Safe Spaces and Our Response to Coronavirus

Photo by Andrea Piacquadio on Pexels.com

Scrolling through social media, speaking with other people, or just watching the news, you wonder why our response to this virus has been so much more different than the past pandemics. Swine flu, bird flu, SARS, Ebola, they all came and went without massive shutdowns and quarantines of healthy individuals. 

It dawned on me the other day while I was standing in line at the local Post Office. Everyone in line was spaced out their appropriate six feet until another person walked in and asked to get by to their PO Box. Now the person in line could not move up because that would violate the six feet rule for the person in front of them, six feet back and they would be violating my six foot radius. So instead the person in line just stood there while the other fumed over him not moving to give them six feet. That’s when it dawned on me. This person didn’t care about anyone else’s safety but their own. As long as their safe space was protected, to hell with anyone else, they got theirs. 

In a world where we see college campuses setting up safe spaces for people where they can hide from dissenting points of view, it is becoming more and more common for these individuals to screech at people who invade their sacred safe spaces. This attitude has now permeated most of society. That which offends/harms me is not tolerable, it must be stopped at all costs. MY safety is of the utmost importance. MY fear that something bad might happen to me is more important than your lack of fear and willingness to take a risk. 

This mindset has come full circle now with the outbreak of this recent pandemic. You see countless people shout down protesters or those who wish to get on with their lives. They phrase it brilliantly to sound like they have compassion. “You wanting to reopen or go back to work puts the whole community at risk!” Change out “whole community” with “my personal health and safe space” and it starts to make sense. These individuals lob ad hominem attacks from their safe spaces like soldiers tossing grenades from trenches at those who might in some tangential way harm them. 

It wasn’t until recently did most people care what others really did. It was not until this notion of safe spaces did everyone start to pry into someone’s personal business. “Your thoughts are hate speech! You must be stopped!” No longer can people live and let live, they now have to stomp out anything they disagree with or find threatening. Which now is the threat that someone going back to work or reopening their business might in some tangential way harm them. Forget the consequences to that person or anybody associated with them, this single person might be harmed and therefore the whole world should bend to their will. 

It sounds ridiculous because it is. Your fear should not have any effect on those who are not afraid to return to some form of normalcy. It is peak selfishness. To presume that an entire community of people have to idly sit by and wait for you to get over your fears so that the rest of us can return to normal is selfish, pure and simple. This is projection at its finest. They hurl insults and accusations at normal people saying they are selfish or not considerate. When in reality, depriving people of their rights simply because you feel threatened is not only selfish, it’s childish.

The ultimate irony here is that no one is forcing these safe spacers to go anywhere. If you feel safe and cozy from this virus in your home, then you are free to remain where you are. No one is coming to drag you out of your safe space. 

But what if their decision to leave their safe space hinges on whether they get to keep their job or not? When the government handouts dry up and the deferred bills start coming due? Well then they might feel something they’ve never felt before, empathy for those they have shouted down.

The Only Consistent

Ah the Bush years…I remember them well. 

I was a bright eyed, young liberal college student. I felt betrayed by the Administration that sent troops to Iraq rather than Afghanistan to fight the evil doers who perpetrated 9/11. After that I was a espoused liberal. I know shocking…but people change.

However, I remember back during the Bush years liberals were like a second coming of the hippies from the 60’s. The parallels were pretty stark. An unpopular President struggling to sell a quagmire of a war to the American people. Thousands of lives lost in a country people had no idea why we were there. Liberals back at home called President Bush a war criminal, cried for his immediate impeachment for lying to the American people about weapons of mass destruction. They talked about bringing the troops home and ending overseas conflicts. I know this because I was one of those liberals. I talked about the fear of a possible draft because we were sending so many troops to the Middle East. It’s all people on the left could talk about, bring the troops home and end these needless wars. 

Fast forward to 2008 when a young candidate rose quickly to become the Democratic nominee and campaigned on bringing the troops home. A message pulled directly from liberal voters during the Bush years. People cheered him. They loved his message of ending war and bringing peace to the world. However, something happened that changed everything. President Obama never brought the troops home. He brought some home sure, but we still had an enormous presence in the Middle East. President Obama was famously decried for his inhumane use of drone strikes. But even with all that, the left still stayed quiet about bringing the troops home. Their fever pitch screams during the Bush years turned into nothing but a quiet hush during the Obama years. 

Fast forward again to now. President Trump has promised to end foreign conflicts and bring troops home. For the most part he has done so. But it’s hard to believe the same people who were calling President Bush a war criminal for sending troops to the Middle East, are now decrying President Trump for taking troops out of the Middle East. They scream about how President Trump is taking 50 troops out of northern Syria because he’s abandoning the Kurds. Forget that we have a treaty with Turkey that says we won’t fire on each other and that the Turks would just go around our troops to the Kurds. They said the Kurds would be slaughtered. Forget that President Trump and his administration quickly negotiated a cease fire with Turkey. They cried that pulling the troops would hasten the spread of ISIS. In fact, you heard them regurgitating lines conservatives said during the Bush years such as “If we don’t fight them there, then we will have to fight them here.” Forget that despite all this President Trump announced the death of ISIS leader Baghdadi just yesterday. 

Yet leftists still cry about President Trump bringing troops home and pulling them out of the middle east. When it wasn’t too long ago they were screaming for President Bush to be hung for treason for sending troops to the Middle East. And even a shorter period of time from when they conveniently neglected President Obama not ending any wars as promised. 

It’s because the left doesn’t necessarily stand for being anti war. They stand for being anti conservative, in any form. The irony being that most leftists don’t see their own contradictions. They sound like Bush era conservatives when defending why we need to stay in the Middle East indefinitely. They have become the very thing they hated years ago. Not because they had some epiphany and realized conservatives were right along, but because it wasn’t advantageous to their goal of knocking a conservative President down a few pegs. Republican sending troops to the Middle East? Warmonger. Republican President bringing troops home? Irresponsible and reckless foreign policy. 

This is why it is impossible to take what leftists say as serious. They change their positions based on who is in office and not based on their own personal political beliefs. Whatever position is the best for achieving their political goals, that’s the position they will take. It’s not about convictions, it’s about power and suppressing those who disagree with them. 

I may have changed from bright eyed liberal to a more populist conservative, but at least I never changed my anti war stance. I can’t say the same for many on the left today. 

Can DINO’s Save California?

Photo by rawpixel.com on Pexels.com

No, not those DINO’s you remember from your childhood. No characters from Jurassic Park or the Land That Time Forgot, I’m talking about the acronym of “RINO” or as it’s spelled out (Republican In Name Only).

If you are unfamiliar with the term RINO, then the term comes from Republicans who are centrist and end up voting with Democrats on many issues. Think of John McCain, Mitt Romney, Jeff Flake, Lisa Merkowski, or Susan Collins. Many of them are Republicans you can’t count on when push comes to shove. Thankfully two of them are gone, but there are still RINO’s lurking within Congress.

But I digress.

The idea of a RINO is one that is abhorrent to Republicans because you never know how they are going to vote when the time comes. If you are a Republican, they are a constant pain because of the fact they are unpredictable. They will forgo their conservative values to vote with Democrats. The main thrust of this name being that they aren’t really Republicans at all, but politicians masquerading as Republicans in red districts to get votes, and then when they get into office they act like Democrats.

Now I know for a moment there was a term “blue dog Democrats” which is simply a more conservative Democrat. That’s not what I’m proposing here. A DINO is essentially a RINO but in reverse (Democrat In Name Only). Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot, and instead of a RINO looking to get votes in a deep red district, we have someone who is looking to get votes in a deep blue district (e.g. most of California).

Before you think I’m a traitor to the cause, or crazy, let’s think about this logistically and logically for a minute. If we look at some numbers from last August before the recent midterm elections we can see how this strategy might play out. The below numbers are from a study done by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC).

California’s 19 million registered voters constitute 75.7% of eligible adults, a slight increase from the registration rate in 2014 (73.3%), the year of the last gubernatorial election. The share of registered voters who are Democrats (44.4%) is up slightly from 2014 (43.4%), while the share of Republicans (25.1%) has declined since 2014 (28.4%). At the same time, the share of voters who say they are independent (also known as “decline to state” or “no party preference”) has been increasing and is now 25.5%, up from 21.2% in 2014. Our surveys indicate that 47% of those we consider most likely to vote are Democrats, 28% are Republicans, and 21% are independents.

Obviously Democrats win the numbers game in California. They have the largest share of voters in California. You can also see Republican voters are slowly declining while Independents are increasing. And you’re saying “So what” everybody knows that already. But let’s look at some numbers that are even more interesting.

In our surveys over the past year, independent likely voters have been more likely to lean Democratic (43%) than Republican (29%); 28% did not lean toward either major party.

Independent voters are more likely to vote Democrat than Republican in California. Even though they can’t be bothered with picking a party, Independents still go for the Democrats by a margin of more than 10%.

So let’s look at this through a prism of pure numbers. We have a Democratic Party that is overwhelming Republicans in sheer numbers, and to make matters worse, Independents favor Democrats over Republicans by a substantial margin.

Now we can sit here and pretend that taking the noble route would be better and try to rebuild and win using the Republican Party, but looking at the numbers, that is one hell of a hill to climb. Instead think of this as a scenario.

Moderate, pro business, tax cutting DINO’s begin running in local races. They have an enormous advantage simply because they have a D next to their name. Add in the boost from Independents who will swing their way and the race should be a cake walk.

This covert operation works even better in California because of the Jungle Primary system that is in place. Democrats usually end up as the top two choices anyway and Republicans are left out in the cold. Leaving the race to two leftists battling over who supports inter-sectional identity politics or whatever. Now add in a DINO, someone who has the goal of actually getting good things done for California, and you may have a race on your hands. Get enough DINO’s up and down the state, and well, you have the start of a covert insurgency operation whereby you weed out the far leftists and return some sanity to California.

Still not feeling it because of your sense of moral obligation? Think it’s underhanded and sneaky to start supporting DINO’s to run in races rather than Republicans? Let me share some food for thought for people who want to sit on the sidelines because of their moral imperatives.

[People who] are passionately committed to a mystical objectivity where passions are suspect… They can be recognized by one of two verbals brands. “We agree with the ends but not the means” or “This is not the time.” The means-and-end moralists or non-doers always end up on their ends without any means.

You know who wrote that? Saul Alinksy. Yes the same Saul Alinsky who wrote Rules for Radicals and was a personal mentor to Hillary Clinton. But he has a point. People who sit by idly because of their morals, usually end up with nothing to show for it but a false sense of superiority.

Alinsky goes on to outline his rules for when the ends justify the means.

1. One’s concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one’s personal interest in the issue.

2. The judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment.

3. In war the end justifies almost any means.

4. Judgment must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point.

5. Concern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice versa.

6. The less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of means.

7. Generally, success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics.

8. The morality of a means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.

9. Any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition as being unethical.

10. You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.

11. Goals must be phrased in general terms like “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,” “Of the Common Welfare,” “Pursuit of Happiness,” or “Bread and Peace.”

There are a lot of rules here, but I’d like you to focus on rules 3, 4, and 8. We are at war here in California. We are being over run by the totalitarian Left. They have complete control all over the state and continue to push forward. When it comes to war, anything goes. Rule number 4, we are at a time when California is in open rebellion against the US. The state continues to march toward socialism and we are helpless to stop it because of voter fraud, a rigged primary system, and a Democratic Party that dwarfs its opponents in size and resources. Finally, rule 8, we are on the brink of imminent defeat. I would argue it has already happened. Any sense of liberty or freedom is essentially dead in California. We are over taxed and over regulated. Defeat has most certainly already arrived.

Is this theory unorthodox? Maybe. Is it used already throughout our political system? Absolutely. There are plenty of people who put a D or an R next to their name simply because the numbers favor them. Politicians switch from Party to Party because they read the polls and see it would be more beneficial to do so. Politicians play this game for their own benefit, why not us?

Democrats hold the Party advantage in California at the moment, why not just get rid of the Party advantage? Political parties are used to divide and conquer the people, maybe its time for the people to use the political parties to divide and conquer for their own benefit.

Maybe the idea of using Saul Alinsky’s advice is too much for you to stomach. Well how about I propose another’s advice to help sway you?

Let me now warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party. The common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another. In governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged.

This was the advice of George Washington warning the American people against political parties. Political parties are a rouse to herd people into one category or another. Here in California, we are a one party state. This can be an enormous obstacle, or a huge benefit.

Destroy the idea of D vs R in California and scatter it to the winds. Put liberty and freedom up against socialism on even footing. Damn the means to get there. If it means saving California, it is something to consider.

Hold the Line – Why California Is More Important to Conservatives Than You Think

“Let’s keep our boots polished, bayonets sharpened, and present a picture of force and strength to the Red Army. This is the only language they understand and respect.”

One thing was apparent until President Trump entered the political fray in 2015.

Republicans were the party of gracious losers.

Before Trump-style politics where conservatives actually fought back and called out leftists for what they were, Republicans were more than happy to lose election after election as long as they stood by their “principles.” They would suffer low blows and slimy attacks from Democrats and the media and sit there pathetically and respond “Please sir can I have another?”

While President Trump may have changed much of that, that strain of loser mentality is still rampant in the Republican Party, and you can see it on full display in California where Republicans lose election after election and pat themselves on the back for standing strong for their principles.

Principles are great, but when it comes to politics, winning is even more important.

This virus has spread to many conservatives who have all but given up on California. You can see it on social media and forums where users post things like “California is lost”, “Commiefornia”, ‘Can we build the Wall around California too?”, or my favorite “Can we just nuke California and be done with it?” This I would argue is the first sign of the loser virus still rampant throughout conservatives in America.

Is California in bad shape? Yes I am not going to deny that. We are over-taxed and over-regulated. We have a state government completely dominated by leftists who have no one to stop them. A new Governor who’s entire platform was “Resist Trump.” California is far from a bastion of conservative ideals.

But to simply give up on California is to slink back to our old pre-Trump ways. Back when we would lose and concede ground everywhere in the country but be proud of the fact that we stood strong on principles and whatever. All the while Democrats become the ones pulling the levers of power.

As someone who’s attended CAGOP conventions I can say first hand, Trump-style politics have not come to this state. Nobody fights back or nominates people who are willing to do so (look at the CAGOP’s feckless no-nomination of either gubernatorial candidate when you had a fighter in Travis Allen). I would go so far as to say that the prominent leaders of our state actually prefer to be the losing party all the time. Why? It allows them to continue their talking points and push more books or speaking events or whatever lines their pockets.

Take noted attorney Harmeet Dhillon for example. The only thing Harmeet Dhillon looks out for is Harmeet Dhillon. She has done little to organize the party, fundraise, or energize the CAGOP. But be rest assured she will be on Fox News talking about whatever new case her firm has taken on. Yes, she fights the good fight in Court, but does it save our state? Nope. Republicans like Dhillon tilt at windmills and hope that a few small court victories will change things in California.

Newsflash, they won’t.

My point is nobody fights in California. Yes it is a hard fight, but by conceding the fight gets harder and harder every year.

So what does this have to do with the rest of the country?

If we allow for this loser mentality to continue, what state falls next? Colorado which is already deep purple? Arizona? New Mexico? Texas? If we continue to shrug off loss after loss, then what’s left to fight for?

This is precisely why it is even more important to fight back right now in California. Yes Democrats won the House, but they don’t have the Senate or the White House. President Trump is overhauling the Judiciary which will have a generational impact. But we need to fight in California.

After World War II, General Patton stated that America should continue moving from Berlin into the Soviet Union to stop them before they got any stronger.

“If we have to fight them, now is the time. From now on we will get weaker and they stronger.”

Obviously America didn’t do that, but look at the ramifications. The Soviet Union grew in power and influence gobbling up territory and spreading communism throughout the world. Millions died as a result, and we still have communist regimes we are fighting to this day because of it.

The same is true about our country right now. We may never have this much influence and power in government as we do right now, but if we continue to retreat and concede, they will continue to get stronger and we get weaker.

Pushing back in California hurts leftists in their last stronghold. Weaken that, and the rest of the dominoes fall. Thus resulting in change for our country for generations. Leave it unchallenged, you leave it to the leftists to get stronger and spread influence.

Give up on California, and you might as well give up on the rest of the country too.

Where Do We Go After President Trump?

One thing that I think about from time to time is where do we as a country go after President Trump leaves office. His incredible ascendance to the Presidency in 2016 will be talked about for generations, but what legacy will he leave behind? Will he have changed the course of history or merely be an anomaly?

Was President Trump an unexpected phenomenon or was he tapping into something bigger? Was he the catalyst or is he the culmination of a larger sentiment bubbling up in American society?

The answers to these questions can give us a preview of where we go after President Trump leaves the Oval Office and retires back to 5th Avenue and his billionaire lifestyle.

As we all know per the Constitution, President Trump cannot run the country forever. He will have to step down eventually. So while we all enjoy his sporadic tweets and unfiltered talking points, he like all Presidents will have to relinquish his seat to the next person.

But who will that person be? Will his VP Mike Pence step up and attempt to run with Trump’s blessing? Will another unknown candidate rise up to take the country by storm?

We can postulate forever on where we go from here, but in my mind I see two paths after President Trump leaves.

The “MAGA” Movement Continues To Usher In a New Era of Politics

President Trump did not wake up one morning and decide to run for President (or maybe he did). You can do a quick search to see questions of his Presidential ambitions going back almost 20 years. He was courted by the Republicans in the late 80’s to take up the mantle after President Reagan, and again courted in 2000 by the Reform Party to run as a viable third party candidate.

During that time, we have seen other political movements come to the forefront. We saw the rise of the Tea Party under President Obama, as well as Occupy Wall Street. The economic collapse and eventual bailout of Wall Street in 07 and 08 left many Americans feeling that they were nothing more than peasants at the feet of the mighty bankers. Populism began to take a foot hold on both the left and right. President Obama attempted to harness this sentiment in his two campaigns for the White House. Mitt Romney made it even easier in 2012 when he was the personification of everything wrong with Wall Street for President Obama to tap into that Populist spirit. But after eight years of President Obama delivering on only a couple of his promises, Americans were once again looking for someone to radically shake things up in Washington.

Enter two radical candidates, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.

Both had new radical views, but in the long run, Donald Trump’s ability to easily dispatch his Republican opponents and Sanders’ inability to overcome the crooked DNC allowed him to easily enter the general election. Whereby he resoundingly beat Hillary Clinton, who was the personification of everything wrong with Washington DC much like Romney was the personification of everything wrong with Wall Street.

So that’s the past, but what about the future?

Today we see populism/nationalism on the rise in many Western countries. The election of Donald Trump and Brexit were the first shots fired in this global struggle over political philosophies. Were we to be ruled with our nation’s best interests in mind, or are we to succumb to a faceless, global government?

Currently, it can be argued that the people are speaking up in favor of nationalism. You have the MAGA movement in America, Brexit, the Yellow Vests in France, Salvini and company in Italy, Bolsonaro in Brazil, Poland’s defiance of the EU, and nationalist parties bubbling up in countries like Spain show that the push for nationalism/populism over globalism is picking up speed.

But how far will it be allowed to go?

At the time it was said, many of us were coming off the high of a Donald Trump upset of Hillary Clinton, but Steve Bannon hit it on the head when he said the globalists aren’t going to give up without a fight. The MSM continues to attack President Trump daily, questioning every move he makes. Meanwhile, they downplay movements in Europe as small protests, and not uprisings. The Fed continues to play games with the economy by toying with interest rates, and now you have a Democratic House after a night of questionable election tactics.

This fight will continue to be an uphill battle, but without a leader such as Donald Trump at the helm, who do we look to?

Maybe the successes of populism help people wake up to the benefits of looking out for your country first and they continue to vote for MAGA-like candidates. But judging by the recent midterm election, the conditioning will be hard to break and I guarantee there will be plenty of useful idiots after President Trump is gone to vote for more globalists.

We can only hope that this movement, whatever you want to call it, continues. It’s taking hold in many other countries but there is still a long way to go. Major players such as England and France continue to side with globalists. Germany is home to the Queen of Globalism herself, Angela Merkel. There are many countries that have yet to turn it around, and with their power they can easily turn the tide back.

But maybe, just maybe, President Trump was the beginning of something. A turning point in history where nations, who are more connected than ever in history, begin to reflect on what it means to be American, or French, or English, and decide to turn their attentions towards protecting and promoting their own countries.

Will the globalists just close up shop and go home? I doubt it, but maybe they can be quelled for another couple decades to allow populism to thrive.

We Return To Status Quo

This is the more depressing path we take after President Trump leaves office. I am not going to pretend that American politics doesn’t swing like a pendulum. We had eight years of President Obama and that led to President Trump, if the pendulum were to swing back the other way, we will most likely be stuck with another status quo, Washington insider (most likely leftist) globalist in the Oval Office.

Then everything President Trump would have done would essentially be undone. It would stifle any progress we have made up to this point.

You can look forward to more taxes on the middle class shrouded in the pursuit of battling “climate change.” They will rail about the top 1%, and when the top 1% says don’t tax us or we’ll find some other talking suit to take your place, the politicians will turn to the upper-middle and middle class to fund their pet projects and slowly whittle away the economic growth of both.

Whether they have an R or D next to their name, the game will remain the same. They will sell you a bill of goods and turn around to do everything that is not in your best interests.

They will most likely go back to agreeing to international resolutions that will chip away at our sovereignty and send our tax dollars overseas. Any idea or notion of looking out for “America First” will be scoffed at as primitive and idiotic.

Everything will be undone and things will go back to the way they were before President Trump took office, and this is probably the most depressing outcome I can think of. Everything accomplished will be undone and set back to the way it was before.

So What Do We Do?

The one thing that we can’t do is take for advantage where we are at right now. We can’t rest on our laurels and assume that we are going to ride off into the sunset on the wings a of bald eagle and roll credits.

The world doesn’t work like that.

The globalists and leftists are going to assume this was a bump in the road and that this can be fixed. They will fight harder to win in 2020 and go back to their ways. Even if President Trump wins in 2020, they will be ready to assume power in 2024. Like I said, American politics swings back and forth and to assume America would elect another conservative populist like Trump can be a bit of a stretch.

But there is something we can do.

We can take what President Trump has started and continue to carry it out long after he is gone. In essence, you have to vote for MAGA from the President on down to your local dog catcher.

President is nice, but in essence, local elections are incredibly important to your everyday lives. To enact grassroots change will be one way to ensure erosion of leftist/globalist power. When your cities, and states are filled with politicians who believe in protecting its citizens and putting our interests first, MAGA will essentially live on.

MAGA was a great slogan, but it’s the philosophy behind the slogan that needs to be implemented throughout America. Politicians of course won’t come out and proclaim they are MAGA, but you can read their positions and figure it out for yourself.

Do they believe in economic prosperity through low taxes and no regulations? Do they believe American workers should be protected from countries who are trying to undercut our industries? Do they believe in enforcing the law and keeping our communities safe?

These are some of the pillars of the MAGA movement that President Trump started. But we have to continue to vote for those who support this philosophy, and fast before it’s extinguished.

Either way, President Trump is not the end of a movement, but merely the beginning. He is the spark to a bigger fire.

Our goal is to keep the fire alive after he’s gone.