Month: October 2024

Ever since Hulk Hogan ripped off his shirt during his speech at the Republican National Convention, Kamala Harris has been hemorrhaging the males of the human species from her campaign.

And as her campaign is starting to sink both nationally and in the swing states, the Democratic ticket has to swallow its disgust and reach out to the demographic the Democrats despise the most: the man.

Black men. Hispanic men. And the most toxic of all toxic masculinity, the white men.

That the political party that has consistently labeled men as toxic as well as the most dangerous domestic terrorists in the world now has to reach down into sewer of testosterone and ask for their vote is most ironic. To think that a Democrat female needs men is eyebrow raising to say the least.

Irony aside, their attempt to try to reach out to men this last week has been cringe worthy at the least.

The first attempt (not produced by the Harris campaign) was a one minute ad of “real men” standing in front of manly things and saying in deep voices that they both drink whiskey from the barrel, eat carburetors, support the right to abortion, and vote for Harris (Apparently, according to this ad, “real men” have to be bleeped out too). At the worst it was a collage of bad male actors pretending to be real men. At the best, it was satire.

As one who loves satire, I would like to give the producers the benefit of the doubt and say it’s a parody. However, I am not so sure. During an interview with the director Jacob Reed he never once claimed it as such. In fact, Reed labeled it as sketch comedy that is nonetheless true, saying hoped it would “spark a conversation” about what it means to be a real man in America. I guess if it is satire, Reed’s objective technically could be achieved. But it did make one cringe.

Next, an attempt from the Harris campaign to the reach males fell flat when Governor and current VP candidate Tim Walz thought he would invite a bunch of the media on a pheasant hunt with him. All we saw was a man dressed in a never-before-worn, sparkling hunter’s orange cap and vest struggling to load his shotgun, looking more like Elmer Fudd than a Vice Presidential candidate (that simile is not mine. The internet made this connection, and once you see photos of Walz alongside Fudd, you can’t unsee it). Now, it’s unclear whether he was trying to load the shotgun or clear a jam, but it was clear he didn’t how his gun worked.

Both of this week’s examples of trying to reach the male voter not only fell flat or was simply just embarrassing, but it also showed what happens when a group spends years trying to make caricatures of a particular demographic while demonizing them. For the last several years, the man was portrayed as an oaf on TV. He was a klutz at everything he did and dumber than a knee pad. He had been emasculated in the action genre, and whenever an attempt was made to make a male hero, it was lambasted as misogynist and male chest-pounding. Further, the male had been accused of being, with little to no actual evidence, of a domestic terrorist, a potential rapist, an abuser, and toxic all around. There are women who openly believe they don’t need men. Society has been told by the “experts” that a man’s opinion not only does not matter but that he also shouldn’t have one at all. Males are told we are “privileged” by POC experts who make a fee giving a single speech more than I make in an entire year.

The male should just beg for forgiveness for sins done by multiple races generations before and quietly sit down.

But now the male is needed.

And Kamala needs them bad.

Now she needs the male opinion to save her struggling campaign. Now she must mobilize them, get them on her side.

However, that’s turning out to be tricky. When your party has created caricature of an entire gender, you can only reach said gender in the only way you perceive them: through ways in which you stereotyped them all along.

Thus, the silliness that is now coming out of her campaign.

What’s a man? According to the left, he fixes cars, shoots things, sits on motorcycles, leans against a rustic fences, has a beard, drinks whiskey, and cares deeply about his daughter having the right to terminate his grandchild, and occasionally throws in a potty word for emphasis.

This is the problem of dehumanizing a part of the population because there will eventually come a time when you might actually need them.

And when you appeal to them using your stereotypes of them, don’t be surprised when that attempt comes across as foolish and patronizing.

That’s why those two instances backfired so dramatically (along with the racist “White Dudes for Harris” that was attempted in August). Contrary to the Democrat’s definition, masculinity isn’t merely acts of behavior. It is of the heart. It comes deep within, a unique instinct given by our Creator. Masculinity at it’s very depth sees itself as protector against those who are toxic, twists it, and causes harm.

I am seeing a wonderful trend on social media of women encouraging men to embrace their masculinity once again and be the men and fathers God created them to be. Likely femininity, masculinity is very good in the eyes of our Creator.

The left has thrown the male gender under the bus in the name of DEI, and now they question why this group isn’t voting for them. They have lost most men until they can raise candidates who truly understand the male psyche and not mock or belittle it.

This likely won’t be for at least a generation.

Until then, men can laugh at the left’s attempt to speak to them because those attempts have no authenticity.

Now give me a whiskey, let me lean against a fence, and swear.

Leave a Comment

I have seen an alarming tend in national politics that is alarmingly picking up steam: why is it that—largely on the left (if I am inaccurate, show me the case)—when one side fears losing an election, they try to throw the book at him or her?

The current euphemism for this is called “lawfare.” According to the Cambridge English Dictionary, lawfare is defined as “the use of legal action to cause problems for an opponent.”

During the primary elections last spring, it appeared that every time Trump won a primary, a progressive district attorney from a distant state would bring together some ambiguous laws piecemealed together to charge him.

Slowly, those cases are being methodically thrown out on appeals. The The one that suck were the 94 charges brought against him in New York over actions in which there was no victim let alone the fact that no one could directly say which law was being broken.

So Trump was charged with dozens of felonies by a DA who literally campaign on bring down Trump, heard by “a jury of peers” in New York City where people will find a cheeseburger guilty if it had an (R) after its name, before a New York City judge who court proceedings were eyebrow raising (apparently a unanimous verdict doesn’t have to mean unanimous). Honestly I almost felt the judge, feeling there was no basis for the charges but also didn’t want to be the judge famous for letting Trump of, so he made ridiculous and appealable rulings in order to make some appeals court throw it out (it is getting harder and harder to not be a conspiracy theorist these days). No one believed he would be found guilty.

And that was by design.

What the left wanted and got was a guilty verdict so Trump could be labeled a felon. I still hear that word occasionally being thrown around, bur hasn’t stuck outside of, say, MSNBC. Most Americans felt the conviction bogus. The problem is the left overplayed their lawfare strategy. The consensus among detached legal scholars seems to be that no one would be charged with these “crimes” if their name wasn’t Trump.

It seems off. And the felon label didn’t stick.

Here’s the problem with that. Americans will no longer trust the judiciary in general because of games like these. The left might win the battles in this strategy but ultimately lose the war for public trust (kind of like Public Health after covid).

Sadly, this is lawfare is occurring in Montana as I speak. Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen is currently in some kind of ethics hearing for something they claim he did wrong.

The council (who is made up of officials who openly hate him) hearing the case are clearly making judgments designed to harm his arguments. If they rule against him—which face it, they will—they could recommend disbarring him, which they likely will. The MT supreme court could hear the appeal, but they collectively hate him. And mind you, he hasn’t done anything that literally every AG in the country, Democrat or Republican, hasn’t done, but as Joseph Stalin infamously said “show me the man I’ll show you the crime.”

The bigger problem with what is going on is that while these officials are busy patting themselves on the back for bringing down hated opponents, trust in government is hemorrhaging among the American people.

The government needs to start being honorable again to try to get that trust back. No political victory is worth the loss of that trust.

Leave a Comment

Listening to leaders in the Democrat Party this last few weeks, I am not convinced that Trump is the biggest threat to democracy.

Yesterday, Hillary went on the Rachel Maddow show and said, “if they [social media companies] don’t moderate and monitor the content we lose total control.”

That seems a tad Orwellian.

Of course to buffer the shock of that statement, she mentions that without that control, there could be “real harm” toward “social and psychological effects” as well as “threats of violence” and, obviously, “child porn.”

The latter reason is obvious—no one with a moral conscience thinks child porn should be legal. Technically, that’s not a free speech issue—that’s a full-on felony.

However, real harm “socially and psychologically” raises a big red flag: 1) no one has a right to not be offended, and if you’re worried about being socially or psychologically harmed, get off social media; 2) who gets to decide which causes this harm?; and 3) that’s not the government’s job to decide.

Finally, “threats of violence” might seem obvious on the surface; however, this is the same group that claims “language can be violence.” Merely *saying* something that might send a fragile flower to their safe space is considered as violence. Language is violence and therefore must be censored, unless of course, that language is directed to Trump, in which literally anything could be said because—well, it’s Trump (after all, he’s a threat to democracy so therefore we must keep him out of office by any means necessary including, ironically, undemocratic ones).

Back to my point, Hillary isn’t the only one pushing this. This week, former presidential candidate and secretary of state said at the World Economic Forum that the First Amendment is a “major block” to keep people from believing the wrong things.

Then current Democractic Vice President candidate Tim Walz said “There is no guarantee on free speech on misinformation or hate, and especially around our democracy.”

Um, yeah, there kind of is.

And the Constitution recognize that right as God-given, which means no human can take it away.

In 2022, the Biden Administration’s attempted to establish a Disinformation Governance Board, and after that went up in flames once exposed, Biden appointed Kamala Harris as chief of a White House task force designed to protect “women and LGBTQI+ political leaders…and journalists” from “online harassment and abuse.” (Note: misinformation is the recent euphemism for “speech I disagree with or don’t like. It’s amazing how much misinformation turns out to be true.)

This week, the satire website The Babylon Bee sued–and got a stay against–California’s Governor Gavin Newsom over a law cracking down on satire and humor speech.

Apparently we can have a utopic society were it not for that 1st Amendment.

And that’s not all.

Obviously the left is going after the 2nd Amendment (they are, contrary to their claims, with their nonsensical “common sense solutions”—anyone with an ounce of terminology in firearms knows this). Several years ago, then District Attorney Kamala, said she has the right to go into homes to make sure guns are stored properly despite that pesky 4th Amendment. (That was a long time ago when she said that, one might object; however, in one of her few interviews, she recently stated: “my values haven’t changed.”)

Further there is whining on the left regarding the electoral college, life time terms in the Supreme Court, etc. This week, Biden is trying to use my tax dollars to forgive student loans–an act both the Supreme Court and a number of federal courts says he has no authority to do.

What is it with the left and its growing disgust with that pesky Constitution? I have actually and directly *heard* these folks say the Constitution is “outdated” and needs to be changed or discarded in order to achieve their definition of utopia.

My response typically is that individual has every right to say their nonsense. The Constitution gives them the God-given (NOT human-given) right to say that. The Constitution also protects me from forcing their dystopic vision on me.

“We the people” must decide in November which candidate will work within the boundaries of the Constitution and which will attempt to constantly find ways to work around it.

When whomever wins in November stands on the podium in January taking the Oath of Office (a constitutionally-mandated oath—Article 2, Sec. 1, Clause 8, vowing to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” I have legitimate concerns about which side would actually do it better.

Leave a Comment

saw this rhetorical tactic pop up in the recent VP debate that has been bothering me for some time.

This tactic first started about four years ago, during the Black Lives Matter riots. I remember seeing videos of protesters barging into restaurants and intimidating the diners to raise their fists into the air and utter “black lives matter” for the camera. The videos often showed a few diners sitting in front of their meals, uncomfortably raising a fist in the air as the protestors moved among the diner to intimidate others. However, they seemed to look more like hostages of some middle eastern terrorist hoping they wouldn’t get tortured again if they refused to cooperate and say what they’re suppose to say.

I can’t tell how many times I was pressured to say it. “Will you say black lives matter? Say it. Proclaim it for other to see.” I refused, not becauae I am some racist, misogynistic, homophobe, QAnon noob. I refused because I simply refused to play that game. It’s a lazy, uninspired rhetorical device.

Since then, this new rhetorical device is used to twist the arm of an individual into stating support for whatever cause they want us to support.

Predominantly, that phrase has morphed into “say his/her name “

Fast forward to Tuesday’s VP debate. The “moderators” asked JD Vance if he would acknowledge whether Trump lost the election in 2020.

Of course to the moderators and the subsequent press, only one answer mattered if he was to not be shamed. He didn’t give them one and was crucified in the press and among Kamala’s zombie herd.

The last four years, Biden has been the president. And contrary to the view among the groups above, his term has been an unmitigated disaster. Just look at the way he is handling the Hurricane Helene disasters and multiply that by four years.

Never once do millions of Americans say Biden is not the president. There is no beyond-a-reasonable-doubt kind of proof.

That doesn’t mean they are not suspicious. My response in after the election night 2020 was “that’s weird.” How did all the ballots counted over night break for Biden by 80% to 20%–a statistical improbability?

That was the end of for me. Now we just had to get through arguably the worst presidential term in since Carter. (Don’t try to convince me, I know what I see. In other words, as the saying goes, don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining.)

I haven’t thought twice about the 2020 election. However, about the only thing to come out of it was a huge mistrust for the institutions I should be trusting. You won’t change that. I will have to see it for myself. The whole process will have to re-earn my trust. (No, a Trump win will not do that. It will take much, much more, and frankly I think we’re beyond trust.))

Back to my point.

When the debate “moderator” asked Vance if Trump won the election, I cringed. Not at Vance’s answer, but that this rhetorical tactic raised its ugly head: pressure them to say something that would in reality be more nuanced.

Like myself during the blm riots, Vance refused the pressure.

Even if it means I won’t be in the club. Even if I will be mocked and hated. (If not that, the left will find some other way to mock and hate conservatives.)

The press has been doing a lot of this lately. The election and the January 6 riot–those seem to be the current go-to recently.

This rhetorical tactic is anti-intellectual. It is more like the first step in cultic brainwashing than it is a reasoning device.

America, we have to be smarter than this. We have to think (at least until Harris’s Ministry of Truth is established–ask John Kerry about that pesky 1st Amendment that keeps them from fighting misinformation as they define it.)

We have to rise above stupid rhetorical tactics and use effective reasoning. (Note: that doesn’t include puking stats that won’t paint the entire picture.)

America will survive this election, but we will be simply a shell of what this country was we allow ourselves to be so easily deceived.

The first step is to not believe or simply ignore anything the media says. They have their own agenda. Then we have to learn rhetoric–the art of persuasion–and be critical of simplistic rhetorical devices like the one discussed above.

The fight goes beyond the election.

The fight is about who we are as a people who can reasonably disagree and don’t use grade school tactics to win our point.

Leave a Comment

In a matter of hours will be the official Vice Presidential debate between JD Vance and Tim Walz. Here are my official predictions:

1. The media will say Walz won hands down; subsequently, they will say Vance is three grades lower than the devil. They might even make fun of his beard.

2. Question to Walz will begin with “how have you helped…”; questions to Vance will begin with “can you explain how you could hold such [racist, misogynist, homophobic, islamaphobic, white supremacist] views?”

3. When asking how the debate went, Kamala Harris will remind us that she grew up in a middle class household.

4. The media will “fact-check” Vance several times that will by tomorrow be fact-checked as bogus and they (the media) should simply just shut their cake holes.

5. Walz will say things such as “men can become pregnant” and the media will soon like damsels in a melodrama.

6. The results of the debate won’t change anybody’s mind, yet the media will say it’s the final nail in the coffin of the Trump/Vance campaign.

7. When asked about the disastrous flooding in the south, Kamala will remind us that she grew up in a middle class family in…[checks notes]…North Carolina.

8. The media will proclaim Walz to be the new face of masculinity.

9. Walz will claim he owns a gun, and the media won’t ask what caliber or nonsensical details like that. (If they do, Walz will probably say the ones that go “pew.” And gun owners across America will laugh and make memes in his name.

10. The media will express true surprise and bewilderment at the fact that most of middle America doesn’t believe a stinking word they say.

11. I will be in front of another tv, blissfully watching The X-Files.

12. Tonight will be yet another contribution to the parody that the media has become.

Leave a Comment