Posted on

A Pox On All Your Damn Houses!

I’ve been looking at video of the Charlottesville riot and trying to piece it together for myself, unlike 90% of the people out there on all sides of the issue. I still have a long way to go. But here is what I’ve gathered so far, along with a few questions that have not been answered yet.

I know the mouth breathers from the Klan[1] (a leftist/racist organization) and the National Socialists (A leftist/racist organization)[2] had a permit to march and hold a rally.

  • When assembling in accordance with their permit, at what point did others approach?
  • Did those approaching them have permits for their “counter protest”?
  • I haven’t seen all the riot footage yet.   But who threw the first punch? (In one video, in at least one place, the violence was started by people blocking the march.)
  • ANTIFA and BLM both have reputations as rioters and have been seen to assault people who disagree with them. Did they start the pushing and shoving? Or the throwing of things? Or did the mouth breathers?
    • It’s more than passing strange that ANTIFA[3] is a fascist organization and BLM is a leftist/racist organization. They both have a lot in common with the inbreds they confronted in Charlottesville on Saturday.

I did catch one interesting sequence as I started to review video of some minor pushing and shoving. There is a NAZI or Klan guy staggering with a beer in his hand (he should have been arrested just for that) in the march. He is trying to push people and not fall over at the same time. Then he passes a man standing at the side of the parade route.

This was an older man. He was pepper spraying every mouth breather who passed him. He sprayed every one. Most of whom were not doing anything at all but walking. Clearly this was his idea of a “counter protest”, injuring the protestors. For that, ANYONE he sprayed had every right to break his friggin’ jaw.

Here’s what you not going to hear from politicians and chicken shit newies:

No matter what a person’s views; no matter how stupid or offensive or inflammatory we feel they are, they have a right to express those views. The Constitution covers a lot of things. Your personal sensitivities are not among them.

If a group, no matter who they are, goes to the trouble of acquiring a permit to make their point, NONE OF US has the right to stop them from carrying out their demonstration. If anyone started that maylay because they didn’t like the message the mouth breathers were conveying, that puts the mouth breathers in the right and the “counter protestor” in the wrong. Period. There is no excuse for initiating violent conflict.

I’ll take that one step further. Let’s say the morons from ANTIFA wanted to come to Biloxi and hold a rally. (I not only reject their hopelessly confused message out of hand but I know they have a reputation of acting out violently against anyone who doesn’t buy their idiot gospel word for word.) Let’s further assume that Biloxi requires a permit for the assembly and ANTIFA goes to the trouble of acquiring that permit. I can go watch them protest. I can flip them all the bird. I can attempt to talk sense into any of them who might listen to me. But I am not entitled to punch them.

Not only would I have no right to hit any of them, I don’t even have the right to occupy the same space they occupy. Everyone has the right to be secure in his person. If I were to even impede the progress of an ANTIFA goon, I would be in the wrong. And the goon would have the right to stand his ground.

Do I have a right to try to shout louder than them? Sure. Do I have a right to personally or directly threaten them or goad one or two of them into attacking me so I have an excuse to fight them? Nope. That’s inciting riot. That’s like yelling fire in a crowded theater. And again, that would put me in the wrong.

So I really am interested in seeing the police video of when and where the actually fighting started. I like to see how close the “counter protestors” were permitted to get to the marchers as they were assembling. From what I heard, conflict started right at the beginning. And if anyone has video of the old shit bag shooting pepper spray at the marchers, who weren’t doing anything to him, getting his clock cleaned, I’d enjoy seeing that. He deserved an ass kicking as much as anyone in Charlottesville that day.

Big picture comments

Everyone knows I am a staunch critic of Donald Trump. He rarely puts a foot right. But when he is right, I will say so. And the pretend media freak-out over his Charlottesville statement was an example of groupthink that would make Orwell shudder.

Trump was right in characterizing the hate as coming from many sides. The groups represented on Saturday all have violence and destruction on their record. They are ALL motivated by the pig-headed notion that everyone must agree with them or face some kind of wrath, whether it is actual violence, or just the destruction of their career or security. ALL the groups represented act out of hate and their own inability to actually present a valid argument. They all speak hatefully. They ALL have warped views of race and civil interaction.

So on this one, I give Trump kudos and the detractors a middle finger salute.

A silly side note

It is interesting to see the Dr. David Duke[4] has crawled out from under his rock this weekend trying to sound relevant. What a pussy! He always piggybacks on the pain or stupidity of others.    

Duke and anyone who follows him can kiss both sides of my hairy ass. But so can anyone who thinks Maxine Waters was helpful this weekend.

[1] Yes, the Klan is a leftist organization. They want to build a government around racial winners and losers. They want to establish a Christian theocracy. That makes them THE NUMBER ONE tyrannical, left-wing, government overreach entity in the United States today.

[2] It troubles me that more people don’t get this. The National Socialist Party. Socialist! How many stupid people out there think NAZIs are conservative or right wing? If you do, you need to go back to the third grade. There are many in the NAZI groups who think their authoritarian, racist bullshit is a form of conservatism, but then there are people in ANTIFA who don’t understand that ANTIFA itself is fascist.

[3] Oh, I know. The heads of snowflakes across this great nation just exploded. “How can you say that? ANTIFA stands for Anti Fascist”. Yeah, and North Korea calls itself a democracy. When you try to provoke cops and punch people who don’t agree with you, then you ARE A FASCIST! That is what Mussolini’s Black Shirts did in the 1920’s and what Hitler’s Brown Shirts did in the 30’s. I will assume that most of ANTIFA doesn’t have a clue what fascism is, so the name just sounds cool…to an emotionalist idiot!

[4] So he’s a doctor of what? Mouth breathing? Head shaving? Garish tattoos? Beer pong?

Posted on

Smirky Head Shakers

Those TV and Movie moments that make normal people smirk and shake their heads.

 Zips?  Really?

I imagine, if anyone was paying attention to Media Buzz on Sunday, 6 August, that FOX News got some pretty fiery emails.  We’re not talking about a super high-rated news show here.  I imagine only news and political geeks like myself actually sit through it.  But yeah, there was definitely a head shaker.

The guest at that time was Katrina Pierson, Trump hyper-apologist.  Howie Kurtz asked her about the fuss over leaks and the AG’s announcement that Justice was going to turn up the heat on leakers.

She spoke of the Obama hold-overs being the likely source of the leaking.  I would say that’s probably true.  The DC government is shot through with self-absorbed drama queens looking to get their 15 minutes.  Or they are leaking to key political people so they can feel like power players.

But in describing these pansies as an internal threat, she called them “zips in the wire”.

This is the problem when airheads hear words of movie dialog and think, “Hmmm, zips in the wire.  That’s sounds like a cool phrase.  I’ll sound cool saying it.”  The problem being that this particular airhead didn’t know what it meant.

“Zips” or zipperheads” is a derogatory term for Asians.  More specifically, in the context where it gained fashion, it refers to Vietnamese.  Ms. Pierson might have just as well said “gooks”.

If FOX didn’t get overrun with emails that is because the term has been completely lost to time or people aren’t as tuned in to offenses toward Asians as they are offenses against other races.

Personally, I don’t care.  I think we are ALL too thin-skinned anyway.  We could use some toughening up. The vast majority of our “adult” population has forgotten the adage “Sticks and stones will break my bones, etc.” 

Put more accurately, we have a population shot through with people just dying to feign offense and play the victim.  “Look at me!  Look at me!  I’m a delicate little girl!”

Anyway, I thought it was a funny moment.  And if Howie knew what the phrase meant, you’d never know it.  He didn’t bat an eyelash.

The “duh” moment is at 5:10 of this video.

Don’t be a political pansy! Read Street Politics: It Ain’t Your Daddy’s GOP Anymore! Grab your copy here.
Let’s demand good governance!

Kindle version here!

Or just start reading for free on Kindle Unlimited!



Posted on

"Founded By Slaveholders", A Non-thinker's Argument

Founded by Slaveholders!

There is a popular admonition floating around about our nation’s founding. It is intended to cause deep soul searching or inflict discomfort and shame in the American listener.

A reasonable listener could be excused, with reasonable provenance, for reaching a different conclusion about the admonition and the purveyors of it.

I would take this shallow scold less seriously if it were restricted to Facebook trolls wanting to make noise and FEEL intelligent. Sadly, it has been popular on college campuses and in otherwise respected books and publications.

The Admonition

In order to “shout down” a person who may seem to some as too nationalistic or patriotic, it is popular among liberals and those who think we should be more like Europe, for example, to remind us that “all but one” of the founding fathers were slave owners. A quick poison pill qualification often follows in the form of, “…and I don’t want to hear about the morals of the time. That has nothing to do with it!”

Firstly, the pronouncement is inaccurate and shows how we have come to venerate the centralization of power that the Revolution fought against. The qualification ignores the progress already being made at that time against slavery. The qualification also rings of “…don’t try to confuse me with facts. I’ve already made up my mind!”

Well, with all due respect to those who reject any thinking on the part of the listener, I will point out the following:

The Founding Fathers, we are more and more often told, consisted of seven people. Washington, Franklin, Adams, Jefferson, Jay (I am surprised he survives this modern myth), Hamilton and Madison.

As a young adult, and an avid reader of history, I discovered this elementary school list was far from complete. We remember their names because, unlike many of the others who risked death and ruin, they stayed around after the founding to take the reins of the very power they had created by expelling the Crown. We remember their names because it is a short list and it is easy to teach children about them.

One of the sillier results of this simple-minded notion of our founding is the beatification of the U.S. Government. Most people at that time knew this was not what people fought and died for from 1775-1781. Local governance remained as the proper locus of power. But the Civil War and popular myths surrounding these seven “fathers” fostered the concept of “The United States” vs “These United States.” It cemented, sadly, the idea that real government exists only in DC. State and local governments are just the junior league. There really is an amazing number of people who think our system of government was set up so that the federal government could do as much as possible, and the state governments should bat cleanup and fight for federal dollars.

Who will deny that the average American sees an election as a populist federal exercise? I would contend that less than 10% of all Americans know who is on a state or local ballot until they enter the voting booth.

Enough on the peripheral effect. Let’s deal with who “founded our nation” and the revisionist moralizing aimed at these founders.

There were more than seven!

I was reading a friend’s FB post the other day. It made the same point that I am arguing against here. He said of the founding fathers, all but one owned slaves. When I called him on it he, for some reason, changed the term to the “founding framers”.  An odd change, and further from the truth than the original claim.

Here’s that fact that muddies the waters. There were 56 founding fathers. 56 people pledged their property, lives and honor to US independence. 56 men traveled from all over the east to Philadelphia. 56 debated seriously, often passionately, about our allegiance to the Crown. Not all believed we should break with Britain. But they would, by 2 July 1776, agree to do so. They all took the same risks. 56 families and yes, even the slaves of those who held them, were put at risk as well.

We only know the big seven as near godlike because they would hold positions of power that long exceeded the Revolution and the creation of the US Constitution. It can be argued, and history supports this, that these seven spent those decades vying for that very power.

Of the 56 who actually did the work of creating this nation, 41 (73%) were slaveholders. Not all but one.

As for the “framers” (There is no accepted term “founding framer”. That’s a new one.), 27 (49%) of the representatives from the various states were slaveholders. So from 1776 until 1787 the trend among those who shaped the nation was drifting toward abolition already.

“…I Don’t Want To Hear About The Morals Of The Time!”

Well suck it up, buttercup. You can apply modern thinking to people of other times, but it doesn’t change what has already occurred. You can wish your own motivations into the hearts of those long dead. But criticizing the constitution because some of the framers were slaveholders is like saying Mickey Mantle knew nothing about baseball because he drank too much whiskey.  To remove the morals of the time from consideration is to discount your own credibility. And it is a form of pouting.

But take heart. As it turns out, modern ideas about slavery were already taking root in some quarters during these early years. The delegates to the Continental Congress AND the Constitutional Convention who argued against slavery were not expelled from the events. In fact, the anti-slave faction was able to at least get the Three-Fifths Compromise through to blunt the voting power the slave states were claiming. Slave states were insisting slaves counted against their census. It was a small victory, but a victory.

The economics of it all

Another canard criticized along with the “morals” dodge is the economics. I have heard it said that the economics argument for not charging ahead with abolition PROVES the founders were immoral. And again, the claim is at a minimum, naïve. At any rate, it is false.

This was at the heart of the matter for people like Gouvernuer Morris and George Mason. They both expressed, quite eloquently, a fear of eternal damnation (if you go in for that sort of thing) at their holding of slaves. But they like everyone in both bodies, Continental Congress and Constitutional Convention, knew that you don’t simply declare the undoing of a massive institution, even one as onerous as slavery, at one go.

Let me give you a modern example.

There are many, I am among them, who see the Social Security system as a corrupt Ponzi scheme. It is also horribly administered and of precious little value overall. It, like Obamacare was a system destined to fail from the very start. Many of you, at or near retirement count on this program to be your lifeline in your old age. It isn’t. You will find yourself in poverty. You have no one but yourselves to blame.

It isn’t all of your own doing. The federal government has repeatedly told you it is intact and that to keep it going in the future will require only minimum adjustments. They have not stated emphatically enough that it will not provide you with the retirement income you will need to live well. They have not admitted that with each month they wait to actually fix it, there is a greater chance that those already dependent on the system will suffer. Your fault lies in having believed any of it.

All the said, you can’t take something as vast as Social Security and simply declare today that it won’t exist tomorrow. You can’t even repair it in that fashion. It takes time. The economic and social impact must be attenuated to absorb the impact. After a long hard slog of un-brainwashing people as to its value, the system must be gradually replaced by a more effective and sustainable free-market program.

Slavery was seen in the same light. Slaveholders like Jefferson and Mason knew two things. Slavery was immoral, and contract or employee work was far less expensive. They also knew that in order for the American economy to survive the end of slavery other slaveholders, at least a strong plurality, would have to see the logic of this. For an individual to simply give up his slaves in a market dominated by slaveholders would leave him at an insurmountable disadvantage. By the time everyone else might have caught on, that business may lay in ruin.

The result would be to reaffirm the need for slaves in the minds of those who were holding out.

If the government simply mandated an abrupt end to slavery across the board the economic and legal chaos would have ended the American experiment before it got started. Yes, in order for there to be an America in which we would one day end slavery, there had to be an early time in which slave state and free state would exist side-by-side.

Now, even though I am writing this paragraph, there will be people shrieking at my comparing slavery to Social Security. There is no comparison, they’ll cry. Morally, the comparison is one of degree. Certainly holding generations of Americans in forced labor, and beating them in some cases, is a far greater offense than taking their money under false pretense. But both concepts are wrong.

And I stand by the economic comparison without apology.

But Why The Silly Admonition To Begin With?

The complaint about the “Founding Fathers” holding slaves is a red herring tossed into many conversations when respect for the Constitution comes up. The fact is, if your original argument for an issue is strong enough, you can change the Constitution to reflect that.

But as I heard on Glenn Beck’s radio show a few weeks back, no one WANTS to wait that long for anything. On that particular day, Beck’s issue was tax reform. And the truth is, to have permanent and effective tax REFORM, you must REFORM tax law. Reducing taxes does very little. The government can jack taxes right back up on a whim.

The reform must take place in the way we collect taxes and how much the government is limited to collect. Beck mentioned changing the Constitution and he and the entire cast all agreed that we shouldn’t have to wait that long to get something done.

Beck is not alone. We have several generations in this country that think every notion and difficulty they have should be acted on and solved by the government NOW! And if you tell them to form an argument and see if it will pass muster and then change the constitution…

…Oh boy…

…That’s when it comes out. Having no argument or lacking the skill to make one, they simply say they shouldn’t have to follow the Constitution because it was written a long time ago by white men, or rich men, or old men, or slaveholders, or NOT WOMEN,…

The invalid arguments are endless. And they have been in play in our government since FDR. That is why we have lost so many rights and so much of our personal wealth over the last 70 years.

Through our ignorance about our Constitution the government has not only been able to whittle away what you need to succeed and protect yourself, but YOU have fallen prey to moronic arguments about the foibles and sins of the “founding fathers”, as if they invalidate our governing documents.

This, and the “poison pill” I referred to earlier, are called a fallacious argument. Look it up and learn something.

When I started to post regularly in 2012 I lamented the lack of political and social maturity in the United States. I now despair that thanks to the echo chambers of social media, things have gotten much worse.

I’d love to be proven wrong about that.

Matt Jordan is the author of Street Politics: It Ain’t Your Daddy’s GOP Anymore! Grab your copy here.

Kindle version here!

Or just start reading for free on Kindle Unlimited!