, all-power Artificial Intelligence (AI) could be mitigated if nations would go in for one-world government.  His comments appear in a recent article in the U.K. Independent:

[Hawking] suggests that “some form of world government” could be ideal for the job [of controlling malice and aggression and the danger of an AI’s response to them], but would itself create more problems.

“But that might become a tyranny,” he added. “All this may sound a bit doom-laden but I am an optimist. I think the human race will rise to meet these challenges.”

Hawking is a brilliant theoretical physicist and a lousy philosopher.  As a modern Humanist / Atheist he refuses to admit to the selfish nature of mankind and believes in the altruism of social planners.  But every attempt at Humanist utopias in the past 220 years has proven such projects not simply unworkable, but downright hellish and lethal.  The push among those on the Left for a one-world government is just another such attempt.

A better plan for mitigating mankind’s darker proclivities comes from James Madison in Federalist Paper #51:

….Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself….

Madison had formerly explained the reasons a one-world government could never work – it is impossible to give all people the same opinions, passions and interests.  Madison wrote in Federalist Paper #10:

….There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.

It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.

The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests….

Hawking doesn’t understand mankind’s selfish nature because he has been indoctrinated into the flawed utopic philosophy of the Left.  He doesn’t realize that any attempt at a one-world government could, even if only partially successful, be what winds up paving the way for something like an all-powerful AI. One which could – in the mold of the Marxist government it serves – unwittingly destroy humans in an attempt to make it’s own little utopia.

Recently I was accused on Facebook of being racist because I don’t believe people are actual separate races, rather I believe every person is simply a human being and that we all have different features including melanin, height, shoe size and iris color.  This view was deemed “racist” because my view apparently perpetuates racism and constitutes, in and of itself “white privilege”.  I penned the following response –

No, I believe racism exists. It is believing others are separate races, and treating people differently or as inferiors if they are believed to be a different race.

Most of America – light skinned, dark skinned, whatever – treats the community of those who happen to trace their forebears to Africa fairly. Or even deferentially. Ironically it is within the community itself that a number of people who are murdered every six months equal to the total number of racist lynchings ever recorded in U.S. history (about 3,500).

Now it may be racism that practically no one hears the names of the current victims of violence in the community – but if it is it would be a Leftist, anti-white racism involving 1) blaming many (most?) of the problems within the community on “white privilege” and past systemic racism which America largely overcame in the 60’s through 90’s, and 2) focusing on every shooting by police of a person who happens to have a lot of melanin and then spinning a false narrative that there is rampant police violence against people who happen to have a lot of melanin. The assertion is patently false and in most cases the shootings are outright ~lied about~ by those on the Left trying to create a narrative that it is indicative of “white” oppression / “white” privilege / “white” racism / “white” insensitivity / “white” passive racism / “white” cultural racism / “white” .

No one goes into any community and dictates to it’s members what they do with their free time, what they study, what they value, what families they form, what jobs they work towards being qualified for and apply for, what businesses they try to start, what homes they try to save money for a down payment towards, what their personal budget is, etc. Those are all things individuals are responsible for. Those are absolutely pivotal for financial success, and they are 100% dependent upon a community’s own values, desires, beliefs and actions.

More sad still is that a community’s culture also affects it’s tendency towards or against criminal behavior, and towards behaviors that result in poverty and criminal behavior. Right now 14% of the nation commits around 50% of the murders, and similarly high percentages of robbery and assault. That’s not because they happen to have melanin, it’s because of community culture. Race has nothing to do with it. And it’s not racist when the consequences of such choices are higher incarcerations rates within the community, again regardless of melanin or heritage.

When the civil rights movement happened in the 60’s driven by conservative Christians and Republicans the community’s out of wedlock birth rate was around 25%. That rate – and marriage is the number one indicator for financial success – has gotten steadily worse over the course of the past five decades and now stands at nearly 75% out of wedlock births. No community can be successful doing that. No one is forcing them to (although the Democrats have created welfare incentives for such behavior, primarily out of a view that the community is somehow inherently helpless). There has been a similar regression in business starts, savings rates, home ownership, etc., all related to the first issue of the breakdown of the family.

The telling factor is that there is no similar regression of choices or outcomes among first and second generation African immigrants, nor among Asian Indian immigrants and communities. If “white” racism were responsible for the plight of the African American community we would see a similar fate falling upon African immigrants and Asian Indians. Instead African immigrants fare much better than the community – on par with immigrants of any melanin type from any part of the world with similar economics – and Asian Indians actually fare better than average Americans in many cases (education, some job sectors like high tech, etc.)

So the Left’s narrative of “white privilege” and “white racism” is patently false, and it is the Left’s own policies and values which are causing devastation in places like Detroit, St. Louis, Baltimore, Charlotte and Chicago. The Left needs to look at it’s own racism – both anti-“white” and low expectation towards African Americans – and it’s policies which are contributing to the breakdown of families and economic opportunities.