The South

15 Decades Strong, Democrats. Great job!

Ok, so slavery ended at the end of the year in 1865 which makes me early by much more than a few months, but with the newest “humanitarian effort” being led by Harry Reid and the Democrats on our southern border, I find it necessary to congratulate them early.

In December of 2015, the nation’s Democrats will celebrate exactly one-hundred and fifty years of promoting humanitarian causes while doing nothing but screwing over humanity, the poor, minorities, free people in general, and pretending like they have never been anything but angels when it comes to human and civil rights.

If you ever want to sit down and brainstorm a humanitarian solution to a problem, save yourself the time by Googling “what are the Democrats doing?” and do precisely the opposite of that.

I find it necessary to insert my typical disclaimer here, as per usual, as my incessant ramblings about the American Left insinuate an unrelenting measure of support for the American Right, which just is not so.  As I’ve said a number of times, the Right has their issues too– frequent disconnects from reality, their people, thick-headedness, pussification…to name a few– but no major political party or movement commands disdain for liberty and freedom like that of the progressive left.  There also is no other political party or movement that relies, solely, upon the lives of its supporters being miserable- in a persistent state of need, and often greed- like the American left.  While no Republican has yet to come forward with enough gusto to motivate me to vote for the first time in well over a decade, no Democrat has proven to me that they give even the smallest of fucks about freedom, about people, or about the immortal words of our Founding Fathers.

And trust me, they sure as hell don’t care about the well-being of people from Honduras, Guatemala, or any other place where people have been living and raising families in squalor and hell for decades.  Not months.  Decades.  The plight of people living in Central and South America is not new– what is new, however, is the realization that the Democrats need some fresh blood, and some votes; perhaps not in 2016, but most certainly in the years after.

And that is what this about.  Votes.

In what era of American history have Democrats done anything but “help” the needy and poor by shuffling them into the bottomless pit of subservience and dependence we call the “welfare state”?  Republicans, back when they were republicans, fought for years to end slavery, and battled through Democratic filibusters of the first two Civil Rights Acts intended to end segregation (among other activities created and carried out solely by Democrats, to include the murder, rape, and pillaging of non-white families and homes), yet the DNC’s own “about us” page will tell you a different story entirely and its voters will echo such a sentiment through their early-November actions.  At what point in our nation’s short history have Democrats done anything but everything they can to ensure people remain piss poor, miserable, and reliant upon the State?

If any progressive out there would like to begin countering my point by starting with the New Deal and FDR, just stop.  You’ve already lost.

Why is it that children from these disparate nations are being shuffled into the nation with zero regard for the infrastructures of our small southern towns and cities, or the health of our people?  The answer: because the Democrats know you’ll still vote Democrat if you already did in 2012, even if you have Hepatitis.

The goal is simple for the Left– you get as many young people in here with their young mothers as you can, and you make them as reliant upon the government as possible, in the shortest amount of time.  Second, you talk about “amnesty” as if it is the solution to the problem, though it is the root cause of the problem since the government all but promised it a few months ago when it decided to not enforce the basic laws that any and all sovereign nations revere (for as much as progressives like to talk about how much we should “be like Europe”, you think someone would ask why this doesn’t apply to immigration).  Lastly, you get people– well-intentioned, or not– into the nation and into the system.  You get them into “affordable housing”– housing that I will BET should be springing up in some key red-cities any time now– and you get them not on a “path to citizenship” in an American sense, but on a path to citizenship in the Starship Troopers sense.  Except in Starship Troopers, citizenship relied upon serving the nation and not sucking it dry.  Also, in Starship Troopers, attaining citizenship wasn’t easy, so I suppose this was a terrible example.

Whatever.  The point is your “path”, if coming into the States via “amnesty”, is not prosperous, but pious– get on your knees and honor thy Democrat.  Welcome to the Church of Progressitopia.

Democrats don’t need you prospering or making something out of yourself– they require you to be stuck because they know that if or when you “make it”, you’ll probably stop voting Democrat.

And that doesn’t work for them.

Since well before the mid-1800s, Democrats have been destroying human lives– though they might not have known it in 1865, they sure as hell knew it by the mid-1900s when they realized they could trade pretending like they weren’t racist bigots for creating national-level policy that ensured people of color remained dependent upon them forever.  The fact that today’s minorities overwhelmingly support them and probably think of slave owners and traders as “those damn Tea Partiers” was but a bonus.

I’ll leave you with this thought–  do you know who this guy is?:


Some random Cuban guy or something like that, right?

Maybe you’ll remember him better in this light:


That’s Elian Gonzalez.  Bill Clinton sent him back after weeks of “what do you we do with him?” in the national media in the late-90s.  What do Cubans tend to become, if or when they become American citizens, after their escape from Cuban oppression?  Movie stars? Athletes? Politicians?

Well maybe in some cases they do– but they also often become Republicans.

And Bill Clinton would have never given up the opportunity to send a potential future-Republican back to the world of communism.

But today, in 2014, no– we’re so focused on giving people “a shot”– the same kind of shot we’ve been giving historically oppressed people for well over one hundred years.  I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t be looking upon that with much praise.

At what point are people going to stand up, get involved, and admit that we needed to elect our nation’s first black president to show just how badly Democrats have been fucking over minorities for well over a century?  What will that accomplish in 2016?

Probably nothing.

How many more American, urban centers need to fall before we wake up to exactly how “humanitarian” progressivism is, and how humanitarian it promises to be in our not-so-distant future?

On Dr. Ben Carson

A year or so ago, Dr. Ben Carson came out of nowhere and became an internet sensation with his somewhat critical, yet classy speech delivered at the 2013 (2012?) National Prayer Breakfast.  The President did not seem amused by Carson’s words– at least not by the ones that seemed to take a jab at his (more so the DNC’s) stance on national level policy– and the eruption that took place afterwards across the internet, the news, and beyond, is testament to the power of Dr. Carson’s message.

But there is something that none of the media outlets mentioned in the aftermath of the speech; long after progressives realized that Dr. Ben Carson was a conservative and started to call him an Uncle Tom, or worse, in the ever-so-tolerant and “no hate!” way they always do…

I did not hear a single news source bring up the “why?” as to how Dr. Carson’s comments caught everyone so off-guard.  Perhaps for the left wing channels and websites, the truth, as usual, was simply too much to face (rather, it is much more likely that these news sources were simply continuing their tradition of ignoring real, and blatant racism on the parts of the people they so often worship like idols).  And perhaps for the right wing news outlets, the truth was just too controversial– something that should not be brought up after a prayer breakfast- an event meant to bring people of differing political beliefs together while they exist in a sharply divided D.C. environment.

But here’s the truth about what led up to that day.

Whoever decided to bring Ben Carson to the event to speak (and he had spoken at it before, too), figured that because Dr. Ben Carson was a black man, he was going to kiss President Obama’s ass and sing his praises.  That a black man would never— but for the few brave souls that hold positions in the Republican Party and are ignored 100% of the time when they speak about demagoguery, or the inherent racist nature of our welfare, taxation, and social system– ever, call the President’s decision making abilities into question.  No one even thought to mention that assuming a person holds certain opinions based on the color of their skin is, in fact, an example of someone being a racist.  Of what I could imagine were the hundreds of people involved in planning an event headed by the President, all paid by your tax dollars, not a single one thought to say “Hey, maybe Dr. Carson isn’t a big fan of the President’s policy and is going to use that time to take him down a notch.”

None.  Because if one person brought up the idea of screening Dr. Carson’s speech before the event, you can bet your bottom dollar that a different person would have been giving that invocation– perhaps a holy, and totally not-racist guy like the NAACP’s Person of the Year, Al Sharpton.  At the very least, we would have heard a very different speech from Carson; and it would have likely been a lot shorter, and at its conclusion he would have been required to direct everyone to’s “marketplace”.

Judging by a breakdown of voting trends over the past two elections, it might not be illogical to understand why someone would assume that a black person should side with a President who happens to share a similar skin tone.  Perhaps you could say that in the business that is Beltway politics, people have to go with their instinct, or pass judgment based on statistics.  But in assuming that a black man is automatically going to praise a man at a prayer breakfast– a man who is often looked upon like a deity by the 95% of African Americans that voted for him, or the 50+% of non-minority folks who voted for him to prove how “with it” and non-racist they were– is still a racist position.  You cannot hide from it, but it can most assuredly be hidden from becoming public knowledge.

And how is that accomplished? You unleash the Dogs of Racecard War, to “have the conversation on race” and to explain to all of the willing, naive servants called voters the “real history” of racism in America.  A history that has been skewed, strategically and effectively, by Democrats for ages– a lesson from people who can empathize with the oft universal plights of minorities in America; people like MSNBC’s Toure who know all about how it is while being raised in private boarding schools, and enjoying long afternoons before going on the air in personal offices pumped with ionized oxygen.  Da streets, man– they’re no joke.

There was a time in this country’s history when the problems that minorities often face were much less of a problem than they are today.  Oddly enough, this period of history occurred in the years most closely nestled next to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  When the country’s minorities were often called something else– “Republicans”.  It is unfortunate to imagine a future in which our children’s textbooks will be forced to point out that it took the election of our nation’s first black President to prove just how far removed we have become from actually giving a damn about the character of individuals and not the color of their skin.

Perhaps someone can get an advanced copy of that history book to whoever vetted Dr. Carson before inviting him to last year’s Prayer Breakfast.

Why we shouldn’t use the term “Illegal Immigrant”.

In addition to learning new words once every four years, as I’ve yapped about previously, progressives also find much joy in twisting and creating new synonyms for words every single day.  “Women’s health” really just means abortion.  “Access” is now synonymous with “free”.  I saw this article pop up a few weeks ago on CNN, written by the guy that led the 20+ day fast at the National Mall– an editorial about his quest in bringing about reform to the nation’s immigration system.  In it, he refrains from referring to “illegal immigrants”, a common request by those sympathetic to their struggle– because Eliseo Medina wants you to believe that the word “criminal” actually means “victim”.

In many ways, Medina is right to keep the world “illegal” out of a discussion about immigrants.  Because immigrants are legal.  We should cease referring to the people Medina is defending in his piece as “illegal immigrant” and labeling them as what they are:  


One word.

The United States lost over 400,000 people during World War II.  With its conclusion, many foreigners– having lost everything they had ever known– looked to the United States for refuge and a fresh start at life.  My grandfather was one of these people, along with his wife, and kids.  His youngest is my mother.  We welcomed those displaced because as much as they needed us, we needed them.  They filled employment positions that were vacated by the fallen, those conscripted into service to fight for what was right.  They became citizens, worked, and supported their families here in the States.  They did it legally.  They were immigrants.

Immigrants like these, and those who followed in their footsteps, have zero relation and absolutely nothing in common with those that hop fences, test their luck in deserts, or squeak through northern wildernesses.  In fact, such people disrespect those that waited, are waiting, and will continue to wait to come to the States, become accounted for, and participate in its future.  If anyone should see “amnesty”, it should be the people that have been waiting patiently for the better part of a decade to come here.

The unfortunate thing for hopeful immigrants today, is that we aren’t exactly in a position where we really need them.  I don’t say this to be unkind or unsympathetic to those that simply want a shot at something better, but the truth is you don’t ever really hear about packs of brain surgeons and engineers trudging through the dry Arizona sand, or waiting for a decade to become legalized.

That’s right, what I am saying is we already have millions of people looking for jobs that cannot find any.  During that search for employment, such people find themselves in the unfortunate and difficult position of being takers and not makers.  That is ultimately what jobs do– they place people in slots to perform duties, people are compensated for them, and they help in aiding the economy in creating gains.  Amnesty is saying that in our present state of economic piss-poorness, we can handle, and accommodate twenty million more takers.  With many people desperate for work anyway– even in the most low-skilled and low-paying fields– why would we assume that those naturalized via amnesty would somehow immediately become makers, or producers?  Such as assumption is ignorant.

Without some kind of unexpected fallout of the American population, that is what immigration should be about– making gains.  Though they seek to attempt to come to the States, work, and make a stable life for themselves, illegals are strains.  They create strains on the economy, on security and how we carry it out, and when you consider that States are unable to accurately account for all of them, they also create unnecessary strains on the ability to govern.  Illegals kill enough Americans annually to almost cover the number of casualties of the entire war in Afghanistan.  If illegals simply “take all of those jobs that Americans don’t want”, do you contend that in their absence, the more than 4,000 Americans that die by their hands every year would have been killed by Americans anyway?  Prove it.

Forget the billions of dollars we spend to accommodate them– take that money and use it for Americans, or use it to create a better immigration system that attracts people with skills–MAKERS– to our land.  And perpetuate an environment that allows the process to be more fluid and expedient.  Support, praise, and reward those that choose to call the United States their new home, help them get on their feet, and allow them to potentially live a life that mirrors that of our previous generations.  It is the only way to honor those that came here the right way and helped us to rebuild after history’s most brutal war.

Medina wrote in his piece that, “Our United States is morally undermined with an inefficient, inhumane immigration system that causes more than 300 deaths in the desert each year. It is a system that rips apart families, exploits workers and puts our democracy out of reach for millions.”  And for that, he’s a moron.  But hey, if being a moron gets you personal visits from the President, then rock on!


“Hey man, I support you and stuff, but have you been to, yet?”

While there is some merit in labeling the system inefficient (ever consider that the millions we witness being smuggled into our cities have something to do with this?), it is not ‘inhumane”.  If 300 people choose to try and get the better of the desert heat and they perish as a result of it, that equates to 300 people who killed themselves.  If those same people either left family behind in their native lands, or saw family deported upon being caught in the States, they ripped apart their family.  Not us.  Not the US.

I have said this before and will echo it again, as I’m sure I will do again in the future:  we are but the result of our own choices– both the rewards and the pains of them.

Though we do plenty of victim-blaming these days, especially in the media, a hard-line stance in the face of illegals saturating our country does not fall into this category.  Illegals are perpetrators, not victims.  Sure, plenty of them don’t come here seeking to kill anyone.  I wouldn’t bet against the notion that many come here with the best intentions, though illegally, and fall into a criminal lifestyle because it pays better than doing odd-jobs from the shadows.  But the unnecessary death of a SINGLE American, who would be alive today if not for the actions of an illegal, is more than enough to justify the mass deportation of every single one of them.  There is in fact a time when we should blame “victims”, and that is when they aren’t victims at all, but criminals.

None of the motives illegals have for settling here matter when you skip the imaginary immigration line, spit in the faces of the people coming from situations just as bad, or even worse than your own, and contribute to our already overgrown list of problems.  Amnesty rewards disrespect towards the country, its citizens, and then goes so far as to compensate people for it.

So let us band together and stop referring to illegals as “illegal immigrants”.  Let’s stop the War on Immigrants.  “Illegal” works just fine as a title, and it’s more accurate.  And perhaps it’s about time we made our politicians take a step back from conning the system for votes, or proposing changes to it that will achieve little else than create a more difficult job market, increase the number of violent crimes, and screw everyone over that decided to be just another one of those schmucks who chose to actually obey the law of the land.