I did not vote for Joe Biden, but I hope and pray for his success. Because to do otherwise would be kind of like shooting myself—and everyone I care about—in the foot.
Most of all, I would like to see America return to the centrist politics that prevailed for most of my lifetime. One thing I liked about growing up and coming of age in the America of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s was that you could ignore politics most of the time.
Over the last few months, I’ve lost not many—but at least two or three—friends over politics. It didn’t used to be like that.
My maternal grandfather was a lifelong Democrat. (I kept waiting for him to grow out of it, but he never did.) We bet on every election. Sometimes I won, sometimes he did, but it never affected our relationship.
He’s been gone since 1998, and I still miss him every day. I actually look back warmly on our old political debates.
That’s the way it should be. The partisan divide of the twenty-first century has not been normal, healthy, or productive for America. Perhaps we can all agree on that.
The Evil Orange Man will be gone in a matter of hours. The Democrats have a majority in the Congress, as well as control of the White House. Our new vice president will be a politically left-leaning woman of color.
The radical left is appeased.
Guess again. Yesterday BLM “protesters” blocked a highway in Seattle, shutting down traffic for hours.
What were they protesting, pray tell? Perhaps the position of the moon around the third planet in the Alpha Centauri star system. Do they even bother to cite reasons anymore?
Those of you who thought that the banishment of Trump and the elevation of Biden would end the BLM/antifa shenanigans….guess again. You’re going to very quickly find out that this will be “same sh*t, different day” after January 20th.
Donald Trump, remember, was just an excuse. So was the unfortunate case of George Floyd.
The radical left really has only one goal: the nihilistic destruction of our civilization. The sooner we realize that and deal with them accordingly, the better.
Mark my words: within the year, they’ll be calling Joe Biden a fascist, too.
New York’s Andrew Cuomo is America’s second most self-aggrandizing governor. (The top slot goes to Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan.) But Governor Cuomo is determined to protect his people from the Great Invasion of Trump, which he is sure is on its way.
To this end, he’s decided not to expose the state’s greatest asset—his own person—to any dangers on Inauguration Day. Even though Washington DC has been evacuated and heavily garrisoned, Andrew Cuomo plans to hunker down in his executive mansion while Biden is sworn in on Wednesday.
The governor’s person should remain secure. New York, let’s face it, is not exactly Trump country. Governor Cuomo has nevertheless turned the state capitol at Albany into an armed fortress, to combat the rightwing, neo-Nazi Trump human wave.
Cuomo is taking no chances, though. While sending his “best wishes” to Joe Biden, the governor pleaded his obligations at home. “The people of the state of New York elected me governor and I think the governor should be here on this day.”
I don’t think they intended that you could never leave the state, Andrew.
But no matter. Should Republican barbarians invade Albany on Wednesday, Governor Cuomo will be there to stand atop the ramparts. The people of New York will rest easier as a result. As will we all.
I lived in Chicago for 108 days in 1991—from July 15 to October 30. Sort of. I actually lived in the Elk Grove Village area, in the northwest suburbs.
I will openly admit that the Windy City was not my cup of tea. I pretty much hated it, in fact. Over the years, I’ve spent significant time in Sao Paolo, Mexico City, Tokyo, Osaka, Nashville, Dallas, Toronto, and El Paso. There is only one city that makes me physically ill at the mere mention of its name: Chicago. I left Chicago one grey, overcast day almost 30 years ago, and I have rarely gone back.
With one exception: I have been to O’Hare International Airport more times than I can count. O’Hare is a common connection point when flying from Cincinnati to Japan and back—something I’ve done many times.
O’Hare, like most everything else in Chicago, is big, old, crowded, and overpriced. Nothing runs on time or works efficiently. Everyone is either guarded or on the make. The only thing worse than having a long layover in O’Hare is actually living in Chicago.
That’s why I’m baffled that this California man, Aditya Singh, 36, recently spent three months in O’Hare, hiding out. The reason: he was afraid of COVID, apparently.
I understand fears of COVID in California. (The high taxes alone would be enough to make someone flee the People’s Republic of California.) But if I were to pick an airport to hole up in for three months, I can think of many more pleasant alternatives to O’Hare. Next time, Mr. Singh should consider booking a flight to Nashville or Dallas.
Even the airport here in Cincinnati is more pleasant than O’Hare, and Chicago won’t be waiting for you immediately outside the walls.
**VENETIAN SPRINGS** A young teacher risks all to save his wife from a ruthless drug lord.
Words have consequences. The entire world, moreover, listens to the words of American politicians, especially those who are, or might become, the President of the United States.
Joe Biden and the Democrats have vowed to make the US southern border little more than a formality, if even that. This will be a sharp reversal from the policies of the Evil Orange Man of leftwing imagination, who “put kids in cages” and built the malevolent “wall”.
With the Democrats now in control of the government, the floodgates will be open.
If you open the door, they will come. About a week ago I pointed out an inconvenient truth: There are 652 million people in Latin America. That is almost twice the current population of the United States.
Surveys reveal that—with some variation by country—approximately two thirds of Latin America’s population would like to come to the United States. This is not because they are evil, but because Latin America is such an economic, social, and political basket case.
Nevertheless, we simply run out of money if we allow in everyone who wants to come. But this is the Democrats’ plan. They realize that in the short term, at least, every new arrival from a poor country is a new Democratic voter eager for “free stuff”, which Democrats promise in spades.
Lo and behold, a massive migrant caravan—the sort of thing we largely didn’t see during the Trump era—has already formed and begun heading north, toward the US border. You can be sure that this will be the first of many.
This is inconvenient timing for Joe Biden, as it proves his critics right, before he has even taken office. Biden has publicly said,“Now is not the time” to rush the US border. Wait until he takes office, at least! But the masses of Latin America have been waiting for four long Trumpian years. They’re tired of waiting.
This will result in major turmoil. We will likely see the reemergence of citizen vigilante groups like the Minutemen, who will be determined to do what the government will not. These groups have been dormant during the Trump years, because the Trump administration actually upheld our national sovereignty by controlling our borders.
Well, that is all about to change. You can bet that the Minutemen—or some new iteration of them—will be back.
There will also be overcrowding and crime waves in cities like Phoenix, El Paso, and Houston. It will be interesting to see how all this dovetails with another Democratic Party brainchild: “defund the police”.
Joe Biden, to be blunt, is an old white dude leading a party obsessed with identity politics. Joe Biden is 78 years old, and he grew up in the 1950s. He really has no idea what all this “wokeness” stuff means, beyond the superficial aspects. He is reading words in a foreign language that he does not speak.
As a result, we have some tragicomic days ahead of us. Biden has already nominated Kristen Clarke—a believer in “race science”— to head up the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division. Clarke believes that there is a master race in America. Read my essay from earlier this week to find out which one.
Biden has also announced that he will tackle transgenderism. On his campaign website he made the following promise:
“Guaranteeing transgender students have access to facilities based on their gender identity. On his first day in office, Biden will reinstate the Obama-Biden guidance revoked by the Trump-Pence Administration, which will restore transgender students’ access to sports, bathrooms, and locker rooms in accordance with their gender identity. He will direct his Department of Education to vigorously enforce and investigate violations of transgender students’ civil rights.”
I’m a live-and-let-live kind of guy. If someone wants me to refer to them by a pronoun that isn’t obvious, based on their physical appearance and birth gender, I’m more than happy to comply. Why ruffle feathers unnecessarily? If I were to meet Caitlyn Jenner tomorrow, I wouldn’t even mention that I grew up with this Wheaties box:
Nor would I ask how a woman manages to father six kids with two different women. I’m Catholic, and I grew up with the concept of the Immaculate Conception. I’m therefore willing to suspend my sense of disbelief on biological matters if dogma forces me to. And the Catholic priests and nuns of my childhood were a whole lot more forgiving than the Stasi of transgender orthodoxy.
I absolutely think its reasonable that Caitlyn Jenner could father six children, win two gold medals in the men’s Olympic decathlon, be a featured male Playgirl cover model, and still be a woman. I absolutely believe all that, so please don’t send the pitchfork mob to burn my hedges and call me a Nazi.
Likewise, I can compromise on restrooms and changing facilities. That’s what individual, genderless restrooms and changing facilities are for. Problem solved!
The problem arises when biological males wish to compete in women’s sports as women.
“Whatever you believe about gender identity in general, the simple fact is that biology is what matters in athletics, not a person’s identity. Gender identity can be changed. Sex is embedded in our DNA and cannot be changed. It is reflected in realities like lung capacity and bone density. Sex is not gender.
Women’s sports were created to give girls a fair chance at competition. That includes fair victories and fair defeats. Girls deserve the same opportunity as boys to excel, to advance to the next level of competition, to win, and to stand on that podium. But allowing boys to compete in girls’ sports shatters girls’ dreams and denies our daughters equal opportunities.”
I’ll have to sift through that later, to see if it contains coded neo-Nazi transphobic elements that reinforce the patriarchal biases of the gender binary paradigm. But it doesn’t seem like hate speech to me. It sounds strangely like what common sense was, before half the world took leave of that quality.
Back to Caitlyn Jenner. In various interviews, Jenner has said that (he/she) always identified as a woman, even back in his/her (men’s) decathlon days.
Back then (the mid-1970s), of course, we were living in the Dark Ages. Simple fools that we were, we assumed that the winner of a gold medal in the men’s decathlon was an actual man. We probably believed that the world was flat, too! Did doctors attempt to cure patients with leeches in 1976? Probably so!
Now look at the above photo: Bruce Jenner, 1975. (The dual-named party still went by “Bruce” in 1975, so please don’t report me for hate crimes!)I don’t think there’s a feminist on the Internet who would disagree with my assertion that Bruce Jenner, age 26 in 1975, would have had a sex-based advantage over female athletes of similar accomplishments in women’s sports.
To force girls and women to compete with biological males, who have all the advantages of male physiology and testosterone, is simply unfair. Does that assertion make me a feminist, a Nazi, or the child in that old story, who pointed out that the emperor had no clothes? I’m not sure.
But don’t bother Joe Biden with all that. He’s fallen asleep by the window in the Oval Office again, and it’s time for his afternoon nap. Just do what his people tell you to do, and count the days until 2024. Silence and compliance will keep you out of the reeducation camps. Maybe.
You might be thinking about attending a public protest event, or maybe even organizing one yourself.
I’m going to suggest that you not do that. Let me tell you why.
One of the points I’ve frequently made in this space is that nothing good comes, in the twenty-first century, from mass public protests. This is an overused and overly romanticized tactic from the 1960s, that cesspool of American decades.
Here’s why the mass public protest is almost always a bad idea in 2021:
1.) Things spin out of control
In our current political environment, public protests almost always get out of hand. We’ve seen this on both sides. Some of the previous summer’s BLM protests no doubt began peacefully. But before long, they were looting stores, burning buildings, and assaulting people.
Likewise, the events at the US Capitol on January 6 began as a peaceful protest against election fraud. We all know how that ended.
Then there is the constant threat of the opposition showing up, and goading someone on your side into a fight. This is one of Antifa’s favorite tactics.
Far-left Antifa and BLM fanatics would love to see a bloody fracas on Inauguration Day. Ditto for the mainstream media.
That would bolster their narratives about violent pro-Trump and “white supremacist” conspiracies. And that would give the left’s dictators-in-waiting further pretexts to further restrict our speech, our property rights, and other basic freedoms.
A class action lawsuit does a lot more to stop the dictatorial left than a noisy protest ever will.
So does argumentation (as opposed to screaming).
We have the Internet. Previous generations did not. And no—you do not need Facebook or Twitter to make your voice heard on the Internet. You’re reading this, aren’t you? I no longer have a Twitter account, and I’m barely on Facebook. Yet here you are.
According to media reports (and these may originate from false flag sources, too), anti-Biden protests are planned for every state capitol on January 20, Inauguration Day.
Don’t attend. Don’t give the left a chance to create a false flag event. Stay away from those uncontrollable public gatherings, and find more peaceful, constructive ways to make your voice heard.
Remember: The public riot is a far-left tactic.Conservatives do not riot. Supporters of President Donald J. Trump do not riot.
Some of us unfortunately broke that rule on January 6. We need to remember who we are, and who they are. We don’t need to borrow protest tactics from BLM, or from the hippies of the 1960s.
Rioting and public disorder is all they know. We’re supposed to be different.
We are different. And so are you.
Get smart, get creative. Remain peaceful, and obey the law. There are many ways to intelligently and peacefully resist the leftwing monoculture, besides shouting your head off in the public square.
Leftwing activist John Sullivan (see photo) was arrested for his role in damaging federal property at the January 6 US Capitol incursion.
Although he has links to Black Lives Matter, Sullivan can be heard on camera egging on the January 6 rioters, exhorting them to “burn” the building down.
Maybe Sullivan is one of those white supremacists we keep hearing about. After all, the media and the leftwing activist community have repeatedly told us that both the Vietnamese American Andy Ngo, and the Afro-Cuban Enrique Tarrio are white supremacists. I therefore see no reason why John Sullivan, BLM activist, cannot be a white supremacist, too.
White supremacists are everywhere, don’t cha know. They inhabit the same space as unicorns, faeries, and trolls that live under bridges.
It will be interesting to see how the mainstream media spins this very inconvenient addendum to their narrative. I look for CNN to simply bury this story. That’s what CNN does with most stories that contradict their narratives.
Vincent Z. Mercogliano, a staff writer for the USA TODAY Network, seems befuddled, and more than a little indignant, at the decision of NY Rangers defenseman Tony DeAngelo to close his Twitter account and (gasp!) open an account at Parler:
“In his latest stunt, the 25-year-old defenseman deactivated his Twitter account — which, had he done quietly, I wouldn’t be writing about it.
But by indicating that it was an apparent protest of the company’s decision to ban Donald Trump, then following it up with a puzzling Instagram post — in which he wrote, “If they let Parler back up at some point I will be on Parler. Until then I will not be using social media apps” — it called extra attention to him and brought on a slew of questions.”
Notice Mercogliano’s use of the dismissive word “stunt”. Everything that famous—or wannabe famous—people do on social media is a “stunt” in one way or another. That’s what the combination of celebrity and social media has always been about, since the very beginning.
Mercogliano then chides DeAngelo for his embrace of the evil, wicked, very dangerous Parler app—which the tech giants have temporarily crushed through collusion, anyway:
“DeAngelo has been a vocal Trump supporter, so him being upset by Twitter’s decision to boot the outgoing president was no surprise. For me, most of the questions centered around DeAngelo’s decision to align himself with Parler.
I hadn’t heard of Parler, a social network, until a couple days ago, but it’s been in the news since Wednesday’s shocking invasion of the U.S. Capitol by a pro-Trump mob. Some planning for the appalling attack apparently took place on Parler, with Google subsequently removing the app while calling it a “public safety threat”
This is, of course, the new party line. If you have an account on Parler, you seek to overthrow the new Democratic Party order that begins on January 20, and establish a Fourth Reich in the United States.
I don’t use Parler myself, not because I object to its existence, but because social media isn’t my thing. But I know several people who do use it. One is a 74-year-old retiree who has never owned a firearm, or thrown a punch in anger in his entire life. The other is my 52-year-old high school classmate. She’s 5’1″ tall, a hundred bounds soaking wet. She runs a dog training service in South Carolina. In high school, she was a mild-mannered wallflower.
The Dangerous People of Parler? The ones I know, at least, are not exactly the fearsome malefactors that inhabit the fevered leftwing imagination.
To his credit, at least Vincent Z. Mercogliano refrained from trotting out the “white supremacist” bogeyman. But his remarks indicate that he, like most of the journalistic class, is woefully out of touch with the average American.
The man and woman on the street wants nothing to do with Twitter. And we’re appalled at the Big Tech conspiracy to censor Parler, even if we personally want nothing to do with that, either.
With only days left to his presidency, President Trump made a trip to the US border, and the much-debated “wall”.
President-elect Joe Biden (cue cringe) has already announced that he will undo President Trump’s tighter immigration/border controls.
But what does this mean—for you, the American taxpayer, the American worker?
In short: Biden and the Democrats plan to open the borders as much as possible. No one, either right or left, disputes that.
But few talk about the Democrats’ motivations. This isn’t rocket science: The Democrats realize that open borders will preserve and expand their power.
Let me explain. Most just-arrived immigrants are poor. They therefore will be amenable to the big-government, redistributive policies of the Democratic Party when they first come to the United States.
Yes, most new, impoverished immigrants are predisposed to be Democratic voters. That was true of my Irish ancestors who emigrated here in the late 1800s. It is also true of immigrants from Mexico, El Salvador, and the Honduras who walk across our southern border today.
The Democrats know this. Every new immigrant from a poor country is a likely Democratic voter.
Open borders and the tyranny of numbers
So why not open the border? you might ask. Why not just let everyone in?
That’s a reasonable question—and many good-hearted people ask it.
After all, there are millions of people in Latin America and Mexico who simply want better lives for themselves and their children. The vast majority of them are decent people.
I know: I’ve spent time in both Mexico and Latin America. The average person down there is just as nice as you or me. (Probably nicer than me, actually.) And as human beings, they are no less valuable.
So why not open the borders, then?
In a word: math. The problem with open borders is the tyranny of numbers.
The population of Latin America is 652 million. That is almost twice the current population of the United States.
If we open our borders, our country will be flooded with millions of people who have no assets, and no immediate prospects for producing any. They will inevitably be forced to rely on our social welfare programs.
That is something that’s changed, since the arrival of my Irish forebears. In the twenty-first century, every advanced country has a complex welfare state. When someone comes here with nothing, they’re entitled to food stamps, medical care, and public education.
If that involves only a handful of people, then a nation like the United States can absorb the costs.
But what about a few hundred thousand each year? What about a few million? Ten million?
Do that for very long, and sooner or later, you run out of money—even with the Democrats printing money as fast as they can.
The working class pays for “open borders”
There are four main groups of Americans who are for open borders:
Young liberal college students who are still supported by their parents (and therefore have no grounding in economic realities)
Big business executives and tech CEOs.
Democratic Party politicians and hacks.
Mega-wealthy Hollywood and music celebrities
Notice I didn’t say: “the American working class.”
Why is that?
That’s because the financial burden for open borders will inevitably fall on the middle-class (and working-class) taxpayers. It won’t impact the livelihoods of Mark Zuckerberg, Nancy Pelosi, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
It will impact you.
In short, “open borders” is an income redistribution plan. It means business and political elites forcing the American middle and working classes to subsidize mass, low-wage immigration that will benefit the Democratic Party and big business. (Mass immigration lowers wages for big business, by flooding the labor market with low-wage workers.)
That’s why you often hear movie stars, tech CEOs, and Democratic Party politicians calling for open borders. You seldom hear plumbers, waitresses, short order cooks, and auto mechanics—the American middle class, the working class—pushing for open borders.
Because they know what it means to them: higher taxes, crowded schools and hospitals, lower wages.
But what about…?
But what about the impoverished masses of Latin America?
That’s a good question. There may be actions we can take that will help the people of Latin America help themselves.
At the end of the day, though, the only longterm solution for Latin America is for Latin Americans to stay put and make Latin America better.
Or, to paraphrase President Trump: Make Latin America Great Again. (“MLAGA”?)
I know, that isn’t what some of you wanted to hear. You have blinders: the only solution you can see is open borders.
But again, I’ll return to the tyranny of numbers. There are almost twice as many people in Latin America as there are in the United States.
Let’s try another metaphor: I’ll double the number of people who currently live in your household. Then I’ll move that additional number of people into your house/apartment/condo with you. You’ll be responsible for feeding, clothing, and sheltering them. Oh, and for educating their kids, too.
That’s “open borders” in a nutshell.
El Norte can’t save Latin America. Only Latin Americans can save Latin America. The sooner both Latin Americans and US citizens recognize that, the better for everyone.
In a matter of days, Joe Biden and the Democratic Party will begin opening the borders. They will be cheered on by leftwing Hollywood celebrities and liberal tech CEOs like Mark Zuckerberg.
But remember: the Democrats and the Mark Zuckerbergs get the benefits of open borders.
“The online dating platform, which launched in 2014, has confirmed that it will not be reconsidering its current rules against posting indoor swimsuit photos despite recent controversy surrounding a user wearing a bralette…”
German Chancellor Angela Merkel, no one’s idea of a rightwing ideologue or a Trumpist, has called Twitter’s recent ban of Donald Trump’s account “problematic.”
In a statement issued by an official spokesperson, Merkel said, “The right to freedom of opinion is of fundamental importance. Given that, the chancellor considers it problematic that the president’s accounts have been permanently suspended.”
Donald Trump’s administration will pass into history in a few short days. But the problem of Big Tech censorship precedes the Trump era, and it will be with us afterward.
This is a question that goes beyond conservative vs liberal. It is a question of freedom of speech, versus allowing a handful of tech bosses and their employees to determine the bounds of acceptable expression for everyone else.
Opinions vary widely about the outgoing American president. That’s the way it is. There will be no consensus about the Trump years, at least not for a long time.
But freedom-loving people everywhere should be alarmed at the power these unelected tech bosses now wield over online speech—and, by extension, all of us.
In practical terms, there is no guarantee of privacy on the Internet, and especially not on social media. It doesn’t matter if you’re talking about sex…or politics. Never assume that anything you type, view, or upload to the Internet cannot be found by someone, somewhere.
It is simply a question of: does someone out there with a lot of time on their hands have a motivation to go after you?