"Looks Like The District Don't Change The Results"

 

   Sorry for not posting Yesterday.....Yep you guessed it....had the bug, felt like crap.  Went home early from work Wednesday and stayed home yesterday.  Wasn't feeling it.   I don't get sick that often.

   

The Supreme Court just ended race-based gerrymandering in Calais v. State of Louisiana, something that should never have been implemented. Given my home state has had the awful Bennie Thompson representing Mississippi 2nd District for 33 years, I have been researching the question of whether racially based districts that basically guaranteed a minority (usually black) representative means improvement in the lives of the residents of that district or it just means more reliable Democrat votes in the House.

For more than a generation, one of the central assumptions embedded in American electoral design—particularly in the creation of majority-minority districts—has been that representation should mirror the population, and that this mirroring will translate into better outcomes for that population.

In the case of black-majority districts, the underlying premise is straightforward: black representatives will better understand, prioritize, and ultimately improve the lives of black constituents. It is an intuitively appealing idea. It is also, based on the available evidence, an assumption that has never been convincingly proven.

There is little dispute about the first-order effects. When districts are drawn to concentrate black voters, the likelihood of electing black representatives rises dramatically. Those representatives tend to focus more heavily on issues that disproportionately affect black communities—education funding, healthcare access, housing policy, criminal justice reform, and targeted economic support. On the surface, this looks like success: alignment between representative and constituency, and a policy agenda tailored to perceived needs.

This is where the narrative begins to break down.

When you move from what is proposed to what is achieved, the evidence becomes far less definitive. The academic literature, spanning decades, repeatedly lands in the same uncomfortable place: there is no strong, consistent proof that black-majority districts produce materially better outcomes for black residents than alternative arrangements. Gains in income, education, employment, and long-term upward mobility are influenced by a wide array of structural forces—economic conditions, geographic mobility, family stability, schooling quality, and broader policy environments. Representation, it turns out, is only one variable in a much larger system.

That alone would make the assumption questionable but there is a second layer to the problem, and it is political rather than demographic.

Black-majority districts are not just racially distinct; they are also overwhelmingly Democrat. For decades, black voters have supported Democrat candidates at rates exceeding 80 percent. That reality means the policy agenda emerging from these districts is not simply a function of racial representation—it is deeply intertwined with Democratic Party ideology, particularly its emphasis on redistribution, public spending, and government-directed solutions.

The pattern is clear: representatives from these districts tend to favor policies centered on resource allocation and disparity reduction rather than broad-based economic growth. The emphasis is on expanding programs and directing government resources into specific communities. Redistribution is a means, not an outcome, and the critical question is whether that means produces measurable, sustained improvements. The answer, at best, is inconclusive—and inconclusive counts as a failure.

Decades of increased representation, coupled with decades of policy alignment with a single political party, have not produced a clear, consistent pattern of superior outcomes in black-majority districts. In many cases, these districts remain economically challenged, with persistent gaps in income, education, and wealth compared to national averages. That does not mean representation caused the problem—but it does undermine the claim that it has solved it.

There is also a structural paradox embedded in how these districts are designed. By concentrating black voters into a smaller number of districts, the system may increase the number of black representatives while simultaneously reducing the broader political influence of black voters across the state or national landscape. Instead of being pivotal in multiple competitive districts, those voters are effectively packed into safe seats—more representation in a narrow sense, but potentially less leverage in shaping broader policy outcomes. That tradeoff rarely makes it into the political talking points, but it sits at the heart of the debate.

Then there is the question that tends to make people uncomfortable but cannot be avoided: if the results are inconclusive, what does that say about the original assumption? In a larger context, since the policies are overwhelmingly uninhibited subsets of the Democrat agenda, what does the lack of conclusive success say about those policies?

If decades of increased representation, targeted legislation, and political alignment have not produced clear, measurable improvements that can be directly attributed to those factors, then the claim that a black representative is inherently better positioned to improve the lives of black constituents becomes difficult to sustain. It shifts from an evidence-based conclusion to a belief—one that may be emotionally satisfying, but not empirically grounded.

None of this is an argument against black representation. A representative republic should allow for, and often benefit from, a diversity of voices and experiences. Nor is it an argument that race is irrelevant to political perspective. It clearly is. The point is narrower and more precise: there is a difference between representation that feels meaningful and representation that produces measurable results. The data supports the former. It does not conclusively support the latter.

If that is true, then the policy conversation should evolve accordingly. Instead of assuming that matching the identity of the representative to the identity of the district is sufficient—or even primary—we should be asking harder questions about what actually drives improvement. What the evidence does not show is that the race of the representative, by itself, is the decisive factor.

That leads to a blunt but unavoidable conclusion: if the promised benefits of race-based representation cannot be clearly demonstrated after decades of implementation, then the assumption that it inherently produces better results is not just unproven—it is, in practical terms, a failure.

That means the only legitimate conclusion is that it only generates more Democrat votes in the House.

"The Mask is slipping"...The Left is trying to destroy America.

 

  

 Yes I saw this on Farcebook yesterday while I was working, I had taken a "Microbreak"  Yes I know it was a Holiday, and Yes Aviation is a 24 hour gig, if the public is flying, we are working.  It pays ok, LOL.   The cartoon are compliments of "Townhall.com"

Dear America,

I'm tired of people pretending this is about ICE. Or Renee. Or George Floyd. Or whatever slogan happens to be trending this week. It never is. The cause is interchangeable. The outrage is rented. The script is the same recycled, bullshit. Every single time Republicans take control, the left goes hunting, not for justice, not for solutions, but for a spark. Any spark. A name, a video clip, a headline they can weaponize. Because the goal isn’t reform. It’s disruption. It’s chaos. It’s punishment. Punishment for daring to vote wrong.

They don’t want to persuade you. They want to exhaust you.

They don’t want debate. They want submission. They don’t want peace. They want you miserable enough to cave. So they torch cities, block highways, harass neighbors, scream at diners, target cops, demonize Ice agents, and then stand back and call it “righteous anger.” And if you dare question it? You’re the villain. You’re the problem. You “lack compassion.” It's funny how compassion always seems to involve other people paying the price.

George Floyd wasn’t about Black lives. If it were, they wouldn’t have burned Black neighborhoods to the ground and moved on the second the cameras left. MeToo wasn’t about protecting women. If it were, it wouldn’t have been selectively enforced based on party affiliation. ICE isn’t about immigrants. If it were, they wouldn’t cheer criminals over law-abiding citizens. These are props. Shields. Human meat suits for a political tantrum.

The real objective is hostage-taking. Make daily life so hostile, so unstable, so miserable that normal Americans think, Maybe it’s not worth voting Republican anymore. That’s the strategy. It’s not subtle. It never has been.

I would like to think people are catching on. We’re tired of the fake grief. Tired of the selective morality. Tired of being told to shut up, sit down, and accept disorder as virtue. This country doesn’t belong to the loudest mob or the angriest activists. It belongs to the people who work, raise families, follow the law, and still believe elections matter.

You don’t get to burn the house down every time you lose and then lecture the rest of us about democracy. We see you now.

And the mask is gone. Glenn Reib

A Time To Hate

This has been making the rounds on several blogs, I saw it on American Spectator, and it resonated with me, the Gentleman wrote exactly what I felt, When President Obama won, I wasn't happy, but I rolled with it and accepted it because that is what Americans do, we accept the results and if you candidate don't win, well, you have 4 years to pull a better one out.  And 4 years later, we tried again with Romney, and the 2012 election was his to lose, and when he allowed himself to get rolled in the 2nd debate by Candy Crowley and I knew it was over, he was too nice, the media was all in the tank for the messiah and it would take some one that was willing to get in the mud and fight back.  Cue in the 2016 election, and Donald Trump threw his hat in the ring, at first the media treated him as a joke as he started talking and finetuning his message to the middle class, the ones that have been forgotten by all the globalization, the ones that have seen all the jobs go overseas and they have to take jobs at walmart to make ends meet.  He tapped into that resentment and off to the races we went.  Donald Trump fought back against the media and the democrats, all the dirty tricks, all the slime, he was "Teflon Don", and nothing stuck, because he wouldn't let nothing stick.  And when he won against Felonia Von Pantsuit, the Designated successor for the Messiah's term, the Left exploded in Rage.  the 20 years of globalization that was so close was almost at hand, 2 more terms with Felonia in charge and the illegals permanently ensconced and given voting privileges, the GOP would never win another election and power would be with the Democrats for generations and the United States would have been permanently lessened among nations as was the plan and globalization utopia was at hand.

This was written by Dov Fischer, and I pulled it off the American Spectator.

To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;
A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;
A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
A time to seek, and a time to lose; a time to guard, and a time to cast away;
A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
A time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace.
— Kohelet (Ecclesiastes) 3:1-8

Through eight years, I accepted the rules of the game. Obama was president. He won fair and square because the Republicans serially put up two milquetoast opponents who were incapable of offering a vision or articulating a message that inspired. John McCain had been an American wartime hero who stood by his men, refused early release, and withstood torture in the “Hanoi Hilton” 40 years earlier. But he had no business running for a presidency two generations later for which he was not prepared to fight and for which he had no vision. And then came Mitt Romney, his etch-a-sketch candidacy, his binders full of women, and his Romneycare, which served as the model for the Obamacare and which was the single most galvanizing issue in 2012 for Republican conservatives. In order to throw out Obamacare, the Republican Party offered us conservatives … what, Romneycare? Tough for us conservatives to sing in that tabernacle choir.
I accepted Obama. I never articulated his first name, and I never called him “president,” but I accepted the results and accepted that this Pretender was our country’s lawfully elected chief executive. I watched his arrogance, the unctuous way he carried himself literally with his nose up, the way he never held a railing while walking a stairway because he was too cool, the kinds of human dreck he regularly invited as his White House guests, and I accepted it all with the soft whisper, “This, too, shall pass.” I watched the Corrupt Journalist Corps idolize him, crown him a king, admire him as a messiah and a deity, and I accepted the milieu. This, too, in time would pass. It meant living through eight years of the deepest public corruption. Lois Lerner stealing an election by leveraging the awesome power of the Internal Revenue Service to close down legitimate conservative political groups. Eric Holder — the nobleman who urged people to kick enemies — bringing lawlessness and corruption into the Justice Department, even approving the “Fast and Furious” idea of releasing lethal weapons to Mexican drug lords in the cockamamie scheme to find out how they access and move their weapons. Glenn Beck exposed Obama’s Maoist communications director, Anita Dunn, who walked children through the White House. There was ACORN. Just one corruption after another.

I hate that Donald Trump never was given a chance to be President of the United States for even one day’s honeymoon.

Amid my speeches and writings throughout the Wasted Obama Decade, I never published a piece aimed at bringing down Obama before his term was up. He won. Although he is despicable beyond words, the rules of our game, as set forth in our precious Constitution, made him our president. That meant Americans would die needlessly because we had a commander in chief who was a Pretender and an Incompetent. But he won fair and square. So ISIS grew from a small terror band to a caliphate. ISIS-inspired terror attacks occurred in our homeland. Western Europe sustained terrible deadly attacks. Our American economy went nowhere. We micturated half a billion dollars down a toilet with Solyndra while trying to close down our energy sector, attacking the genius of our hydraulic fracturing, obstructing our oil exploration, blocking the construction of new pipelines that offered even more oil and more thousands of jobs. Instead, we got shovel-ready jobs that were not ready but rather were chummy payoffs to union heads and other political insiders. We got windmills suitable for blowhards. We got Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State and Benghazi as testimonial to her vision. We got Susan Rice, an idiot, raised paradoxically to head of national security after spending a day lying on five television stations about Benghazi and later going on to describe Bowe Bergdahl, a coward and deserter, as a hero who had served with honor and distinction. We got Loretta Lynch, who some thought would clean up Holder’s corruption of Justice, only to find that she ended up in bed with the Clintons at the height of the probe of Hillary’s corruption. We saw the world’s worst murderers freed from Gitmo so that they could rejoin the war against America.
And yet I accepted it all. Because if there are only two main parties in this country, and if the Republican RINOs refuse repeatedly to nominate a bona fide conservative who truly reflects the will of the rank-and-file voters whose ballots send them to Washington, then we are left with a Pretender like Obama, and he won fair and square.

The waters did not stop rising on Obama’s watch. The Earth was not healed. On his watch, a country that finally had healed itself from the shame and scourge of imposing slavery on human beings more than a century earlier, a country that had atoned and that had created and institutionalized a new social infrastructure by which people no longer were denied because of their skin color or religion — a country that reflected that healing by electing a Black man president despite his manifest lack of personal achievement, close ties with an organized-crime felon, and questionable biography — suddenly erupted into a new era of racial bitterness. Michael Brown and Ferguson aflame amid the “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” lie promoted by Obama and by Eric Holder but shot down by a Missouri grand jury. Freddie Gray and Baltimore aflame followed by a series of outright judicial exonerations handed down by a Black judge who saw that every accused cop had acted properly and lawfully. A lowlife killed by George Zimmerman in Sanford, Florida, a thug whom Obama told us would have been the likes of his own son if he had had a son. Eight years of racial divide, social division aimed at tearing us up as a color-blind and religion-blind American People, just to promote electoral successes.
And yet I accepted that Obama had won. No derangement syndrome for me. It was what it was. As a New York Mets fan from their founding in 1962, I understood what it was to wait patiently and to endure eight years of unmitigated disaster. As a boy, I waited then, and then came Tom Seaver, Jerry Koosman, and Nolan Ryan. As an adult I waited. And then came Donald Trump and Mike Pence.
When the Mets finally took it all in 1969, the other teams accepted the results. They lost gracefully. Now it was the Mets’ turn, and they had won it fair and square. But these past three years have been something different. Trump and Pence won fair and square. But there was no grace. Rather, there was instant character assassination, instant war, instant denial. Advertisements urging electors to violate their Electoral College oaths. Fabrications of collusion with Putin. Investigations that hamstrung a presidency. Lies and innuendoes leaked and published by the unindicted co-conspirators we call the “mainstream media.” A never-ending hunt to find scandals and Trump accusers: a bimbo who pole-danced at bars, her lawyer who now dances behind bars, another crooked lawyer who tape-recorded his own clients and now is locked up, disbarred from the Bar. One cartoon character after another.
As a rabbi of 40 years and a person who believes that most people have the potential for goodness, and who tries to find the good even in people who disappoint until they absolutely close off the possibility of goodness being discovered within them, I now have learned to hate.
The Bible certainly does not encourage hate. “Do not hate your brother in your heart. [If he does wrong, go ahead and] Rebuke your compatriot, but do not sin because of him” (Leviticus 19:17). “Do not seek revenge, and do not bear a grudge against the children of your people. And you shall love your neighbor as you love yourself” (Leviticus 19:18). But the Bible acknowledges the existence of viciousness and cruelty, and it demands of decent people that we not sit on the fence in the face of evil: “Those who love G-d hate evil” (Psalm 97:10). King Solomon laid it out best in that magnificently poetic third chapter of Ecclesiastes, which inspired not only The Byrds but even Pete Seeger and Judy Collins.
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. There is a time to hate.
I have come deeply to hate. I hate that Donald Trump never was given a chance to be president of the United States for even one day’s honeymoon. I hate that, long before he won the presidency — fair and square — corrupt crooks and criminals in the United States Department of Justice, its Federal Bureau of Investigation, were actively plotting to take him down. I hate that there are so few outlets in the media that give voice to condemn the criminality and corruption that broke every accepted societal norm by which we play the game. I hate that Obama was in on it, yet continues to pontificate on what is just and on what threatens freedom.
I hate that they all keep getting away with it. Every single one of them gets away with it. There is absolutely no price to be paid on the left for perjury, for conspiracy to overturn a legitimate election, for treason.
Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn may or may not be a great American hero. Yes, he has the medals and the military career for which we all say, “Thank you for your service.” But so did John McCain, and so does that Vindman guy. OK, so thank you for your service. Absolutely. But Michael Flynn, whether a hero or simply, merely just a lifelong patriot who has devoted his entire adult life to the protection and betterment of the United States, wanted to serve his country. So he served honorably in the military under Obama as commander in chief. He accepted the chain of command. And then, after his active military service, he stepped forward to participate politically under Trump.
Lt. Gen. Flynn never deserved what was done to him. He was targeted for destruction by criminals and crooks in the FBI. They set out to destroy him. The FBI is not allowed to bother law-abiding people like you and me, to set us up, and to induce us to commit a crime. They are permitted to pursue criminal investigations only when they have a predicate before them. In the case of Flynn, they had in their possession a complete recording and transcript of his phone call with Sergey Kislyak. Yet they interviewed him and asked him to tell them what was said during the call. The Bureau of Investigation was not investigating; they already knew the answer. Rather, they were setting him up to speak a falsehood, to commit the crime of lying to the FBI, an act whose criminal dimensions he did not appreciate as a layman. They dissuaded him from having an attorney at the interview so he would slip into the trap. A competent attorney would have protected him. Frankly, a competent attorney would have killed the interview in the first place or would have wrangled terms that would have negated its purpose, much as Hillary did.
For each question, even if such an interview ever would have happened, an attorney like me would have been saying, alternating between my client and his interrogator: “Lieutenant General, you do not have to answer that question. Go ahead, what’s the next question?” Or “Lieutenant General, please wait a moment. What is the purpose of this question? What exactly are you asking?” Or “My client, the Lieutenant General, is delighted he could give you eight minutes of his valuable time today. If you want to ask him any more questions along these lines, send us a subpoena. We will study it and let you know our thoughts.”
They took advantage of a good man who suddenly found himself combating in a different kind of military theater outside his field of expertise. He knew the jungles of Afghanistan, not the jungles of the Justice Department in Washington. The slime dregs of Justice, the Peter Strzoks and Andrew McCabes of the FBI, knew this. They had the lieutenant general on their terrain. He never should have been questioned about the call. He never should have been sucked into an interview without an attorney present. He never should have been lulled into what he said to the FBI.
Donald Trump has been the chief executive of this country for more than three years, and he has proven to be a great president in so many ways, but he sadly has proven incapable of cleaning the swamp. He at least identified the swamp’s existence, and he is fighting its effort to swallow him within its muck. But he has proven that, despite the glorious slogan he inspired, he cannot drain it. Not one single slime in the swamp has been brought to justice.
There is something so evil in a society that tolerates a dual standard of justice, dual standards of everything. On the one hand, we political conservatives harbor profoundly deep feelings, but we do not destroy people’s lives based on abstract politics. Yes, we oppose them and expose them, and we hope that contemporary society and history judge them for the evil they represent. But we do not destroy them in their lives. They get away with everything. Hillary Clinton spoliated 33,000 emails amid a federal probe, a federal crime that always ends up with prison time — but not for her. It is a federal crime to lie under oath to Congress. Comey, Clapper, Brennan — how have they all avoided prison time? Strzok, Page, the whole bunch of them? Adam Schiff. The outliers on the Mueller team. Not one single slime among them in the swamp has been brought to justice.
These animals destroyed the life of Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn. They drove him into such financial ruin that he had to sell his home to pay his legal bills. They went after a good boy, Nick Sandmann, and they cruelly made him into the face of racism. His own Catholic diocese in eastern Kentucky sold him out and sold out all the boys who stood with him that fateful day in Washington, D.C., when he was harassed by a messed-up Indian with a drum. And they did everything they could to destroy Brett Kavanaugh, a good man, a family man, a man who has devoted time throughout his life to his church and to the need. They endeavored through outright perjury to destroy him. The perjurers all got away with it. Name one single perjurer against Justice Kavanaugh who ever was brought to justice by Charles Grassley or Lindsey Graham of the Senate Judicial Committee.
The liars destroy with impunity because they know they always will get away with it. Republicans watch the character assassination and then go on Sean Hannity to sound brave for five minutes. “These people will pay a steep price, Sean.” “I won’t let them get away with it, Sean.” “Let not your heart be troubled, Sean.” “We will investigate every crime and every perjury, Sean.” Three years of hearing this from Paul Ryan, Reince Priebus, Trey Gowdy, Charles Grassley, Lindsey Graham, Rudy Giuliani, Jason Chaffetz, Kevin McCarthy. Well, Fox News Alert: They all got away with it. Comey. Brennan. Clapper. Blasey Ford. Schiff. Hillary. Strzok. Page. McCabe.
If the Left truly believed in the truth of the slogans they chanted in their failed effort to destroy Justice Kavanaugh, does anyone truly believe that Biden still would be standing today? Does anyone truly believe that Sonia Sotomayor could not have been completely destroyed at the time of her SCOTUS nomination if she were conservative? If the media were not a division of the Democrat Party, does anyone doubt that New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo today would have been forced from office like his immediate predecessors, Eliot Spitzer and David Paterson, if only for presiding over so extraordinary a health catastrophe that his one state accounts for half the coronavirus illnesses and deaths in the whole country? Cuomo ordered nursing homes in his state to admit coronavirus-infected seniors into facilities that were woefully unprepared to handle the medical ramifications, and that order singularly caused mass death. And yet the same media that seek any and every angle to blame Trump for not wearing a mask lionize Cuomo, who not only should wear a mask but also should change his fingerprints, undergo plastic surgery to reconfigure his appearance, and hide for dear life in some El Chapo cave from the children and grandchildren left behind by the more than 5,000 defenseless seniors whom he has martyred so far on the altar of Democrat liberalism.
There is a time to love and a time to hate. This is a time to hate.

Impeachment Day,,,?

  Well the hate filled democrats have done it, they will vote impeachment articles on President Trump today.  They have been throwing a 3 year temper tantrum over Trump winning and blocking the coronation process of Felonia Von Pantsuit, the designated successor of the anointed one.  How dare Trump and those deplorables block history in the making and besides we are college educated and live in the cities, so we know what is best for all those backward hicks so we will throw a tantrum, and hold our breath until he leaves. 

    Well the 2020 elections are coming up and the field of democrats that are running against Trump are looking pretty weak, so after the Mueller Report laid a big fat zero, the subsequent hearings went nowhere, so the democrats have one chance left to try to beat trump from winning in 2020...

The Horowitz report pretty much excused the FBI despite the biased shown by the upper levels against Trump.  My Dad is friends of several rank and file FBI agents and they are disgusted by what they have seen, the FBI was supposed to be apolitical, but they have been weaponized by the prior administration to go after people perceived as a threat to the democrats and the deep state.

And speaking of impeachment, the democrats that won in red districts, who vowed in their campaign to "be different and listen to their constituents" are being pressured to support the party line and those democrats know it will most likely cost them their reelection in 2020 because their districts are red districts and oppose impeachment.

They don't know what they are doing to the social fabric of this country.  In the past, if your side lost, well you sucked it up and dealt with it and ran a better candidate next time.  When Obungler was president I didn't like it, but I was an adult about it and accepted it and hope for better results next time knowing in 4 or 8 years, that person will be gone.  That is how it works here.  We don't have 20 or 30 year reigns of strongmen and one political party like a lot of countries.  The Founding fathers knew what they were doing when they designed the system we have. Impeachment is a very powerful tool, to be welded reluctantly, I remember the Clinton impeachment, What Bubba did was far worse than what Trump was accused of doing.  Clinton committed perjury, and was caught and because he was president he was brought to trial in congress.  he was acquitted and remained very popular, and the GOP got burned by the process.  At a side note, he did lose his law license.   What Trump is accused of doing is "abuse of Power" strictly by a "he said/she said" or 2nd hand knowledge and Schiff had only democrats working on his panel to find information to try to impeach Trump. 
     This process is purely a political witch hunt to try to block Trump from winning in 2020 and as a side note if RBG kicks the bucket, it will be used against him to prevent him from appointing a successor, and the next president in 2024 if he is of a different party than congress will be impeached, no matter what it is, because the democrats used "impeachment" as a political tool.  If the President in 2024 is a democrat, he will be impeached if the house is GOP because it will be payback and that is not good.  The peaceful exchange of power has been a hallmark of our political system and it keeps us from going to war with each other.  the last time the Democrats went totally off the rails was in 1860 when they refused to accept the election of Abraham Lincoln, and it created the 4 years of "sportiness" called the Civil War.  The democrats have forgotten history and if history is an indicator, "we will live in interesting times" and I don't want that because it will be far worse.

How to break through a vehicular roadblock and other musings...and the democrat call for more violence...

First off, we had the The senator from the peoples republic of Massachusetts release her DNA results..after being taunted by President Trump after she has touted her "Native American" ancestry and used that for political gains...well the results were surprising....for her and her fans...

The resulting Twitter meltdown after the results were very entertaining...Only Donald Trump could have engineered such a debacle ...for the Democrats...and their penchant for rich white liberals claiming "Victimhood" status with some marginalized group.....

The Resulting Meme's have been all over the internet..

And the Cherry on the whole circus for us conservatives has been the spokesman for the Cherokee Nation commented that "It is disingenuous for someone to claim tribe status when they have no basis, and it is an insult to those that have fought for that distinction.  "     And I have heard that she is having problems in her senate race, apparently even the people in the peoples republic has issues with their politicians shamelessly lying....like a cheap rug. 

Or an Indian rug.....

I saw this on "The Art of Manliness" and they had an article about getting past a roadblock....and it is a very good article, I have used stuff from them in the past because they bring up what I call "Old school knowledge" stuff that isn't so common now.  and especially for those that live in the cities, especially those cities that are chock full of "activist" like BLM and Antifa and their penchant for blocking traffic, usually with their bodies, but I can see them using old cars and the political structure supporting their goals especially like Portland where the Police are told to stand down and you will be on your own with no support and you really don't want to get stuck, and get pulled out of the car and get "Reginald Denny's  "

Because of what is going on now with the various democrat politicians calling for violence against their political opponents and their supporters.

.I recall something like 594 attacks against Trump supporters by assorted leftist groups..

    You have had Maxine Waters call for attacks against people that support Trump, we have had people that support the President run out of restaurants by the harpies of the left.  And this is continuing....when the democrats lose in 2018 and I believe this likely the resulting temper tantrum will continue through the 2020 election and when President Trump wins and I believe this also likely especially when the economy is doing well people will vote with their wallets except for the perennial students, professors and other leftist that don't work for a living.

This is the article I saw on the "Art of Manliness"

How to Ram Through a Vehicular Roadblock

You’re cruising down a narrow road when you see two cars parked across it, blocking your path. It seems to be some kind of checkpoint or barricade. What should you do?
If it’s an official police or military checkpoint, you better stop. Despite what you see in movies, blowing through a police blockade is not a sound strategy: you can kill an officer, get shot yourself, and even if you get through, the authorities will be after you like white on rice, inevitably nabbing you in the high-speed chase that follows (if you don’t end it yourself by crashing).
But what if the blockade isn’t an official one? You’re in a war-torn foreign land and are about to be stopped by insurgents, or it’s a trap set up by carjackers, or you’re living in a Mad Max-esque dystopian future where some baby-eating cannibals see your car as a can full of tasty sardines? Well, then it might be worth ramming through the obstructing vehicles and continuing on your way.
Ramming a vehicular barricade is very dangerous, and should only be employed as a last resort — when there’s no other means of escape or alternative routes of navigation, and when breaching and stopping carry about equal chances of death. In such a situation, here’s how to most effectively carry out this defensive driving maneuver.

Picking an Ideal Ramming Vehicle

When it comes to the best kind of car for ramming through a blockade, not all vehicles are created equal. You want to think both about its frame type and its air bags.
Vehicle frame. Vehicles are basically built with two types of frames: body-on-frame and unibody.
With the body-on-frame build, the vehicle starts as a separate frame to which the body is attached. With a unibody car, the frame and body are integrated together. A body-on-frame chassis is made with heavier metals, while a unibody is made with lighter weight alloys.

In a unibody car (top), the frame and body are all one structure; in a body-on-frame vehicle (bottom), the body goes on top of a separate frame.

A unibody vehicle is statistically safer than the body-on-frame type because in the event of an accident, the stresses are evenly distributed throughout the vehicle, which is actually designed to crumple, even in a minor crash, in way that redirects the forces away from the passenger cabin.
But the reason they’re safer in a normal accident scenario also makes them less effective in a ramming situation. The key to an effective ramming is to hit a hard part of your car against a hard part of the obstructing car; this works better than a hard part of one hitting a soft part — like a crumple zone — of the other. You want the energy from the contact to move/bounce the obstructing car out of the way, rather than being absorbed.
A body-on-frame vehicle provides this desirable rigidity because the chassis is made with high-strength steel frame rails that run the entire length of the vehicle. Rather than being distributed throughout the body, contact forces will be concentrated in the frame, making for better bumping.
Almost all vehicles these days are made with unibody frames except trucks and a few heavy-duty SUVs. While a unibody car is capable of ramming, a body-on-frame truck will have tactical advantages in this (and in off-road capabilities as well).
Air bags. You should also keep air bags in mind in a ramming situation. Below we’ll talk about how to minimize the chance of the air bag being deployed, but it can certainly still happen when you’re hitting another vehicle. Getting smacked in the face with an air bag when you’re trying to make an already dangerous maneuver is obviously highly undesirable; it would not only be a painful, view-obscuring distraction, but the release of an air bag can also trigger the automatic shutoff of your fuel pump.
For tactical purposes, you might choose a vehicle that’s too old to have an airbag, or deactivate the air bag (something you’d have to do yourself, as you’re required to request authorization from the National Highway Traffic Safety Association to have a mechanic install an on/off switch for you).  

Getting Ready to Ram

Remember, ramming through a vehicular blockade is a maneuver of last resort. As you approach a checkpoint/roadblock, assess whether or not there’s an alternative way to avoid it. Can you go around it? Throw the car in reverse and back away?
If there’s no other way through, and death awaits if you stop, then it’s time to ram the car(s) blocking your path.
Line up so that the frame rail of your vehicle will hit the wheel axle of the obstructing vehicle. Remember that you’re going to aim to hit a hard part of your vehicle, to a hard part of the other car. The best points of contact are the frame rail of your vehicle, and the wheel axle of the other.
The frame rail runs roughly parallel to your headlights; as that’s hard to see when you’re driving, use your outside leg (or that of your passenger if you’re hitting with the other side of the vehicle) as a reference. Even in a unibody car, this will still be the strongest spot to use; while it doesn’t have frame rails that run the whole length of the vehicle, there is a sub-frame in the front and the rear.
Aim for the rear wheel of the obstructing vehicle if possible. The trunk end of the car is lighter and easier to move than the engine-heavy front end.
If there are two cars, aim for the wheel axle of one of them. A blockade often exists of two cars parked end-to-end. In this case, aim to drive between them, hitting the wheel axle of one of them.
Drive at around 15-20 mph. Approaching slowly will make it appear you intend to stop at the checkpoint, and it’s also the ideal ramming speed. You need less speed and force to move a car than you’d think. By applying this “minimum effective dose,” you 1) minimize the damage to your own car (preserving its integrity will be key in making your getaway), and 2) minimize the chance of the air bag deploying.
If you have air bags in the car, slow down to 15 mph. Air bags are triggered from rapid deceleration, and the kind of impact/body damage which occurs when you hit another car going at least 16-28 mph. Going slow will hopefully prevent the air bag from deploying, as will continuing to accelerate (see below).
If you have to stop completely before the blockade, leave a car’s length between you and the obstructing vehicle. A car’s length to a car and a half’s length will give you sufficient distance to get up to speed before you hit the obstructing vehicle.
Put your car in a low gear, so you’ll have plenty of torque.
Look ahead. Don’t stare at the target of impact, but instead look ahead to see where there’s drivable terrain past the blockade and figure out where you’ll maneuver next. Maintain situational awareness!
Keep accelerating through the obstructing vehicle. Human nature will prompt you to take your foot off the accelerator or to pump the brakes as you hit the obstructing car. Do neither. Keep on accelerating as you hit the car and break on through.
Congratulations, you just rammed through a vehicular blockade. The baby-eaters will go hungry another day.

Another Dire prediction from the Climate Change Crowd.....Sheesh

The Chicken Littles of the Political world were at it again shrieking that the world was warming, and the Polar Bears will die, the world is cooling and there is a new Ice age coming and Oh well lets call it climate change to trick a new generation of idiots. in trouble and if we don't enact it everyone will die.   To me "Climate Change" is environmental Marxism, using the environment to shaft the western based world while China, Pakistan, India and everyone else gets a pass.   Here is the Latest utterance by one of them, I pulled this off Drudge.  I am sure that he makes Washington State proud.




Washington state’s Democratic Governor Jay Inslee warned there was “just 59 days” to save future generations from “an endless cycle of crop-killing droughts one year, and rivers spilling their banks the next.”

Inslee went on a lengthy Twitter rant in efforts to convince the state legislature to pass legislation to tax carbon dioxide emissions. Washington residents voted down Inslee’s last carbon tax plan by a wide margin in 2016.
The state legislature’s session ends in 59 days, on March 8. Democrats have a slim majority in both state legislative chambers.

Inslee wants lawmakers to pass a tax on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants and industrial facilities.
Inslee’s plan would tax carbon dioxide emissions at $20 a ton in 2019, that would gradually rise at 3.5 percent above inflation each following year. Inslee’s office estimates it will raise $3.3 billion over the next four years.
About $950 million would go toward education programs. The rest would go toward green energy programs and research, water infrastructure, wildfire mitigation. Some money would offset taxes or go to poor families.
The plan could raise household electricity prices five percent, and gas prices by about 10 percent, according to official estimates.
Inslee’s first carbon tax plan failed in 2016 after liberal groups couldn’t agree how to spend the revenues it was expected to raise. Inslee also proposed a cap-and-trade program, that both Democrats and Republicans rejected in 2015.
If Inslee’s carbon tax plan passes, the legislation would have no measurable impact on projected future global warming. Indeed, even if the U.S. as a whole stopped emitting, the impact would be extremely small, based on government climate models.

   Here is a link to his Twitter feed and you can see many references to Al Gore in this.

Some more musings on the election in the 6th district.

The pundits here in Atlanta are still talking about the 6th district race, apparently the complaint was that there was too much rain to the media pundits especially on MSNBC,

I saw postings of the SJW's crying after the results were announced...The democrats have now been pushing a narrative that Ossoff wasn't left enough and they are pushing to go farther left.  They also are going full identity politics stating that Ossoff lost because he was white and that the democrats should have run a person of color or a female.   I am amazed that they ate doubling down on stupid and I hear that they are blaming Nancy Pelosi for the loss,  
    
  This article I cribbed off Resurgent, I though it brought some good points.

In 2016, Rodney Stooksbury got 38.3% of the vote in Georgia’s sixth congressional district after spending only around $1000.00. Less than a year later, Democrats spent $30million to get only ten percent more of the vote and still lose.
There are some real issues here that the cheering and moralizing will overlook. Democrats will say it should not have been so close, but Republicans can counter than outspending the GOP and still losing is a big deal. It is. The Democrats can note that the GOP was winning this district by twenty points regularly and now are barely winning. That is true too.
But there are some fundamental problems for Democrats that they are going to overlook as they declare moral victory.
First, the national netroots rallied to Jon Ossoff, who was completely unknown to the sixth congressional district. There was a state senator from within the district who had a built in constituency that crossed party lines. But that guy got rejected for this unknown who lived out of the district.
Second, Ossoff did live out of the district and that cost him a number of votes. Democrats want you to believe this race was about healthcare and a referendum on Trump. The reality is more voters talked about Ossoff being a carpetbagger than they talked about where either candidate stood on the issues.
Third, Democrats got cocky. In the last two weeks of the race they started knocking on Republican doors to try to turn out the vote. Yes, they needed to persuade persuadable Republicans to vote Ossoff, but they did not just target those voters. They blanketed the district, knocking on the doors of Trump voters. They saturated the district with robocalls. They overbought television advertisements. They overexposed their candidate.

Fourth, Ossoff never defined himself. He went negative on Handel, who had won this district in three elections and who was known by 90% of the district. He could not define a woman who everyone already knew and mostly liked. But no one knew Ossoff and he got defined as a Pelosi loving carpetbagger.
That leads me to the fifth point, Nancy Pelosi is as much an anchor on the Democrats as Trump is on the GOP, if not more so. If Democrats want to win GOP seats, Pelosi needs to stay in the shadows.
Sixth, Ossoff was way overexposed. People got tired of his ads. They were on constantly. They never changed. People tuned them out over time. He never shook up the advertisements or rolled out new attacks or positive messages. Democrats saying this was about healthcare want to focus on his literally last two days where he talked about healthcare. He otherwise did not go deep on policy on the campaign trail.
Seventh, this was a Republican district that was won by a well known and liked Republican who was able to offset poor fundraising with high name ID and likability. Trump voters turned out for her and got her across the finish line.
Eighth, and this is the most important point, Ossoff ran as a moderate Republican. He never attacked the President and opposed universal healthcare. But the national noise about this campaign filtered in. Local voters and local news coverage knew the national progressive activists viewed an Ossoff win as another step towards the impeachment of President Trump. By being so vocal about the implications of this race, the Democrats fired up the GOP voters to defend Trump. It is a poor strategy moving forward for them. This is a district they need and they lost it.
Ninth, despite the rhetoric, you should know that this was one of the most civil races I have witnessed. Yes, there were crazies and bad things happened to both sides, but largely the candidates and campaigns were very civil to each other and the attacks were relatively mild.
Tenth, expect Karen Handel to be her own person in Congress. She will stand up to both sides and she will not be a yes woman for anyone. Jon Ossoff too will come out of this with an enhanced reputation among Democrats. He is going to be a force to contend with in the future. His political career is just starting.

What is up with the Virtue signalling from the left?

It has been 3 weeks since Da Trump was sworn in, it has been a little over 90 days since Donald Trump beat the odds and ruined the coronation of the smartest women in the world.  The left has lost their mind.  When President Obama won the 2nd term, I was disappointed but life goes on.  Now it has been a new election cycle and the PIAP* was defeated, We should have come together as Americans, but the left will not let it go.  They are protesting and pushing boycotts of businesses that they believe supported Trump.  They are calling us "Nazi's" and using this as an excuse to dehumanize us and they believe that once they have demonized someone and called them "Nazi", then they can hurt us, damage our property and in their mind it is"OK" because we are "Nazi's" and we deserve everything we get.
   *Pig in a Pantsuit

They said that if Trump won, that groups of people would be identified and persecuted. And again, they were right. There is now a movement to identify anyone who supported the current president as an an extremist, which is kind of hard to do when he won the Electoral College by 70 votes, which means his support is hardly extreme and maybe, you know, mainstream.

That is, liberals believe that most of America is out-of-step with America.

Only the enlightened folks in the blue bubbly blotches are normal, and not extremist at all. They just happen to control Hollywood, the mainstream media, and Big Education.  I have had to unfollow people on facebook because the vitriol is so bad.  I have tried to debate people to explain what is going on and they flat out don't want to listen.  I have been called "bigoted", and "Nazi" among other things.

Soon, this  outcasting spread beyond the man, to his supporters. See, you couldn’t possibly support Donald Trump because you were tired of the direction leftists like Obama took the country while excluding everyone outside his base (and Hillary promised to continue doing). No. The only possible reason to vote Republican in 2016 was because you hated minorities and women and foreigners, said the party of nuance with its sledgehammer of hate.

Thus, a justification was born for condemning everyone you disagreed with. Someone voted for Trump? Nazi. Someone voted against Hillary? Nazi. Someone doesn’t agree with same-sex marriage? 2008 Barack Obama. Oh, and Nazi. don't believe in "Global Warming", Heretic and Nazi.

Behold all the tolerance!

Yes, the party of tolerance and enlightenment has became “everyone that’s like me is smart and good-looking and smells like awesome, and everyone that doesn’t think like me is Adolph Hitler.”

Democrats wished for their general election opponent to be Trump. They then ran, in an outsider year, an out-of-touch unlikable DC insider with an FBI probe. Then, the most qualified candidate ever lost an election to a boorish political amateur with the worst negative approval ratings ever. Panicked in shock, Democrats scrambled to place the blame squarely where it belonged: on everywhere else but the candidate. First, they blamed the Electoral College, because it’s always rigged and unfair, except when it produces a result they approve of like in 2008. Then, they blamed Russian hackers, because Putin’s ground game in Madison knew Hillary was weak in Wisconsin, and he could brilliantly mastermind her winning the popular vote but losing the electoral one.

But eventually, blamethrowing gave way to violent tantrums. Because, as someone put it, they forgot to inform us that liberal ‘love trumping hate’ involved so much arson and broken glass. The leftists smashed their own towns, and then started tolerantly having free speech arson festivals at their own universities to stop free speech.

But the Party of Progress isn’t satisfied with property damage and destruction of cop-cars and coffee kiosks. The tolerance extended to the next phase: hypothetical with the enlightened New York Times asking if violence against some people is justified. It’s ok, you see, because these people are Nazis. What makes a person a Nazi deserving of violence? Almost everything.

They say the reason for fear is all the violence at Trump rallies, which happened only because Democrats intentionally caused confrontations to get ugly headlines.

1. Plan protest at rally.
2. Break stuff, start fires, and cause mayhem.
3. Headline: “Rally Turns Ugly with Violence!”
4. Blame rally.

This tactic has been used before.    All you have to do is look at the real "Nazi's" the "National Socialist Deutche Arbeit Party, you know the people that wore brown shirts and later black shirts as they went and shut down opposing political party rally's.  Now the new party of "tolerance" has shown its face, you know the ones that wear black and hide their face and destroy stuff, and the sad thing is that the local popo's let them do it.  All it does is embolden them to continue.
    You also have a college in Florida that is teaching college students to attack those that don't agree with them, they call it "Bash the Fasch", as in fascism.  It saying that violence against groups of people are "ok" because they are "Nazi"s and bad things to Nazi's is allowed and if you don't agree with them, then you are the nazi and it is ok to attack you because you deserve it.

      The polarization of America continues, there are basically 2 America's now the blue states and the red states.  The Red states are getting angrier and angrier about the continual rage and temper tantrums that the blue states are doing, the continuous rioting, protesting and pushing boycotts.  You having Nordstrom and other retailers dumping Ivanka Trump merchandise due to pressure from the protestors and other noisy democrats that have been pushing #boycott.  When President Obama won an election in 2012 that by all rights he should have lost but thanks to the media like Candy Crowley, academia and other blue groups that openly supported President Obama they were able to secure his victory.  The people in the Red states were not happy but we didn't erupt in temper tantrums, burn vehicles and trash businesses and attack people like the left is doing.  it seems like the left is going out of their way to provoke a reaction and they don't care because in their mind we "deplorables" are evil and deserve everything that we get including death if necessary because we stand in the way of this shining city on top of the hill that could be there if we "evil" people are no longer relevant or gone or have repented for the many sins we have committed.

I am a student of history and I remembered the last time a group of people demonized their citizens, eventually stripped them of their rights and persecuted them and killed many of them.

Unlike the other incident, there is a second Amendment here in the United States and the revolution that the Left is pushing for might happen and it may not go the way they want.

Why does the Left seem to win.....?

I saw this here and I had wondered "why does the left seem to win despite supporting the most morally bankrupt system in history, they seem to always come out on top.  I read this and it helped explain a bit of it.  I am sure there is more here than the article shows, but it is a start.    The pics are from google and my stash in my folder.

W.M. Briggs asks why the Right is in constant retreat in the face of those we could easily defeat:

Why does the Left always win? Easiest answer in the world! They fight. They shoot to kill. They hang traitors. They do not retreat unless faced with overwhelming forces. They say “The hell with the rules.”
…Instead of fighting, we surrender apologetically when pushed, and as we fade we mouth words about accompanying people on their “spiritual journey” or “My Constitution guarantees free speech.”

He captures the basics. The following might be a useful expansion on his diagnosis without changing his prescription:

• The Left is unreasonable. The Right strives for an orderly, polite and morally good society. For that reason, they tend to think that other people are inclined toward being reasonable as well. The Left on the other hand views civilization as its enemy because the Left aspires to replace civilization because it views civilization without Leftism as the antithesis of good. Rightists will try to appeal to Leftists’ better natures, make compromises and keep order, which only strengthens the Left by legitimizing them and giving them a healthier society to parasitize.

• The Left is unrealistic. The Right cares about the consequences of its actions; the Left cares about the ideological appearance and social popularity of its actions, and this concern displaces any cares about consequences in reality. This liberates Leftists from the additional burden of knowing anything about what they are doing. Their one mode of thought is to say something that other people like to hear, and then using the power of the group, to force it to be implemented.
  
  
  
  
• The Left appeals to monkey dynamics. Leftists ideas are more socially correct than Rightist ideas, because the ideal of the Left is equality and the Right favors hierarchy, and social situations value only universal inclusion so that the members of that social group can feel stable because there is no tension, competition or conflict. This is an illusion but one that humans can no more resist than magpies can turn away from shiny objects. The idea of everyone being included and having a share makes humans have warm happy feelings inside — this is actually their brains turning off and their bodies preparing for animal death, as if recognizing the triumph of a predator — and so they will choose it every time. This is why any social group which is not policed by a hierarchy will drift Leftward.
  
  
  
• The Left recognizes no distinction between war and peace. Rightists will never understand that for the Leftist, ideology is all. It is how they socialize, organize their thinking, justify any self-esteem they have, and find other people. It is their reason for existing. Often it is the only thing that makes them feel good besides drugs, drink and sex. Since the high does not last, they pursue it compulsively. Since it must be right for them to feel good, any dissent or non-conformity is viewed as competition and rigorously pursued so the Leftist can feel good again. Therefore, the Leftist is always at war, and has no patriotism or loyalty to heritage because Leftism is organized in benefit of the individual and rejects any larger organization system, with an exception made for the herd because a crowd enforces individual rights by removing accountability.
  
  
  
  
• Leftists base their self-image on total victory, not decency. Rightists like to think that they are appreciated for their strong, sober, wise and measured moral presence. Leftists have no such illusion. They know that people respect that which they fear, and that which gives them handouts, and they achieve this by installing a struggle toward ultimate victory. This forces everyone in the group into conformity and justifies lavish lifestyles for those sacrificing their time to the war effort.
  
  
  
  

In the future, if humanity survives, volumes will be written about the psychology of Leftism. It is an individualistic genre that manifests through collectivism because collectives are built around the idea of every individual having an equal part and reward. This creates a semi-suicidal mentality because life can only be lived through external factors, denying the inner parts of the human psychology, which creates robotic, zombie-like ideological warriors for whom life is misery and the only respite is found through destroying enemies.