Category Archives: Op Ed

College Campus Free Speech
Posted by July 25, 2019 Guest Post, Op Ed, Politics, The Voice Behind The Door No Comments

The State of Free Speech on a College Campus

The author’s identity is being withheld to protect his security

Thanks for my guest column on the state of free speech on a college campus. That issue has received a lot of attention in the media recently, so it should be an excellent topic to discuss. If you want to read more of my thoughts (other than this article series), check out my website- www.genzconservative.com. 

-GenZ Conservative

 

The GenZ Conservative

First, I think an introduction would be appropriate. I am originally from Atlanta, GA, but I now go to school in Virginia. For my degree, I am currently working towards a double major in politics and accounting. I think that those two subject areas will help set me up for success in life, no matter what career path I pursue. In addition to classes and social activities, I am heavily involved in campus politics.

I think it is every student’s responsibility to make their campus a better place. I have tried to do my best to lobby for conservative causes that matter to me and would be suitable for the university. That political involvement has made me a well-known campus conservative.

People that meet me know that due to my involvement in clubs and campus journalism. Not that that’s a bad thing, it just makes my experience a bit different. It shouldn’t, we should all be able to get along with people outside our political sphere, but it does.

That experience has been super valuable and taught me how to get along with all types of people. I can disagree and debate in a respectful way even when the other side isn’t being civil. More importantly, I’m learning how to stand up for myself in a strong manner.

Hopefully, I can educate others on how to do the same through this column and my website. Navigating a college campus as a conservative can be tough; there are lots of obstacles. But maybe this advice can make it a little less difficult for all of the other Gen Z conservatives!

Is Free Speech Disappearing on College Campuses?

America has traditionally been known as a haven for free speech. Granted, you can’t scream “fire” in a crowded theater and cause a panic, but you can always stand up for your beliefs.

Students, for better or worse, stood up against the government to protest the war in Vietnam. African-Americans marched for Civil Rights. Conservatives advocate for reduced taxes and less gun control. Our system is strengthened by free speech because it brings debates into the public sphere.

Once free people debate a topic, it is hard to hide the truth. Americans have always believed in that and treasured their right to free speech; or at least that used to be the case.

A recent phenomenon is that many liberal students, professors, and administrators refuse to accept the concept of free speech. When liberals encounter an idea that they disagree with, they don’t debate it.

Instead, they shut down all conversation. Students start crying and run off to their safe space. Professors scream that you’re wrong, shut down all communication, and harass you for expressing beliefs different than theirs. Administrators refuse to allow conservative speakers to come to visit.

For a conservative student, that atmosphere and environment can be tough to navigate.

Debate is Dying in America

We should be able to express our ideas openly and freely but we can’t — the radical leftists on campus freak out. So, instead of having thoughtful debates on pro-choice versus pro-life, or low taxes versus an increased welfare state, capitalism versus socialism or any other social or political issue, we are forced to listen to the party line on a wide variety of subjects.

There is little to no thoughtful debate of the important matters currently bedeviling American society. Instead, there is just one line of thought expressed; the opinions of the most radical edges of the Democratic party. On many college campuses, conservative students have no voice.

To me, that is incredibly sad and troubling. It is sad because it goes against everything that America once stood for.

We used to be a country known for supporting freedom of speech. Now, we aren’t.

Disagreement is termed hate speech and shut down completely. How saying that lowering taxes is a good policy idea is “spreading hate speech” is beyond me. But it all seems to make sense to the radical left. And that is why it is so troubling.

It would be one thing if these people didn’t honestly believe in what they’re advocating for. If they were using terms like “hate speech” in a cynical way to stifle their political opponents, it would be bad, but easy to combat. It wouldn’t be in line with past American thinking, but it makes sense in a realpolitik sort of way.

And I’m sure some are using their “sensitivity” and calling opposing arguments “hate speech” to do just that. But, the problem is that most aren’t just being Machiavellian. Instead, they seem to believe their propaganda. And that is impossible to combat. If they do think the way they say talk, all hope may be lost.

I don’t like being a pessimist, but I have trouble seeing how we can recover from a situation where tens of thousands of the intellectual elite believe that opposing views are both evil and off-limits for discussion. If the opinions of the other side are “wrong,” you debate those views and use facts and logic to poke holes in the other side’s argument.

That is the right way to handle disagreements.

Unfortunately, liberal students, professors, and administrators on college campuses can’t seem to do that. They are entirely unable to handle the idea of the other side disagreeing with them, so they just shut down all debate.

They aren’t emotionally mature enough to have discussions, so they prevent those debates from happening in the first place.

It is a very sad state of affairs.

Debating With A Leftist?

What can a conservative college student do to push back on the current shut down of free speech?

Three things. If you master these three ways to push back, we might be able to turn the tide.

First: Always to be prepared for debate.

Don’t seek those debates out but be ready to have them if the other side voices a political opinion that you disagree. Know your facts, keep your emotions tucked away, and debate logically.

Ask questions about the other side’s point of view to both better understand it and poke holes in it. Bring up your opinions, and make sure to use indisputable and well-researched facts to support them.

Know your sources, and make sure those sources are reliable. It is also preferable to have unbiased sources. Fox News and Breitbart won’t change minds. The Wall Street Journal or Politico might.

And be willing to debate thoughtfully for however long it takes. Don’t be the first to give in, even if you know that you are right. They will count that as a victory. Instead, be the one that will debate till the end. They will give in first.

Second: Always remain respectful and keep your emotions under control.

The other side can do neither of those things, so they still look ridiculous. Be the bigger man. Instead of making fun of one of them for calling your ideas “hate speech,” instead thoughtfully explain why it is a mainstream and ethically acceptable opinion.

Doing so may seem ridiculous, but it will help keep the debate respectfully going so that you can change minds. Always remember, the other side has authority figures in their corner. As soon as you start lashing out in the same manner that they do, the debate will be shut down, and you might even be punished.

It is a ridiculous double standard, but it exists. Maybe one day we can overturn it, but for now, we need to deal with it.

Finally, keep your emotions in check.

That relates to always being respectful but is worth saying. You will be much more likely to change minds and effectively get your point across if you don’t get angry.

What the other side will be defending might make your blood boil. As I talked about in my “The Democratic Party has Changed” post, the current Democratic party supports some pretty nasty policies like late-term abortion.

I used to get so angry about those things.

Because I was angry, I couldn’t convince anyone that my point of view was the rational and right one. I looked just as emotional and irrational as the left. Now, I do my best to remain calm. That has been a much better strategy for convincing people.

Stick to it, it works.

I hope you enjoyed this post! It should be helpful for those seeking to understand why and how liberals have shut down free speech and how we can fight back against it. Check-in next week for another update on what it’s like to be a conservative on a college campus! In the meantime, check out my website to better understand my views on topics like these. The link is- www.genzconservative.com. Enjoy!

 

Posted by June 5, 2019 Guest Post, Op Ed No Comments

Kate Smith and a Revisionist View of History

The recent banning of the time-honored recording of Kate Smith singing Irving Berlin’s “God Bless America,” and the removal of her statue from a public space in Philadelphia, challenges the reasonable mind to remain calm and not reach for the Hari-Kiri sword.   We are told that the banning and statue removal was a result of Kate Smith having sung songs of a racially demeaning character, the one most commonly cited being, “That’s Why Darkies Was Born.”   Hmmm…  Ah, yes, of course, the use of the word, “darky” in place of “African-American” is terribly demeaning, a priori,  we are told by linguistic historians and historians of popular entertainment.  Well, no, not really, we are told these things by… well, others.   It follows logically then, that Smith must have been a virulent racist, happily singing about those inferior “darkies.”

Of course, anyone with half a brain would see a problem here.   Well, several problems.    The song was an extremely popular one AMONG THE BLACK COMMUNITY, especially.    It was recorded by such legendary black singers as Paul Robeson and Ethel Waters.   And lest we forget,  Robeson was no struggling poor black entertainer forced to wear blackface and sing “coon” songs by the oppressive white show business hierarchy as he shuffled across the stage.   If you are unfamiliar with Mr. Robeson’s accomplishments let me state a few here:  Robeson won an academic scholarship to Rutgers College, where he was twice named a consensus All-American and was the class valedictorian;   he received an LL.B. from Columbia Law School while playing in the NFL:  Mr. Robeson spoke seven or eight languages, and has a successful career as a stage and film actor, both in the U.S. and in England where he starred in three productions of Othello;  he had an operatic bass voice.

Okay, so, arguably one of the most accomplished and intelligent men of the 20th century, you think he would have had a clue as to the bigoted and racist nature of “That’s Why Darkies Was Born.”   How did that get by him?   And Waters?   And so many others?

Once again, a person with half a brain might look for the answer IN THE LYRICS OF THE SONG ITSELF.  Even a cursory glance at the text reveals that the song does nothing but ennoble the black race, is quite profound and beautiful ways.   It is a deeply moving song.   If one actually LISTENS to it.  Imagine: listening to a song in order to judge its meaning!   What a concept!

Here is the text of the song:

Someone had to pick the cotton,

Someone had to pick the corn,

Someone had to slave and be able to sing,

That’s why darkies were born;

 

Someone had to laugh at trouble,

Though he was tired and worn,

Had to be contented with any old thing,

That’s why darkies were born;

 

Sing, sing, sing when you’re weary and

Sing when you’re blue,

Sing, sing, that’s what you taught

All the white folks to do;

 

Someone had to fight the Devil,

Shout about Gabriel’s Horn,

Someone had to stoke the train

That would bring God’s children to green pastures,

That’s why darkies were born.

 

 

NOTE:  The word, “Darky,” was at no time during its usage a pejorative nor demeaning word.   Just the opposite: as with “people of color”, it was used with pride and often with humor as an alternative to the “N” word or anything close to it.   It was especially popular with black soldiers during the Civil War.

 

This guest post was written and submitted by our Closet on the Right Community Member, Joseph Ciolino

Democrats Abusive Relationship
Posted by May 10, 2019 Op Ed, Social Issues, The Closet On The Right No Comments

Democrats’ Abusive Relationship With Their Base (And Everyone Else)

If you look at the history of the Democrat party over time in  America, it seems not much has changed.  They still favor a big central government.  They always propose social programs like welfare and food stamps as a way to combat social/economic inequalities.

The Democrats, of course, are the playground monitor making sure the little guy doesn’t get picked on.  Or at least that’s what they’ve always told you.

Whether you believe Democrat policies are authentic and noble, one thing has always been the case (and becomes more apparent by the day); they have an extremely abusive relationship with their base (and everyone else).

History Of Abuse

Since the beginning of our Republic and the birth of the Democrat party, it seems that violence and manipulation were chapter one of their playbook.  They started an entire war over their right to own slaves and eventually assassinated the first Republican President.

They have always been openly hostile to their political opponents so it should be on surprise there are documented cases of Democrats violently assaulting other members of Congress during disputes. Their willingness to use violence, intimidation and legislation to maintain power and control is apparent.  Imagine how they treat their fellow party members who don’t fall in line.

This open hostility gave birth to one of the most violent groups in American History, the KKK. As the militant arm of the Democrats, the KKK sole mission was to suppress black communities and anyone associated with them.

The violence and intimidation were not reserved for only people of color.  No, if you dared associate with, enter a relationship with or advocate for the rights of blacks, you became a target.  If you were a card-carrying Democrat, it was worse.

Everything you’ve ever done, all your good deeds and reputation went out the window in an instant.  Many southern Democrats dared not challenge the KKK out of fear of homes or businesses being destroyed, assault and public shaming.

Although the Democrats figured out a better, less messy way of controlling minority populations in the ’60s and ’70s, their violent past cannot be erased.

The Democrats may have changed their message, but they have NOT changed their methods.

Abusers and Their Methods

In any abusive relationship, the abuser must create a sense of control over their victims.  They accomplish this in several ways:

  • Establish Financial and Emotional Dependency- Abusers must develop a sense of dependency to prevent their victims from leaving.
  • Use Fear as a Motivator/Inhibitor- Fear is a powerful means of control over victims.  It is often used to control behavior.
  • Shame- Abusers often shame their victims in another attempt to control behavior.
  • The Exploitation of Insecurities- Abusers will find insecurities in their victims and exploit those to get what they want.
  • Blames Behavior on Others- Abusers often blame their behaviors on others in an attempt to justify their actions.
  • Manipulation- The use of both positive and negative emotions to maintain control.
  • Intimidation- Abusers use intimidation to prevent their victims from leaving.
  • Empowers Victims in Ways that Benefit Them- Abusers often use a combination of empowerment and shame to keep their victims continually seeking the approval of their abuser.
  • Hypersensitive and Reacts Aggressively- Abusers often overreact to any adverse opinions or actions.
  • Possessive- Abusers often feel a sense of ownership over their victims.
  • They Deal in Absolutes- “My way or the highway.”

The Democrat Parallel

Pretty sure we could end the article here because I guarantee most of you read through that list and immediately noticed the similarities.  Unfortunately, many Democrats are experiencing a severe case of Stockholm Syndrome, so we’ll break this down.

Democrats seek control in all things.  ALL THINGS.  They control the media, which controls the narrative, which controls their victims…er, I mean, voters’ perception.

They want to control nearly all aspects of your life and seek to have as much government involvement as possible.  Dems sell this as “social justice” and “equal opportunity,” but they never seem to talk about all the things you have to give up to have their version of those things.

In doing so, they create dependency which ensures you won’t be able to challenge them in the future.

Dems successfully captured the black vote after they had spent the past 100+ years systematically destroying black lives. (Show me one Republican group in history that had to dress up in and hide their faces because what they are doing is wrong.  Democrats have BOTH.)

Democrats figured out it’s much easier to control these populations if you put them in a box,  assign them a specific victim status and then implement a “solution” that is just enough to keep them coming back but not enough to improve their lives in a meaningful way.

They want to give you just enough so that you’re not starving, but still keep you hungry enough to keep coming back to your “saviors” for more.

Here Comes the Shame

Firstly,  they will make you feel inadequate in many ways.  Black communities aren’t smart enough or have the money to get a government ID.  They need our handouts to be ok in America.  They are severely disadvantaged, and therefore the government must take care of them.

The LGBT community needs the Democrats to protect them and pass feel-good bills that makes it seem like they care.

Evidently, the only communities that don’t need Democrat laws and hand-outs are white people but don’t worry; they’ll shame you too.

If you reject any of these ideas, you’re a racist.  You don’t care about people of color, you’re awful. You’re a terrible person, etc.

If you are a minority and reject these ideas, you’re a race-traitor and self-loathing Uncle Tom.  It’s shocking how Democrats suddenly don’t care about the minorities when they are on the other side.  According to them,  Candace Owens is a Hitler sympathizing white supremacist.

Intimidation, Manipulation, and Absolutes

Nothing the Democrats do is ever their fault.  They’re not responsible for the Jim Crow laws.  Those were obviously those dirty Republicans masquerading as Democrats.

The high homeless rates, high crime, and cost of living in Democrat-run states isn’t their fault either.  There’s probably a Republican somewhere in the state that they can blame.  Or, they’ll tell you that they need more of the policies that got them there in the first place.

They’re not responsible for FDR rounding up thousands of Asian-Americans and throwing them into concentration camps. But hey, they did let them out so you should probably vote for them for the rest of your life.  If you don’t, you’re probably a Nazi.

No Discussion, No Debate

Democrats have evolved into such a massive violent mob of radicals that you either are with them, or you’re against them.   There is no compromise; there is no debate.  If you disagree or question, they will harass you and make every attempt they can to ruin your life.  They want you doxxed, your character assassinated and your entire existence erased.

Democrats will silence you, or else.


Chris Evans, a proud and loud leftist, recently started a website called “The Starting Point” which invites discussion from both sides to promote civic engagement.  This announcement came not too long after Chris stated that he was reevaluating his friendship with Tom Brady over Brady’s support for President Trump, but I digress.

After his announcement, Democrats rushed in to berate and shame Evans for even suggesting that debate and discussion take place.

Check out this tweet thread:


It All Fits

All the signs fit.

Possessiveness? Check.  They claim ownership over every single minority community whether they like it or not.  Democrats represent you and your needs!  If you don’t agree you don’t know what you need to make you happy.

Hypersensitivity? Check.  Democrats fly off the handle and start throwing drinks and punches when someone wears a hat.

People who cannot support their positions resort to violence, name-calling, harassment, and intimidation.  What once was a party of some integrity and noble intentions (I’m looking at you JFK), have spiraled out of control into a group that will say anything to maintain control.  And when that doesn’t work, they will take control, violently if necessary.

Democrats, do you see the overt manipulation and control?  What would happen if you disagreed with your fellow Dems?  What would happen if you decided to leave your party? Would you have any friends left?

If you cannot answer these questions with absolute certainty,  perhaps it’s time you leave this abusive relationship with the Democrat Party.

 

Posted by March 29, 2019 Op Ed, Politics No Comments

5 Ways Trump Could Win In 2020 (And 5 Ways He Could Lose)

The 2020 election is a long, agonizing, tumultuous 20 months away. A lot can change in that time. A whole lot. Given the intensely polarized state of US politics, it’s hard to imagine slogging through these 20 months without something (perhaps multiple things) happening in the political landscape.

That said, Donald Trump is in a good position to win re-election in 2020 assuming the status quo remains… well, the status quo. With that in mind, and with the acknowledgment that those 20 months ahead offer near endless possibilities for scandal, unrest, mean tweets, and more; here are a few all-too premature predictions for how Donald Trump can win re-election in 2020…. and how the opposite could happen.

1. It’s The Economy, Stupid.

Trump Can Win:

Jobs are up. Unemployment’s down. The market is good, interest rates are low, or at least stable for now. Consumer confidence is good. People generally don’t like to change things when things are going well, especially when it comes to their money.

Trump Can Lose:

If you ask me, (and you didn’t), the economy isn’t strong, the recession never ended, and all we did was inflate the bubble and buy some more time. I might be 100% wrong about this, but economists who got 2008 right are already warning about another dip on the horizon. For whatever reason that might happen, the only thing for certain is this: eventually we’ll have another recession.

If this happens between now and the election, Democrats will smartly pounce on it. They’ll cite Trump’s regulation cutting ways, tax cuts, and spending. Whether they’re right or not is not important as far as the election is concerned. The messaging will go the Democrat’s way and people will want a change.

2. Russia, Russia, Russia

Trump Can Win:

The full Mueller Report is still unknown but the core message is this: no collusion. There’s no doubt this was a big blow to the Democrat’s talking points for 2020. Whomever the candidate winds up being, if they go full-blown Russia conspiracy theory during the campaign, it will not end well for them.

Trump Can Lose:

The full Mueller Report is still unknown but here’s the thing: Even if whatever is in there isn’t a Tom Clancy-esque espionage story, it’s still not likely to be flattering for Trump or his people. Donald Trump is/was a real estate developer in New York City for the better part of the last half-century. There’s not a doubt in my mind he hasn’t broken a few laws in that time. Does Mueller know about them? And are sordid details of past transgressions in his report? That’s the question.

3. Trump Gets Indicted

Trump Can Win:

There is an ongoing investigation in the Southern District of New York that is likely going to wind up with Trump being indicted. The NYC AG has already said that’s her plan. The question is: for what? If Trump failed to pay property tax in 1972 or had some unpaid parking tickets in 1984, he won’t be hurt by it. Most people will roll their eyes and see it as a politically-motivated attack.

Trump Can Lose:

The New York City Attorney’s General is not likely to indict Trump for unpaid parking tickets. The question is: what will she indict him for? There’s not a doubt in my mind an indictment is coming. Whether or not a sitting President can be indicted is a matter of some debate with most (emphasis on most) good faith legal minds agreeing that no, they probably can’t be. The correct process would be impeachment, removal from office, then indictment as a private citizen.

If the charges are serious enough, Democrats will lead a charge to impeach to follow that exact process. Why?  Because the indictment itself will be challenged in court and probably kicked all the way to the Supreme Court to settle the “can a president be indicted” question once and for all.

The answer will likely be no and Trump will probably not be impeached and removed from office either. But that’s not the point or the plan. Trump doesn’t have to be arrested, indicted, impeached, or convicted. He just has to have that process hanging over him to be enough to sway voters away from voting for him.

Look for this to start happening in early 2020 (if not sooner). Just enough time for the entire sordid process to drag on through the summer leading up to the election. The Dem nominee (whomever it is) looks instantly better in the public eye just by comparison.

4. The Democrats Run…..

Trump Can Win:

Anyone not named Joe Biden.

Kamala Harris is a former prosecutor and AG who’s part of “the system” and will not be embraced by the progressive wing of the Democratic base which runs more anarchistic. Elizabeth Warren lied about being Native American, Cory Booker is a media hog who doesn’t know anything, Beto is a trust-fund kid who spends his time standing on counter-tops when he’s not getting his photo taken. All the other nominees are unknown nobodies who won’t win the nomination so they’re not worth speaking about. The most normal among them? Tulsi Gabbard. But she’s anti-war so they’ve already decided she won’t be the nominee.

What about Bernie? He’s a crazy old kook with a lot of videos of him talking about rape and breadlines while sitting naked in the Soviet Union in the ’70s. Just Google it. Bernie won’t win, the DNC doesn’t want him to win, and he’s not nearly as popular among Independents, Centrists, and Moderates as people would have you think he is. There’s also a file cabinet full of opposition research on him that Hillary Clinton never used. If he’s the nominee, it’ll be fun.

Trump Can Lose:

I have said from the beginning that if Biden runs, Trump loses. I stand by that. Like him or not, Biden is a calming presence. He served two terms as the Vice President for an extremely popular war criminal President. He is well-liked and well-respected among coastal elites and blue-collar workers alike. However, he’s got a little rough and tumble in him and he won’t be afraid or intimidated by Trump’s jabs. He’s basically Trump if Trump were more measured, polished, and politically astute.

Yes, there’s “creepy” videos of him out there which may cause some #metoo moments but these have been out there for years. It’s also hard to imagine the media (in full opposition mode) really pushing or challenging him on it. If Biden is the nominee, Trump is in trouble.

5. Socialism – How Does It Work?

Trump Can Win:

The so-called “new” right-wing of the political ideology is not the alt-right. With increasing political divisiveness and fractures in the cultural landscape, the new right has a lot of unlikely bedfellows. Conservatives, Republicans, Moderates, Centrists, Libertarians, Conservative Democrats, etc are all at times skeptical, wary, disgusted, disgruntled, or otherwise bothered with the rise of socialist leaning politicians like Bernie Sanders or Alexandria Occasional Cortex.

Whatever “real socialism” is doesn’t matter. There is a growing group of authoritarian Democrats who want more state power. More government control. Higher taxes. If the nominee, whomever it is, doubles down on this in an effort to pander to the more extreme (and smaller) wing of the Democratic base, they’ll lose.

Trump Can Lose:

As a Republican, Trump has spent like a drunken Democrat sailor. He is, and remains, a big city Democrat in Republican clothing at least when it comes to Government spending and driving up the debt. He can’t, won’t, and shouldn’t run on his “fiscally conservative” record because it doesn’t exist.

A savvy Dem can make the (tortured math) argument that Trump wants billions for a wall, a space force, and military parades but a few bucks to save healthcare is too much. An Elizabeth Warren type will get up there and scream about millions of people dying in the streets (which isn’t true) or about how climate change is racist (it’s not) and killing Americans by the thousands (it isn’t). A Joe Biden, on the other hand, will say “hey, we need to help our neighbor with a hand up because it’s the right thing to do.” That’ll play well.

Who Wins?

It’s far too early to tell. With 2020 still 20 months away, it’s anybody’s game. There are many ways in which Trump can win. There are also a few ways he can lose. Don’t think for a moment that the Dems don’t have some tricks up their sleeves, however. Starting with Trump being indicted in the Southern District of New York sometime in early 2020. Mark that down and remember you heard it here first.

However, the one good thing is that the Democrats have an entire primary season to get through. There are approximately 4,395 Democrats running for the nomination. Once the debates roll around, the President will be watching them, live tweeting them, and bestowing nicknames upon the candidates from the Lincoln Bedroom.

Strap in, it’s going to get bumpy.

Posted by March 8, 2019 Op Ed, Politics, The Closet On The Right One Comment

The Dangerous Reality Behind AOC

I think we’ve all figured out that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez isn’t joining MENSA anytime soon, but she is a rising star in the Democratic Party for some reason.

Since November, I often wonder about this “girl from the Bronx” who came out of nowhere.

Firstly, who voted for this person? Where did she even come from?  How does a former bartender go from zero to hero in six months?

Seriously, how does someone with no professional experience or even a basic understanding of how our government works, land a seat in the House of Representatives?

Does anyone else think that’s strange?

Like most people, I dismissed AOC as a short-lived social media sensation whose voice would soon be lost in the noise of DC.  Although, in the meantime, I have thoroughly enjoyed the steady stream of memes at her expense.

Honestly, she is single-handedly destroying blond jokes.  There’s no way anyone could take her seriously, and yet, somehow, they are.

Her first piece of legislation right out of the gate, The Green New Deal, dealt a shockwave of horror through many even in her party.  A bill that reads like an 8th-grade sociology project is a cleverly disguised push for socialism that’s veiled as an answer to climate change.

 

Multiple Democratic Presidential candidates have thrown their support behind the Green New Deal despite wide-spread criticism and condemnation. The “aggressive,” “on-scale” plan to address the “existential threat” of “climate change” is “obviously” what this country needs to “survive.”  (Thank god this isn’t a video. My fingers would be cramping from all the aggressive air-quotes.)

I find it hard to believe “Sandy from the Bronx” came up with this all on her own.

My next question was: Who Did?

The Real Brains of the Operation

One day, I see a NowThis video pop up on my Facebook with AOC’s Chief Of Staff doing an interview.  I don’t recognize who he is, but I recognize the person on his shirt.

Subhas Chandra Bose is the Fascist from India that accepted the help of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis to free India from Britain rule.  The fascist idealist is a heroic figure in India for his fight to free his country from Britain’s overbearing control.

As Americans, I don’t think we can judge the guy for that.  After all, we did it in 1776.

What separates Subhas Chandra Bose from George Washington, is that he was a fascist and socialist.  He supported violence in political activism and even accepted help from Hitler and the SS to help his mission.

Subhas Chandra Bose and Hitler were kindred spirits.  Both Socialists, both nationalists, and both fascists.

With that in mind, who on earth works for AOC that idolizes this guy?

This guy isn’t just any guy on her staff.  It’s her Chief of Staff, Saikat Chakrabarti.

And Saikat Chakrabarti idolizes this Nazi loving fascist so much that he wears this shirt for everything.  Not joking, he’s selling professionally shot images of himself and his team on stock image accounts for $199 per license.

 

For a Socialist, he sure does act like a Capitalist.

Who Is Saikat Chakrabarti?

Alright, let’s start from the beginning.  Chakrabarti is a native Fort Worth, Texas and graduated from Harvard with a degree in Computer Science.

Saikat Chakrabarti Justice DemocratsAfter graduation, he spent eight years in Silicon Valley working for various companies.  He co-founded the wireframe building site Mockingbird.com and went on to help build the payment processing site, Stripe.com.

Once again, for a fascist-loving socialist, he sure does act like a capitalist.  Between Mockingbird and Stripe, Chakrabarti is a self-made millionaire.

According to an interview in IndiaAbroad.com, he became disillusioned with society after graduating from Harvard and earning millions.  Ummm, ok.

It was then he decided to leave the tech sector and go to work for the Bernie Sanders campaign.

You have to create the society you want to create and that is done through politics.-Saikrat Chakrabarti

Evidently, this society he wants to create involves breadlines and political oppression.  Per Chakrabarti, Sanders didn’t have all the “right answers,” but he was talking about the “right problems.”  During his time with the Sanders campaign, he learned how to harness the power of volunteers among many other things.

It was also here that he met his future business partners/activists, Alexandra Rojas, and Corbin Trent. (See above)

After Bernie’s loss to Hillary in the primaries, the team went on to form PACs Justice Democrats and Brand New Congress.

While Chakrabarti appears to be an ambitious and creative progressive activist on the surface, in reality, he’s positioning himself to influence politics for years to come.

The Reality

By helping AOC land her seat in the House of Representatives, Chakrabarti landed himself on the Politico Power Player list of 2019.  The interviews with Saikat reveal a lot about his plans, and himself.

He’s creative, cunning and using the one progressive he managed to get elected as a face for his long-term plans.

When you shoot for big stuff, you stay true to the movement, you fight unapologetically on the inside, that is a very, very powerful way to pass the radical solutions that are necessary to face the radical problems that you have.- Saikat Chakrabarti

Keyword: RADICAL

First, he set up Brand New Congress to issue a sort of “casting call” to communities all over America with the intent of finding and then backing as many radical progressives as he could enlist.  This was how he found gaffe-prone Ocasio-Cortez.

Here’s how it works:

Saikat Chakrabarti Infographic

I’ll give it to this guy, this is smart.  Really smart.  Chakrabarti founded and controls two major PACs with one simple goal: Pack the Government with Radicals like AOC.

Based on this alone, it’s clear that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez isn’t the brains behind her operation.

Here’s Why He’s Dangerous

Initially, when I started researching Chakrabarti I asked myself, “Why doesn’t he run for Congress himself?”

If we look at his goals, strategy and action plan; it becomes very clear.

  1. Running on his own ticket would divert his attention away from mass producing candidates to challenge moderate Democrat incumbents.
  2. If he loses his election, he loses his power.
  3. AOC and other candidates make up for his shortcomings in relatability, social media presence, and personality.  (Sorry, dude.  No one wants to watch you cut vegetables in your kitchen while you rant about climate change)
  4. If a candidate loses their election, he can move on to another one.
  5. By helping and funding candidates win a seat in Congress, he has a clear path to Congress as well.
  6. Even if AOC loses her next election, his process is repeatable every election cycle.

By structuring his PACs in the way he’s done, he’s essentially setting himself up to have a very long, very powerful career working behind the curtain to influence policies in Washington, DC.

Think about it, within the span of four years, Chakrabarti has propelled himself from campaign organizer to Chief of Staff.  All he had to do was find someone to be the face of his grand plan.

Let’s be honest, if you peel back the slimy layers of the swamp, the power players aren’t the ones messing with their dentures nonstop.  Nope, the real power players are the ones behind the scenes, advising on policy decisions, buying votes and playing a game by their own set of rules.

Granted, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is still dangerous.  People are listening to, and supporting the message she is parroting, but she is merely a vessel.

Don’t let them fool you, America.  If they want you to look here, it’s because something else is going on over there.

 

 

Posted by December 18, 2018 Op Ed, Social Issues, The Closet On The Right No Comments

Do Republicans Really Hate Gay People?

Recently, an article by author Chad Felix Green appeared in The Federalist. The article, titled The Stigma Against My Conservative Politics Is Worse Than The Stigma Of Being Gay is a point of view editorial by the author on his life, politics, and the backlash he’s faced since “coming out” as a conservative. 

The response wasn’t great.

Like this from the Chairman of the Democratic Coalition

Or this from a Deadspin columnist. 

Or this:

The list goes on. Rest assured, there was more random hate and outrage spewed at Chad from the left-wing community. The above examples are just a sampling of the response from the media and blue checkmark brigade.

Full Disclosure: I’m not gay. But Chad is. A fact that is obvious since he wrote the piece but also because he doesn’t hide many details of his life. As he outlined in his response to Jon Cooper’s tweet:

Why The Outrage?

It would be easy to pass this off as more leftist hate and double-standards. Does the ideologically-driven “left” of this country really hate people who “wander off the plantation” as commentator and provocateur Candace Owens often puts it?

Sure. There is a growing and religion-level orthodoxy to far leftist thinking. It is seeping into mainstream culture and being propagated by the corporate media.

When Kanye West dared say something nice about Trump, Hollywood acted as though he had a brain tumor. Literally.

When Steve Harvey declared he would be open to working with Trump to bring about positive change in the black community, the backlash essentially sent him back into the woodwork. 

When actor/writer/director Mark Duplass tacitly endorsed Ben Shapiro by saying, essentially, “hey, if you want to hear an honest voice from the other side, check this guy out” the outrage came for him as well. He was forced to retract.

Because feminist and sex educator Laci Green has *dared* converse with Conservatives and Republicans over the last few years; often debating them and taking a pretty typical “leftist” stance on most issues: she’s a travelling companion of the alt-right now, according to Vox.

The list goes on. The backlash against these individuals, as well as Chad Felix Green, shows the evangelical-level ferocity with which “the left” fights back against those who are led astray from the party line of the inter-sectional flock.

But of course, these views didn’t appear out of nowhere. Republicans and Conservatives have not historically been great on gay rights. However, the question is: where are they now? 

Do Republicans Hate Gay People?

I am not now, nor have I ever been a registered Republican. However, I am far more “on the right” than “the left” so sure, I’ll stand-in for Republican thought here.

Do Republicans hate gay people? Some of them do, sure. The same as some Democrats do. Some Libertarians do as well. Green Party? I’m sure there’s homophobia in there as well. Traditionally, since Republicans were closely associated with certain religious groups, this has been magnified. 

Those attitudes, however, are changing. As recently as 2001, a majority of Americans did not support same-sex marriage. That position has been changing rapidly since then.

Among religious-minded folks, attitudes have continued to change as well. Now, a majority of both Catholics and mainline Protestants support same-sex marriage. 

When viewed through a partisan lens, Republicans have also been coming around.

In fact, a greater percentage of self-identified “Conservatives” (41%) are likely to support same-sex marriage than self-identified Republicans (40%).

We’re Moving In the Right Direction

I realize those numbers aren’t where “the left” want them to be. They aren’t where we, as a society, should want to be either. But to put it simply, things don’t change overnight. Attitudes and opinions don’t change because of a law or an outrage mob. Nor should we expect them to. Nor should we attempt to force them to, lest we’re okay with creating a backlash.

In just a little over a decade, attitudes towards same-sex marriage have more than completely reversed. From 54% opposing in 2007 to 62% supporting in 2017. 

Perception, prejudice, bias, and hate do not disappear overnight. However, this is about as close to that occurring as you’re likely to see as an example.

No, I don’t think Republicans don’t by and large “hate” gay people. At least not the ones I’m familiar with and associate with. I’ve honestly not seen a real example of hatred directed towards homosexuality by anyone in my personal circle, past or present.

Is it true that some individuals may not approve of the lifestyle? Yes. And remember, according to the chart above, nearly 1/3 of Democrats would fall into that category as well. 

And that has more to do with the fact that it takes time to bring about change. 

My Own Story

If you had asked me 10 years ago if I supported gay marriage, my response would likely have been lukewarm at best. Maybe? Maybe not. If there was a a vote on it… I’m not sure I would have voted for it. Honestly? I don’t know.

I didn’t harbor any ill will towards the gay community, mind you. And I didn’t think being gay was bad, wrong, or sinful. Truth be told, I don’t think I had a strong opinion on it. I honestly don’t know. I don’t know why most of America didn’t support gay marriage back then either. We, as a society, just didn’t.

My views on this, and many other things, have changed. And they didn’t change because an angry mob yelled at me for being homophobic. They didn’t change because a law was passed to punish me if I said “hey, I’m not sure about gay marriage.” My views didn’t change because gay marriage was upheld by the Supreme Court. No. None of these moved the needle.

They changed for the same reason that anyone else changes their mind. Time and experience. 

When It Happens Close To Home

For a time I worked in a profession where homosexuals are, let’s say, well represented. I came to enjoy working with these individuals and considered a few of them friends. 

Yes, I had (and have) gay friends. Some of them became close friends. The same as any other friendship.

For me, the primary change to my way of thinking came from a particular experience I had. Several years ago and through my work I had become friendly with a lesbian couple. I had known them for several years at this point. Our relationship was a typical employee/customer relationship but it was friendly and in many ways personal.

One of the women became sick. Very sick. She required a major surgery to get better. Her partner, a woman with whom she’d been in a committed relationship with for upwards of 20 years, was not allowed any type of spousal or partner privilege. This would have been around 2007ish. Gay marriage wasn’t legal yet at this time.

In the eyes of the medical community (and more specifically, the laws governing it), she was basically a concerned friend. And friends don’t get granted special permissions, privileges, or access.

These two women were every bit as connected and committed to one another as any heterosexual couple. Yet, the doctors wouldn’t (couldn’t) discuss treatment options, test results, prognosis, etc. Nothing. Family members only. And you’re not family.

I didn’t agree with that. It seemed wrong. It was.

That Did It.

And so my mind changed. It had already been changing before then, but this was the final experience which caused me to re-examine my stance and change my mind. And it changed because that’s how mind’s change. Through time and experience. Through exposure to different people, cultures, and situations.

It wasn’t because a law was passed. And it wasn’t because an angry mob shamed me into getting on board. It was because the reality of the situation had hit close enough to home that I was able to have a serious conversation with myself and decide. 

I realize we live in a woke culture where everyone is supposed to take an obvious stance on issues like this. Younger folks may not realize that there was a time not too long ago where we, as a society, didn’t “just know” the correct stance to take.

So What Now?

I’m sure some Republicans do hate gay people. And I’m sure some Democrats do as well. Which is all the more reason, in my opinion, to treat people like individuals and judge them on their actions and words rather than whatever immutable characteristic box we can put them in.

It’s also all the more reason to not ascribe a presumed viewpoint or policy position to someone based solely on the letter (R) or (D) next to their name. People are a diverse group. Our opinions are often complicated. Sometimes they conflict with one another. Sometimes they go against stereotypical expectations.

If you believe in ideas rather than assumptions; in principles rather than people, you’ll find fellow travelers in places you didn’t think you would. 

Back to Chad

What is clear, however, is that the people who came to attack Chad Felix Green were not Republicans who were outraged by him daring to compare his Conservative-ness to being gay. It was the left-wing outrage brigade which sought to ridicule him for daring to say “hey, it was tougher for me to be accepted as a conservative than as a gay man.”

I’m sure that’s not the experience of everyone who “comes out” as gay, conservative, or both. However, that was his. Agree, disagree, or other. Think it doesn’t matter? That’s fine. Think he’s crazy? Okay. Think he’s just plain old wrong about this? Hey, that’s fine too.  

But don’t try to silence him or tell him to shut up for sharing his experience. You’re free to dismiss it. That’s your right. But if I know Chad (and I don’t), I don’t think you’ll have much luck getting him to shut up.

What’s also clear is that those who came to Chad Felix Green’s defense were not Liberal Democrats. They weren’t cut from the Progressive cloth. They were Conservatives, Republicans, and Libertarians. 

Draw whatever conclusions you like from that. Call it pandering to those evil gay-hating Republicans if you will. I happen to think Chad would call it progress. 

So would I.

Reject Feminism
Posted by December 16, 2018 Op Ed, Social Issues, The Closet On The Right No Comments

Ten Reasons I Reject Feminism

Once upon a time, our grandmothers and great-grandmothers marched for the right to vote. 

Women all over the country wanted more than a life of standing barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. 

They wanted to go to college,  have a career, make their own money and have an identity outside of their husband and family.

First Wave Feminism
Credit: thedevelopmentofwomensrights.weebly.com

It was a long, hard fought battle; but in the end, we won.  In 1964, the Civil Rights Act Passes giving all citizens of the United States equal rights under the law.  

Granted, overcoming generations of gender discrimination was still a battle fought daily.  However, as I write these words, there is nothing I can’t do in this country that a man can.

The transformation of feminism has changed over the past several decades, and to be completely honest, I don’t like what I see.  

As a married, gay woman who also happens to be 75% hispanic, you would think I, of all people need feminism in my life. Right?

Sorry, no.  I reject modern-day feminism and here are ten reasons why.

1) There’s Nothing Empowering about Modern Feminism

Feminist heads all over the world just exploded.

“Feminism is ONLY about EMPOWERMENT, Lynzee!”

Really?  Then why do Feminist power-houses like Barbara Streisand and Michelle Obama insist that women in this country are so powerless, they can’t even decide who to vote for without their husbands?

If modern Feminism is about empowerment, why does California need a law requiring major companies have women on their boards?

Feminism Sign

Modern feminist decries the patriarchy and the systemic oppression of women by the straight white male.  They have set their laser-sighted target directly on the backs of men as justification why women can’t be successful.

Women are stronger, better and smarter than men, right?  If feminists genuinely believe that, their narrative wouldn’t promote the concept of women being “less than” while feminism conveniently rushes in to balance the cosmic scales.

Which brings me to my next point:

2) Feminism Deflects Responsibility

Feminist must shift blame and responsibility from their own short-comings to someone else.  

Women aren’t responsible for their lack of success.  Rather, men are oppressing women and therefore must be shamed, guilted and coerced into submission because…equality.

When a society must establish a different set of rules, requirements, and quotas for a different gender or race; that is not equality.  That is simply a new type of discrimination against the qualified and talented that’s disguised as affirmative action.

I Need Feminism Because

This particular point applies to many aspects of feminism.  Just google the “I need Feminism because” and you will see what I mean.  One woman needs feminism because she doesn’t get asked out by boys or go on many dates. 

Rather than take the opportunity to do some personal reflection and figure out why the boys aren’t asking her out, she uses feminism to deflect responsibility onto men.  Obviously, there is something flawed with men.

3) Selective Outrage

This one really gets me.  Feminists are the loudest and most obnoxious in the room when it comes to pointing out and criticizing issues.

Credit: thesun.co.uk

However, I hear nothing but crickets when it comes to the horrid treatment of women and girls in many other countries. 

Feminists fight the patriarchal oppression of the United States tirelessly.  However, these activists can leave their home without a male escort.  They can attend whatever school they like, be whatever they want to be, drive a car,  own a home and even choose their partners. 

So why is it, that women all over the world who cannot have these things get zero support from modern feminists.  

In fact, it seems as though they are apologists to these oppressive cultures because Americans are rejecting their barbaric ways!  

As if turning a blind eye to such atrocities weren’t enough, Feminists put advocates for oppressive systems front and center of their campaign.

No thank you.

4) I Don’t Hate Men

Shocking, I know.  As a now gay woman who was once married to a man, you would think I hate men but I don’t. 

I just don’t want intimate relationships with them.  

I do however, acknowledge their strengths and invaluable contributions to society.  To deny otherwise is ignorant, short-sighted and just plain false.

Just because our society operated differently at one point in history, does not mean I need to hold bitterness and resentment to men today.   

Not only that, just because men operated within the socially accepted norms of their times does not make them bad or evil men who want to hurt or oppress women.  

5) Men And Women are Biologically Different

This is scientifically undeniable, end of story.  

Denying this and forcing institutions to accept women can prove to be dangerous.  I’ll give you an example:

The first thing that comes to mind is women in the military, or more specifically, women in combat.  If women are in active combat, yes, they have the strength to pull the trigger.  

However, do they have the strength to pull a 200+lbs man off the battlefield if his life depended on it?  Can a woman physically perform the required activities to do her job and ensure the safety of those around her?  

If so, then let her in.  I have no issues.  If she can’t, then I’m a solid no.  This isn’t discrimination; this is common sense.

If there are jobs in these fields where a woman can provide value and her life or others’ lives, don’t depend on her physical abilities, then great. I’m in for that as well.  

I reject this form of feminism because as a woman, I would not want to be personally responsible for someone else’s safety if there was even the slightest doubt I could physically perform a task.

There are other ways women can contribute in meaningful ways that don’t put others in harm’s way just because of progress.  

6) There’s Nothing Toxic About Masculinity

Read virtually any ancient manuscript or holy book and you will see an emphasis on the masculine and feminine balance.  

Like all things in nature, balance in the key to survival.  Therefore, criminalizing masculinity to promote your superior vision of feminism is detrimental to society. 

Do you remember at one point it was discouraged for boys to cry? 

Feminism has completely flipped the script to the point where now “boys being boys” is a bad thing.  That is unless you’re a girl who wants to be a boy, then knock yourself out.  Toxic masculinity doesn’t apply to you.

7) I don’t Need the Validation of Feminism to Make Something of Myself

Women have been overcoming obstacles and accomplishing great things for thousands of years. (Marie Curie anyone?)  Yes, early feminism helped open up the path for ambitious women to pursue their dreams, but now those obstacles are gone. 

There is nothing stopping a woman from becoming a doctor, a scientist, a lawyer or even President (as long as you’re not Hillary *shudder*).

So why would I need feminism to tell me I can?  I don’t and neither do you.  

In reality, feminism highlights and emphasizes all the ways women are “less than” or oppressed more than anything. 

Thanks but I already knew I didn’t need a husband to make my own decisions, Barbra Streisand.

And for women who do form decisions with the help of their husbands or partners? So what!  Just because some women have healthy and mutually respectful relationships does not mean it’s an insult to feminism.  

8) I’m Not Angry And Bitter

I’m sorry, but it seems like all feminists have evolved into confrontational, angry, bitter and resentful people.

Why are you so angry?

Maybe instead of focusing on what everyone else is doing and how you disprove, you should work on improving your own life.  

If a company doesn’t hire you because you’re a woman, go work somewhere else!  Why would you want to work there? It sounds like an awful work environment, and I’m sure there are plenty of other companies you would be happier working for.

Rather than being angry and bitter over a perceived injustice, walk away and find a situation that is better suited for you!  Why harbor and stew over something?

Credit: MaleDefender.com

Personally, I don’t want to live my life as a perpetual victim.  I’d much rather choose to be happy, let go of the things that don’t serve me and strive to be the best me. 

This can all be accomplished without a cheering squad of hostile, shaved head, hairy armpitted, overly pierced and blue haired activists making sure I’m aware of all the ways I’m oppressed.  Hard pass.

9) Feminism Isn’t Progressive, it’s Regressive

If your activism involves antics that are so outrageous and cringe-worthy that people stop taking you seriously, it’s time to reevaluate your mission. 

The #MeToo movement along with #BelieveAllWomen has hurt the feminist mission more than it has helped.  By encouraging women to use assault and rape accusations regardless of proof, damages all credibility.  The result is more skepticism and doubt to any claim as opposed to what they wanted.  

The Kavanaugh circus made this worse by showing that feminists are willing to sacrifice their own in their attempt at political gain. 

Their quest to destroy the man who potentially posed a threat to their reproductive rights put several women and even young girls in danger.

Credit: DailyMail.co.uk

Feminists have proven they are willing to lie, destroy, and disrespect anyone in their way.

Last, The Future Is NOT Female

Sorry, Kirsten Gillibrand.  The future is not female.  The future is not intersectional.  

If we want any hope for a prosperous future, the future needs to be men and women complimenting one another like they always have.

Overcoming the stigma that one sex is superior to the other is exactly what early feminists fought so hard to change.  Now, modern feminism is promoting exactly that.

Feminists have become the monster their grandmothers fought against.

I for one want to live in a world where no race, or gender is superior to any other.  Each have their strengths. Each have their weaknesses.

By working together to compliment one another is how we make our future brighter.  

A Closer look at the Arizona Election
Posted by December 10, 2018 Guest Post, Op Ed, Politics, The Closet On The Right No Comments

Arizona Midterm Election, A Closer Look [GUEST POST]

On The Hunt for Facts

Since the recent election, I was concerned about the outcome.

The Republican candidate in Arizona for Senator won on election night.  However, the Democrat candidate was declared the winner almost a week later.

With other elections such as Florida and other states having allegations of voter fraud, I took it upon myself to at least in a small way look at the results myself.

I started with getting the election results from previous elections, dating back to 2010 for comparison, going granular not only by county but by precinct in each county.

Then I made a spreadsheet.

Well, because I like to do spreadsheets and yes I am that guy. I did find some rather interesting results.

The Counties

First, let’s start with the simple number of registered voters versus actual votes counted.

Obviously, A should never be larger than B, such as Precinct 1 would have 500 registered but only 300 voted including early ballots, provisional, etc. Here’s what I found.

AZ Voter Registration Sheet

Apparently, the accounting is not correct, especially if these are supposed to be the official results.

I also added the 203 column, which referred to Prop 203 in 2010 which legalized medical marijuana in Arizona.

Again, it had the same pattern.

Polls said Arizonians didn’t want it. Election night the vote said outright that they didn’t want it.

But hey what’s this, a box? Oh, interesting there’s all these uncounted ballots, and well looky-here it just happens that there are enough votes that it did pass by 4,341.

As I mentioned, these are from the official results from the Arizona Secretary of State.

This alone shows that there is not a proper accounting in the least of whether the registered versus voters are legitimate. Here’s the breakdown by precinct.

The Precincts

AZ Precinct Breakdown

First, I am not showing the actual vote tallies merely because I do not know if they’ve been officially released to the public. First, since the vote tallies are yet to be released publicly, we won’t be stating those here. I just called up each county to ask and they either directed me to the location or they emailed it to me directly.

So until I see that’s it’s been put onto the website as released I’m going to treat it as embargoed, just in case.

The Breakdown

What I have here are all 26 precincts that have more votes than registered. Column F shows the number of votes over and above what was registered.

Columns H and I, well ok I guess I’ll show the votes here, no one tells anyone ok?

Column J is the percentage of votes to registered, essentially the turnout.

At the top is 67%, that’s the average throughout the state.

As you can see going down the column these areas had an overabundance of turnout.

And of course, the R and D is who won or a tie if the vote was the same for both.

Therefore, column O is the amount of percentage over and above the state average.

Yeah, granted, some areas had lower turnout over here and higher turnout over there. Taking these out for this point, there are areas that had 0% or really low turnout, and areas as high as 97%.

However, Doney Park at 1824%?

Oh, Yuma, it had zero registered voters and 19 actual voters, I have no idea how to calculate that one.

So columns P & Q (sorry for S & T, ended up duplicating) are then weighted to that 67% average of what that vote might have looked like. This would mean that McSally would’ve had 3,408 votes less and Sinema 5,712.

The next sheet I’ll admit is purely speculative, and you could shoot a thousand holes into it.

Previous Trends

Historical Voting Trends.

What I did here was in each election going back to 2010 I looked at all the races to look at one specific criterion.

On off-years such as this one, I looked at the Governor candidates, 2016 and 2012 were Presidential candidates.

For each precinct I wanted to gauge whether it leaned Republican or Democrat, going by say for 2018 Precinct 1 carried the Republican, and so on.

In total, I had five elections to base that on, so if a precinct went four or five for a given candidate I would say it would lean that way, less than that I disregarded it.

I then asked some simple questions. How can this precinct that was historically Republican-leaning could vote for Sinema?

That to me had a big disconnect.

True, maybe McSally didn’t campaign there. Maybe she said she was anti-Trump and the voters didn’t like that? Again, many variables.

But that’s a large number, as I show here that’s 11.4% of the precincts that for all five elections were leaning Republican decided to switch?

The next column is worse, looking solely at the 2018 election, those precincts that carried Ducey 237 decided to vote against McSally? Or more precisely voted for the Socialist candidate that in several videos referred to Arizona as the Meth lab of the United States, as well as the sixth C for crazy.

Yeah, I’m sure Arizona wanted that.

The next two columns I did the same questions for Prop 203, received even more stark numbers.

Now granted, demographics shift. Precincts get redrawn, some are added to this election and others dissolved. And as I mentioned maybe McSally had her own issues with getting the message out. It’s just that to me this seems very odd, someone is going to explain it to me.

So let me be clear. If Sinema won fair-and-square then so be it. The manner in which this was done leaves me with huge suspicions, and the released data doesn’t help that. In the very least it shows that the tallying has problems, either in the number of registration or in the vote counting.

Granted, mistakes happen. However, did anyone pick up on the last columns I had, where it said R and D?

The number of precincts that I note had 6 where McSally won and 20 that Sinema won. If you take out Yuma since I don’t know, zero registered voters, that gives 5 Republican questionable to Democrat’s 20.

Very interesting to me.

Right now I have serious doubts as to the legitimacy of Sinema’s election. Until those concerns are addressed, quite frankly, I do not recognize her as my Senator. There is too much potential fraud going on here, I don’t know what to make of it.

Lastly, I do concede that it may be that the Republicans need to turn out the vote better next time. I made this sheet to show the weak points versus the strong and who won in each. Heck, the Democrats could even use this, I don’t mind if they use it, I don’t mind a fair fight.

To See the Full Spreadsheet with all the Data, click here Full Spreadsheet.

Romanticizing China
Posted by November 20, 2018 Op Ed, Politics, The Closet On The Right 2 Comments

Romanticizing Communism

Media Outlets are Promoting Communism

Communism in China
Credit: NYT The Land that Failed to Fail

It was a casual Sunday.   My daughter had another grueling two-hour volleyball practice that I use to catch up on whatever project I’m working on at the moment.

Naturally, a lot of scrolling happens during these practices.  During my snoozefest scrolling sesh, I saw it.

An NYTimes Article is romanticizing “Communist” China. Inappropriately titled, “The Land that Failed to Fail.”

Now, this is the second time in recent months I’ve seen a magazine article romanticizing the concept of Communism.  The last time was Teen Vogue of all places.


A growing discontent for capitalism and a resurgence of Communism or “Democratic Socialism” (as some on the Left like to use as a disguise for Communism) is spreading in the United States.

Let’s focus on this one particular article about the success of Chinese Communism though.  It says,

In the uncertain years after Mao’s death, long before China became an industrial juggernaut, before the Communist Party went on a winning streak that would reshape the world, a group of economics students gathered at a mountain retreat outside Shanghai.

The article goes on to boast the massive growth of China’s economy in the past 40 years as some Communist Christmas Miracle.  This miracle defied all odds and didn’t fail when everyone said it would.

Why is this article idolizing Communism as some socioeconomic beacon of success?

Seriously? Has this writer ever been to China?

Every nation that attempts Communism fails, including China.  The only thing remaining in China that is Communist is the political party that should have but didn’t abandon the name after it failed.

Don’t believe me?  Let’s look at some history and most importantly, some facts.

A Brief History

Communist China
Image Credit: Ron Paul Liberty Report

Mao Zedong defeated the existing Chinese regime in 1949.

Immediately after, he brought true, authentic Communism to the people of China.

Communism is not Love.

Communism is the hammer which we use to crush the enemy. -Mao Zedong

His first order of business was equally distributing all land among the people.

Next, he centralized all means of production under the control of the state.  Agriculture shifted to a system of collective farming.

Landlords and capitalists were suppressed and stripped of all property and wealth.

Mao’s Great Leap Forward was a massive failure that led to famine and death of its citizens.  This failure inevitably led to Mao tightening his grip on the population.  Any critics of his radical ideology were imprisoned or killed.

Political powers grows out of the barrel of a gun. -Mao Zedong

The Communist reign of Mao ultimately led to the death of up to 80 million people and China was only freed of the tyranny in 1976 when he finally died.

Communism did fail in China.  What is left does not even remotely resemble Communism.

Since the NYT author failed to examine the facts, we took the liberty to do it for him.

The Ten Planks of Communism

Ten Planks of Communism

Let’s look at the ten basic tenets of Communism.

  1. Abolition of Property in Land and Application of all Rents of Land to Public Purpose.

  2. A Heavy Progressive or Graduated Income Tax.

  3. Abolition of All Rights of Inheritance.

  4. Confiscation of the Property of All Emigrants and Rebels.

  5. Centralization of Credit in the Hands of the State, by Means of a National Bank with State Capital and an Exclusive Monopoly.

  6. Centralization of the Means of Communication and Transport in the Hands of the State.

  7. Extension of Factories and Instruments of Production Owned by the State, the Bringing Into Cultivation of Waste Lands, and the Improvement of the Soil Generally in Accordance with a Common Plan.

  8. Equal Liability of All to Labor. Establishment of Industrial Armies, Especially for Agriculture.

  9. Combination of Agriculture with Manufacturing Industries; Gradual Abolition of the Distinction Between Town and Country by a More Equable Distribution of the Population over the Country.

  10. Free Education for All Children in Public Schools. Abolition of Children’s Factory Labor in its Present Form. Combination of Education with Industrial Production.

Now Let’s Compare with China

  1. Abolition of private property- Nope.  You can own a home in China.  Granted, you don’t own the land it is on, but real estate is a booming industry in China. By a Marxist definition, the land is not used solely for the public purpose.  In fact, the state issues 70 year leases on land
  2. A Heavy Progressive Income Tax- Again, not even close.  The tax rate for most Chinese is lower than many countries like Japan and the Nederlands.
  3. Abolition of Rights of Inheritance- Wrong again.  Here is the Law of Succession in the Peoples’ Republic of China.
  4. Confiscation of Emigrants and Rebels- Partially correct.  Foreigners can own a home in China as long as they have lived in the country for 12 consecutive months.  Although, I’m not sure why anyone would want to.

  5. Centralization of Credit, Banks, Capital, etc.- 

    Noooooooope.  There are privately owned banks in China.  The government stifles their businesses with regulations, restriction of assets and laws, but they exist.

  6. Centralization of Means of Communication and Transportation- No.  Independent and privately owned transportation and communication exist.  It was previously under State control. However, this was one of the economic reforms implemented in the 80’s and 90’s. It must be stated that the media, the internet and other forms of communication are heavily supervised by the State though.
  7. Production/Means of Production Owned by the State- No. The transition away from SOE (state-owned enterprise) was one of the first economic reforms of the 80’s and 90’s when China was removing the layers of Communism from their economy. In fact, the private sector was responsible for 70% of the economic growth once China was free from Communism.
  8. Equal Liability To Labor- Borderline accurate.  China does command one of the world’s most massive armies. However, in terms of Marxism, China does not meet these requirements any longer.
  9. Combination of Agricultural and Manufacturing Industries; In other words, the elimination of class separation- Definitely not.  There is a pretty significant distinction between wealth and class in China.  The nation of China boasts an impressive 476 BILLIONAIRES. The only country that beats them is the United States.
  10. Free Education- Yes and no.  State-owned and operated are the preferred secondary education.  However, they are incredibly competitive.   Also, there are fees and tuition costs, but China’s student debt is virtually non-existent.

What Remains of Communism in China

Above all, China has maintained a strong and authoritative position over the population.

Recently, China increased their interference in the privacy of their citizens with new technology.  Their new surveillance technology monitors each person using facial recognition.  Citizens are rewarded or penalized based on day-to-day behaviors that include small things such as manners, to others such as smoking.  

Citizens in good standing receive additional privileges, while others not in good standing experience fines and even travel restrictions.

Yikes.  No thank you.

Freedom of speech is not a thing in China, either.

Due process? Well, it’s gotten better over the years, but the Chinese are known for imprisoning its people for virtually anything.

Example: An Author was recently sentenced to ten years in prison for writing about a gay sex scene in a book.

Religious persecution is common in China, and they are also a very nationalistic nation. (Think about their Olympic team.  Zero diversity. ZERO.)

Google is currently under intense scrutiny from its employees for agreeing to work with the Chinese government to spy on and control internet usage for its population.

When you look closely, China has more in common with Fascism than Communism at this point. (Don’t tell Liberals, they’ll lose their minds)

Final Nail in the Coffin of Communism in China

Karl Marx’s utopian vision for society relied on the elimination of the bourgeois.  In his mind, societies that exploited the proletariat were evil and must be abolished.

The exchange of labor for a wage, in his mind, was modern day slavery. To reverse this evil system, he believes the State should distribute land equally and create a nation where no one man has anything more than any other.

Sit down, Lefties. I’m about to burst your bubble.

Currently, in China, their entire economy is driven by and relies upon the proletariat. China’s economy has thrived by creating mass-produced exportable goods at prices lower than any other country in the world.

Unfortunately for the Communist, China has been able to lift more people out of poverty by eliminating Communism and implementing Capitalism.

Furthermore, I challenge any Communist, Socialist or Leftist to prove me wrong.

Until then, do yourself a favor and stop romanticizing Communism in articles that you write on your MacBook Pro from your high rise New York City offices.

#WalkAway DC March MAGA Hats
Posted by November 3, 2018 Op Ed, Politics, Social Issues, The Closet On The Right 8 Comments

The Case for Gay Republicans

Gay Republicans are Real

Many on the Left gasp in horror when they meet Gay Republicans.  Somehow, being gay became synonymous with being a raging Liberal.

I’m not a raging Liberal.  In fact, I never have been. I flirted with the Left briefly after I “came out”, but I ended up running back to the Right once I realized I wasn’t obligated to be there.

This concept was simple for me to understand.  I didn’t agree with Liberals on anything aside from gay marriage, so why would I base my vote on a Democrat on one issue?

However, this is considered a cardinal sin in the LGBT world.

It doesn’t have to be.  Here’s why.

The LGBT Community Needs A Strong Economy Too

It’s pretty hard to U-Haul on the second date if you don’t have enough money to buy or rent a house.

Economic prosperity means you and your partner, regardless of what you “identify” as, will have the money to do the things you want to do.

Voting Democrat because you support LGBT rights, also means you’re voting for higher taxes, more government regulations, and weaker economies.

There are other policies that come along with your vote for the Left.

Your Democrat Congressman may support your right to change your gender on your driver’s license, but he also supports legislation that suffocates businesses.

 

If you can’t put food on your table, does it really matter what your license says?

It may to you, but you can’t employ thousands of people with your gender designation.

Open Borders are Bad for Everyone

Being gay does not mean you are obligated to save the world.

In fact, open borders is a terrible idea for the LGBT community because many of the people who want to flood here, punish gays in their native countries with the death penalty.

Allowing anyone to come here without vetting and due process puts our culture, our way of life and our government at risk.

If these people are unwilling to assimilate to American culture, they will bring their archaic beliefs with them.  They will elect people who represent those beliefs.  Those Representatives will influence legislation and ultimately, you.

Linda Sarsour, a prominent Muslim activist for the Democratic Party is vocally anti-Semitic and pro-Sharia Law.  For some reason, she is the poster child for Liberal tolerance and diversity.

However, if she were to get her way and Sharia Law ruled America; women would be oppressed, gays would be executed, and the LGBT community would be forced underground once again.

Ever wonder why there are no Muslims in the Republican Party?  Islam promotes traditional family structure, opposes abortion and much like the Christians, are devout to their God.  It would actually make MORE sense for the Muslims to run under a Republican ticket, right?

Wrong.  Their fundamental beliefs directly contradict American values and rule of law.

Nationalism does not always equal racism.  Racism does not always require Nationalism.

Promoting Nationalism means that you want the people of your country to be taken care of first.

If you’re gay, straight, black, white, Hispanic etc and are a citizen of this nation, that applies to you.

Embrace it.  Cherish it. Protect it.

The 2nd Amendment Applies to Everyone

Gay RepublicansThe LGBT was the victim of violence for many years. (Ironically, now it’s conservatives.)

Do you think if Matthew Shepherd had been armed that night in Wyoming, he would have been beaten to death?  Absolutely not.

Communities who arm themselves remove victimhood from their lives.

Buy a gun, learn how to use it and change the script of our story.  Being gay does not mean you have to be a victim, ever.

Everyone has the right to protect themselves.

Abortion is Murder

Last time I checked, gay people didn’t have to worry about unwanted pregnancy.

In fact, many gay and lesbian couples would gladly take any unwanted baby and raise them in a loving family.

Your sexuality does not mean you have to support someone else’s irresponsibility.

Life is precious and if you are a gay couple who have to pay thousands of dollars to build your family, you should protect it all costs.

If that doesn’t change your mind, watch a video of an abortion being performed.

It will break your heart, turn your stomach and traumatize you for life.

Finally, Gay Marriage is Settled

The Supreme Court ruled on gay marriage.  We’ve established the precedence and overturning it would be very difficult.  Justice Brett Kavanaugh confirmed this ruling during his confirmation process.

When pressed on the issue of Gay Marriage, he stated that the Supreme Court had already ruled on the treatment of homosexual people.

Gays for TrumpThe Republican Party has moved on, so should you.

In fact, almost all of the bigotry, homophobia, and hate I’ve experienced since I came out was from the Left.

Shocked?

You shouldn’t be.  The Democrats have a long and violent history of hate, racism, and discrimination.

It wasn’t until the 1950’s when they figured out the minority vote is a powerful tool.  They’ve been pushing the oppressed and victim platform ever since.

In reality, most Democrats opposed gay marriage for most of their careers. If you think they suddenly care about you now, I have a bridge to sell you.

Just Be An American

Ultimately, the Republican party doesn’t care your race, religion or orientation if you love and protect your country.

Take a look at what you stand for.  What you really stand for, not for what they tell you to stand for.  Are the Democrat solutions really what is best for yourself and this country?

Talk to a conservative or many.  How do they treat you?

Furthermore, disagree with a liberal.  See how they treat you.

We need to stop defining ourselves by singular issues like race, orientation or gender.  We are so much more than that and at the end of the day, you’re just as human as anyone else.  If you take the “gay” out of your identity for one minute, would you still vote the same?

It’s okay to identify with ALL the things that make you, you.  Stop allowing the Democratic Party to hold you hostage because of identity politics.

You deserve better.

 

The Gay Republican movement is growing stronger by the day.  We’re ready for you to join us.

Are you a Gay Republican and want to show your Pride and your Party?!  Check out the Closet on the Right Shop!

 

1 2 3 4