Need a Break?

If it's true that Ted Cruz as “dishonest,” or “unlikable,” how can we support him for President?

We’ve been asked by many friends to share insight into Ted Cruz 

testify Chip Roy and Brooke Bacak (gracias per Fausta), who "happen to know him quite well" (check out the Texas senator's CPAC speech),

based on the two years we spent working for him in the U.S. Senate. It is clear from these conversations that while few doubt the sincerity of his conservative political convictions, many are struggling to make sense of the way he has been characterized by the media and a few of his Republican colleagues as “dishonest,” or “unlikable.” Many of you are trying to understand who this man is and how can you like him or trust him enough to support him for President of the United States.

The truth is – you are right to question. This is the political choice of our lifetimes – and we all feel how critical this choice of president will be for the future of America. From concerns about national security to economic growth, from healthcare costs to education opportunity, from mounting debt to a broken immigration system, from religious liberty to questions of life and marriage – all with the 9th Supreme Court seat sitting empty… we feel a sense of duty to get this choice right and at this particular moment. We know we owe that to our children. So how can we hand the reins to that so-called “jerk,” Ted Cruz?

Well, we happen to know him quite well. And we know that the vast majority of these characterizations are completely false; that Senator Cruz is an honest and decent man; that the negative portrayals of him are purposeful and a direct consequence of his willingness to fight for the American people against the massive power of the ruling class that our founding fathers predicted would occur; and that it would be an incredible disservice for you not to take a serious look at him as the only nominee who will lead this country away from its current path and toward the American promise of freedom, security and prosperity our children deserve.

Read why Chip Roy and Brooke Bacak believe this.

Witness the Unbelievable Amount of Racism That Exists Among Conservatives and in the Tea Party

… there’s also … the stain that won’t go away

writes Paul Krugman darkly in his op-ed:

race. 

    This comes at the end of a column in which the New York Times' economist has castigated the right for "Republican hostility toward the poor and unfortunate" (Re-posted).

    Every time I read a column by Paul Krugman in which he laments the racism he constantly finds among conservative groups (A War on the Poor, New York Times, November 1), I wonder if he has ever heard about Tim Scott.  Given that for awhile, the legislator from South Carolina was the only member of the United States Senate who is African-American, one would think that his name might be — almost — as renowned as Barack Obama's.

    The explanation for Scott's relative obscurity is that he is a Republican — one who is backed by Tea Partiers (endorsed by Tea Party favorite Jim DeMint, Scott's Senate predecessor) and one from a Southern state to boot.  And were Scott better known, it would be far more difficult for people like Krugman to bewail the racism of Republicans and Tea Partiers, not to mention Southerners. 

    You would think that this black pauper's rise from rags to the halls of the U.S. Senate is a living memorial to Martin Luther King's dream.  But because leftists (conveniently and self-servingly) define themselves as the valiant fighters against the racism they (conveniently and self-servingly) constantly find throughout the ranks of the Republican Party, it comes as no surprise that South Carolina's conservative Senator did not even receive an invitation to participate in the 50th anniversary commemorations of MLK's Lincoln Memorial speech.

    Should Krugman need more evidence of his own prejudices, one could also mention Nikki Haley and Bobby Jindal, Republican governors (both of Indian heritage) backed by the Tea Party whose skin is about as dark as, if not darker than, that of Barack Obama. Yes, they too were elected in states from the former Confederacy.

    As for blacks who are favorites of the Tea Party, either nationally or locally, they include Herman Cain, Allen West, Darryl Glenn, and Mia Love as well as Thomas Sowell (the Stanford economist who deserves the Nobel Prize in Economics at least as much as Krugman), Walter Williams, Larry Elder, and Stacey Dash.  But all these African-Americans must be ignored, because for the Left, the only good "Negro" is the martyred "Negro" — the one who constantly thinks he and his like are victims and therefore votes for the victimization party (i.e., the Democrats).

    Currently, one favorite of the Tea Party crowd for presidential candidate in 2016 is Dr Benjamin Carson, a neurosurgeon who is offering a free-market alternative to Obamacare that would keep prices down and Washington's brand-new army of bureaucrats out of the health care system.  His skin, too, is darker than Obama's.

    But all these inconvenient facts must be ignored or belittled by media people like Krugman in order to push the narrative that America is an intolerant hell hole of prejudice populated by hordes of despicable racists.

Note: The initial text of this post held that Tim Scott was the only black member of the United States Senate; that was true at the time of the writing of the post, over several weeks, but 12 days before this post was posted, Cory Booker had become New Jersey's junior senator.

Update:  one year after the original post was written, Tim Scott won South Carolina's 2014 mid-term Senate election — in a landslide

Is Uribe's Successor as Colombia's president Throwing His Victory over the FARC Guerillas Away?

At CPAC, on Wednesday, a member of Columbia's Chamber of Representatives made an appeal to Norteamericanos for assistance in persuading the American public to turn against the U.S. government's decision to spend $450 million towards Bogota's "peace process" with the FARC guerillas.

According to María Fernanda Cabal, it seems like Álvaro Uribe's choice to succeed him as president of Colombia has let him down (to say the least), throwing away his hard-won military victory over the FARC guerilla movement. (Shades of the USA's Democrats with regards to Vietnam 40 years ago and to Iraq four years ago…)

"Santos, it's not peace that's near, it's the surrender to FARC and the tyranny of Venezuela."

the Washington Post's Joshua Partlow quotes Uribe, now a senator, as tweeting.

With help from the Castro brothers and their Havana Process (Maria Fernanda Cabal added at Maryland's Gayelord Hotel), Colombian president Juan Manuel Santos (who served his predecessor Uribe as his defense minister) has decided to fuel America's millions towards FARC leaders, effectively reviving the formerly defeated terrorist group doubling as a cocaine cartel.

Previous NP posts on Uribe and/or Colombia…

The Era of the Drama Queens: Every Crisis Is a Triumph

We live in hard times. [Re-posted — because of eternal relevancy.] This is a hard, hard time for the Republic.

We live in the era of the Drama Queen.

We have been digging ourselves deeper and deeper into that era for the past fifty years.

[Update: thanks for the the links, Ed Driscoll and Bird Dog]

Leftists are drama queens. Leftists constantly erupting in hysterics — male (girly men?) or female — rule the roost.

Racism! Patriarchy! Sexism! Rape on campus! Global warming! Christianity's bigotry! The reactionary average American! Republicans' hate speech and hate thought! US history, a litany of racism and oppression! All the founding fathers, hypocritical sonzabitches! All our ancestors, imperialist mongrels! Oppression of women, and gays, and transgenders!

(The only person, the only people, who come out positive in this (self-serving) world view are — surprise, surprise — the drama queens themselves! Also known as the wise men, and the wise women, arriving as knights in shining armor on their white steeds to fight for the victims and the martyrs of the world.)

Whenever there is drama — whenever there is a crisis (or the semblance of a crisis) — the left's  drama queens win.

There must be constant drama — crises, if you prefer — or the movement loses momentum and/or comes to a standstill and/or dies out.

Related: The Leftist Worldview in a Nutshell: A World of Deserving Dreamers Vs. Despicable Deplorables

We have been in the midst of the triumph of the drama queens and the Chicken Littles and the other arrested-development adolescents since the 1960s, with the movement reaching its zenith with the 2008 election.

Ain't that true? Can't the biggest drama queen of all [Barack Obama] be found in the White House?

When the Republicans won the 2014 elections, they didn't realize that this was actually manna in heaven to the top drama queen of them all.

— I will defend the poor innocent martyred immigrants against the monstrous Republicans, against the ignominious inhabitants of Middle America!

— I will defeat the aggressive and clueless warlike policies of the despicable Republicans, regarding the relations with (say) Russia or Cuba, provide a reset, and open an era of peace and prosperity and friendship with those poor, misunderstood nations!

— I will fight for the American people tenaciously, by attacking the nation's, indeed the world's, main enemy, its only enemy (no, not Isis, not Al Qaeda, not the Russians, not the Chinese, not the Iranians, not any foreign dictator), and that as relentlessly and as often as I can — the contemptible members of America's Republican Party and the clueless average American citizen. 

Anything that will provide food for drama, for a crisis, may, and will, be used.
In no sense whatsoever is there the slightest value in unity.

Creating chaos is their raison d'être.

War, and crises, with the opposition must be used all the time, and no event may occur without it being used for political advantage.

All these battles in Congress makes Obama happy. He has created his crises, one after the other. He appears as the knight in shining armor come to save the American people.

With the Homeland Security shutdown, you have to wonder if nothing would make Obama happier if there was a terrorist attack on some place in America. He could blame it, would blame it, on the Republicans. And the media would gobble it up.

Why? Because journalists are drama queens too (they have to be, that is how the "newsmakers" survive). That is why so many of them are Democrats, while that is why so many leftists go into the news business in the first place (I want to fight for the little man).

(And why do the drama queens, in- or outside the media, hate conservatives? Republicans? Fox News? Where does their sense of anger, and revulsion, at Dubya, and Reagan, and Sarah Palin, and Glenn Beck originate? The main reason is because the latter are, they were, happy people with a smile on their face, who take pleasure — indeed, pride — in their country, and who are not constantly outraged at everything around them.)

Does Obama deserve to be impeached? Want to impeach Obama?

You know what? Nothing would make Barack Obama happier than to be impeached. Then there would be another drama, another one at which he would be the center, and one which could be milked to increase the fortunes of the Drama Queen Party the Democrat Party.

The numerous pitfalls of Obamacare? The Iranian deal leading to a greater chance of terrorism and war? The drama queens are fine with that, they don't even mind being blamed for having made "mistakes," it all leads to more crises down the road and a greater need for intervention, ever more intervention from politicians and bureaucrats and members of the Intervention Party the Democrat Party, aka knights in shining armor.

Indeed, one of the victories of the drama queens was when even the party of the historically calm and pensive, the party of the grown-ups (or of the alleged grown-ups), turned to the Candidate of Melodramatics and Excitement, which has been, and which is, allowing the Democrats to milk the dramatics for the entire 2016 election season.

Obama wins all the time.

Related: The Modus Operandi — The Vicious Circle
of Crises, Or, How the Drama Queens Operate

PS: Do I doubt that Obama is patriotic and loves America?

What is the American Dream? The dream to be rich, i.e., the dream to be powerful, i.e., the dream to be independent — independent of politicians — the dream to be content and feel secure.

This is the American Dream as far back as the 1770s.

This is the America that statists like Obama want(ed) to "fundamentally transform."

There is nothing Obama resents more than the America where its citizens are independent of the politicians, the élites, and their ever-growing armies of bureaucrats (there to "help them").

The founders' vision was the dream to be rid of Drama Queens — certainly, the dream that we should be rid, that we could be rid, of those drama queens who are in positions of power to rule, or who wish to rule, over us. (For our own good, natch.)

Since then, for the past two centuries, drama queens at home and abroad have done all in their power (Norway's 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, f'r'instance) to make America a Drama Queen-run nation…
Related: Bernie Marcus's dependable, mature golf player acting responsibly to prevent the ice hockey players from going berserk (Republicans are playing golf while the Democrats are playing ice hockey)

• The Divine Right of Democrats: Kevin Williamson on the liberation of the Donkey party by the practical elimination of the Republican party (America is  "suffering from a kind of infection in the form of the Republican party, which inhibits the normal and healthy — meaning Democrat-dominated — political life of the United States")

It’s a mystery how homosexuality differs from racism if both are inborn traits

Jim Grimsley penned an editorial last week in the Los Angeles Times that accused white people—all white people—of being racist.

Unfortunately for the gay columnist and playwright, one Benny Huang plans to examine the issue of racism in a dispassionate manner and, indeed, to take the argument to its logical conclusions.

Grimsley, who is white and grew up in Georgia at the tail-end of the Jim Crow era, railed against the cluelessness of white America on the issue of race. Even white people who consider themselves enlightened on racial issues, he argues, are often unaware of the racism that lurks within their own hearts. “…I have found that black people are all too aware that progress on racial issues has hardly moved forward at all, while white people are nearly as blind to their racism as ever,” he wrote.
 
I wish Grimsley had been clearer on one point—that is, whether white racism is cultural or genetic. Within the space of the same sentence he seems to blame both nature and nurture for white racism. Grimsely writes: “…[T]hese are symptoms of the insanity of white culture and our refusal to understand that racism is part of our makeup — each and every one of us, north, south, east and west — from cradle to grave.”

 … The idea that white people are irredeemably racist is central to the social justice movement. All white people are racist, even good white liberals.

 … Enter Tim Wise, another white southerner. He may be America’s best known “anti-racist activist” and he’s pretty extreme in his beliefs. Wise has made a career out of countering anti-black racism, most of which is entirely fictional, with anti-white racism. Even Wise admits to harboring certain racist tendencies though he blames it on growing up in a “white supremacist” culture. He nonetheless believes, despite his efforts to be the best friend black people have ever had, that he has internalized certain racist attitudes. And no, he isn’t talking about racist attitudes towards whites though that would at least be true.

According to Tim Wise, icon of “anti-racism,” even Tim Wise can’t claim to have washed away the stain of racism. Without exception, all white people must be racist.

 … It should be noted here that this attitude [Tribalism] has existed in all time and in all places. The only societies in history that have even tried to resist the tribalist urge are modern Western societies—this is, white societies of the post-World War II era. If you regard tribalism as negative–and in most cases I do—then Europe and North America are actually paragons of virtue. Colorblindness is an idea that modern Westerners have strived for even if they have not perfectly achieved it. Within those societies, it’s the white majority that has been the most willing to suppress their instincts. Other races seem less enthused about colorblindness. They have demanded and received preference which they will cling to from now until eternity.

 … The idea that we’re born racist, something I think at least some social justice warriors would agree with as long as we’re discussing only white people, has certain ramifications. If we accept it (and I do), we must accept that racism will always exist. The war against racism can never be won but we can lose our freedom fighting it.

I’ve noticed that liberals often use human nature as an excuse for behaviors that would otherwise be rejected. If we have an urge, what’s the use of trying to suppress it? Consider homosexuality, for example, a behavior regarded as aberrant by nearly every society prior to the late Twentieth Century. Putting aside moral and religious arguments for a moment, homosexuality comes with certain health risks, particularly the male variety—rectal cancer, AIDS, gonorrhea, etc.

(In a previous column, Benny Huang talked of doctors who, while gallantly joining in the battles on smoking and fast food, live in fear that their careers will be summarily ended if they advise against anal sodomy—which turns out to be far from bad medical advice, no matter how you slice it.)

But don’t tell that to liberals. “Gays” are just “born that way” they argue with very little evidence. No “gay” gene has ever been found and studies indicate that children exposed to sexual abuse tend to become homosexuals. Liberals reject this notion because they believe that homosexuality is not a choice. Homosexuals therefore have no obligation to suppress their urges. Be your true to yourself, they say. Telling anyone that homosexuality is shameful is a form of abuse because it forces that person into the proverbial closet.

It’s a mystery to me how homosexuality differs from racism if they are both inborn traits. According to dogma, “gays” couldn’t stop being “gay” any more than a leopard could change his spots. But isn’t the same true of racists? If racists are born, not made, then even heavy guilt tactics won’t cure them. What’s the point of trying to make racists change? All of this “racist shaming” seems both pointless and destructive to its subjects.

As a certified “homophobe” I am often asked if “gays” choose to be “gay.” I always answer the same: yes, because people choose who they sleep with. That doesn’t satisfy the homofascists who always respond, “If being gay were a choice, who would choose it?”

 … The social penalty for homosexuality is non-existent. The same cannot be said about the social penalty for racism. You can lose your job for the slightest episode of racism, real or perceived, which is really hypocritical in that everyone is at least a little racist.

A simple question demands to be answered: do people choose to be racist? If say you say no, then what’s the point of shaming them? They’re beyond reformation. If you say yes, that necessitates a follow-up question—if racism is a choice, who would choose it knowing that it would mean living life as a pariah? Certainly no one I know would knowingly accept the social penalty that comes with harboring forbidden thoughts. It must therefore be an inborn characteristic.

Trump is the Republican Party’s monster, yes; But what he represents is also part of the Obama legacy

THE spectacle of the Republican Party’s Trumpian meltdown has inspired a mix of glee and fear among liberals

writes Ross Douthat in the New York Times (echoing Glenn Reynolds's columns in USA Today) — 

glee over their rivals’ self-immolation, and fear that what arises from the destruction will be worse.

What it hasn’t inspired is much in the way of self-examination, or a recognition of the way that Obama-era trends in liberal politics have helped feed the Trump phenomenon.

 … Trumpism is also a creature of the late Obama era, irrupting after eight years when a charismatic liberal president has dominated the cultural landscape and set the agenda for national debates. President Obama didn’t give us Trump in any kind of Machiavellian or deliberate fashion. But it isn’t an accident that this is the way the Obama era ends — with a reality TV demagogue leading a populist, nationalist revolt.

First, the reality TV element in Trump’s campaign is a kind of fun-house-mirror version of the celebrity-saturated Obama effort in 2008. Presidential politics has long had an escalating celebrity component, a cultish side that’s grown ever-more-conspicuous with time. But the first Obama campaign raised the bar. The quasi-religious imagery and rhetoric, the Great Man iconography and pillared sets, the Oprah endorsement and Will.i.am music video and the Hollywood stars pledging allegiance — it was presidential politics as one part Aaron Sorkin-scripted liturgy, one part prestige movie’s Oscar campaign.

 … If Obama proved that you can run a presidential campaign as an aspirational cult of personality, in which a Sarah Silverman endorsement counts for as much as a governor or congressman’s support, Trump is proving that you don’t need Silverman to shout “the Aristocrats!” and have people eat it up.

He’s also proving, in his bullying, overpromising style, that voters are increasingly habituated to the idea of an ever more imperial presidency — which is also a trend that Obama’s choices have accelerated. Having once campaigned against his predecessor’s power grabs, the current president has expanded executive authority along almost every dimension: launching wars without congressional approval, claiming the power to assassinate American citizens, and using every available end-around to make domestic policy without any support from Congress.

 … that [right-wing] Caesarist, crucially, is rallying a constituency that once swung between the parties, but that the Obama White House has spent the last eight years slowly writing off. Trump’s strongest supporters aren’t archconservatives; they’re white working-class voters, especially in the Rust Belt and coal country, who traditionally leaned Democratic and still favor a strong welfare state.

These voters had been drifting away from the Democratic Party since the 1970s, but Obama has made moves that effectively slam the door on them: His energy policies, his immigration gambits, his gun control push, his shift to offense on same-sex marriage and abortion. It was possible to be a culturally conservative skeptic of mass immigration in the Democratic Party of Bill Clinton. Not so anymore.

  … liberalism still needs to reckon with the consequences. As in Europe, when the left gives up on nationalism and lets part of its old working class base float away, the result is a hard-pressed constituency unmoored from either party, and nursing well-grounded feelings of betrayal.

Hence Marine Le Pen and the nationalist parties of Europe. And hence, now, Donald Trump.

He is the Republican Party’s monster, yes. But what he represents is also part of the Obama legacy — a nemesis for liberal follies as well as conservative corruptions, and a threat to both traditions for many years to come.

Double Standards: Women Should Have As Many Rights As Wusses Do

(Dilbert)

"In Britain, you read about all the deals going on" says one young expat exilé; "In the French papers, you read about taxes, more taxes, economic problems, and the state’s involvement in everything"

Guillaume Santacruz, an aspiring French entrepreneur, brushed the rain from his black sweater and skinny jeans and headed down to a cavernous basement inside Campus London, a seven-story hive run by Google in the city’s East End.

Thus writes Liz Alderman in the New York Times.

A year earlier, Mr. Santacruz, who has two degrees in finance, was living in Paris near the Place de la Madeleine, working in a boutique finance firm. He had taken that job after his attempt to start a business in Marseille foundered under a pile of government regulations and a seemingly endless parade of taxes. The episode left him wary of starting any new projects in France. Yet he still hungered to be his own boss.

He decided that he would try again. Just not in his own country.

“A lot of people are like, ‘Why would you ever leave France?’ ” Mr. Santacruz said. “I’ll tell you. France has a lot of problems. There’s a feeling of gloom that seems to be growing deeper. The economy is not going well, and if you want to get ahead or run your own business, the environment is not good.”

 … From 80 to 90 percent of all start-ups fail, “but that’s O.K.,” said Eze Vidra, the head of Google for Entrepreneurs Europe and of Campus London, a free work space in the city’s booming technology hub. In Britain and the United States, “it’s not considered bad if you have failed,” Mr. Vidra said. “You learn from failure in order to maximize success.”

That is the kind of thinking that drew Mr. Santacruz to London. “Things are different in France,” he said. “There is a fear of failure. If you fail, it’s like the ultimate shame. In London, there’s this can-do attitude, and a sense that anything’s possible. If you make an error, you can get up again.”

Mr. Santacruz had a hard time explaining to his parents his decision to leave France. “They think I’m crazy, maybe sick, taking all those risks,” he said. “But I don’t want to wait until I’m 60 to live my life.”

France has been losing talented citizens to other countries for decades, but the current exodus of entrepreneurs and young people is happening at a moment when France can ill afford it.

 … Some wealthy businesspeople have also been packing their bags. While entrepreneurs fret about the difficulties of getting a business off the ground, those who have succeeded in doing so say that society stigmatizes financial success. The election of President François Hollande, a member of the Socialist Party who once declared, “I don’t like the rich,” did little to contradict that impression.

 … Today, around 1.6 million of France’s 63 million citizens live outside the country. That is not a huge share, but it is up 60 percent from 2000, according to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Thousands are heading to Hong Kong, Mexico City, New York, Shanghai and other cities. About 50,000 French nationals live in Silicon Valley alone.

But for the most part, they have fled across the English Channel, just a two-hour Eurostar ride from Paris. Around 350,000 French nationals are now rooted in Britain, about the same population as Nice, France’s fifth-largest city. So many French citizens are in London that locals have taken to calling it “Paris on the Thames.” …

Taxes, Frustration, More Taxes

 … “Making it” is almost never easy, but Mr. Santacruz found the French bureaucracy to be an unbridgeable moat around his ambitions. Having received his master’s in finance at the University of Nottingham in England, he returned to France to work with a friend’s father to open dental clinics in Marseille. “But the French administration turned it into a herculean effort,” he said.

A one-month wait for a license turned into three months, then six. They tried simplifying the corporate structure but were stymied by regulatory hurdles. Hiring was delayed, partly because of social taxes that companies pay on salaries. In France, the share of nonwage costs for employers to fund unemployment benefits, education, health care and pensions is more than 33 percent. In Britain, it is around 20 percent.

“Every week, more tax letters would come,” Mr. Santacruz recalled.

 … Diane Segalen, an executive recruiter for many of France’s biggest companies who recently moved most of her practice, Segalen & Associés, to London from Paris, says the competitiveness gap is easy to see just by reading the newspapers. “In Britain, you read about all the deals going on here,” Ms. Segalen said. “In the French papers, you read about taxes, more taxes, economic problems and the state’s involvement in everything.”

 … Mr. Hollande’s government is now trying to re-brand itself as business-friendly, especially for start-ups. … These changes were welcomed by business, but the more than 20 French expatriates I interviewed said their country was marked by a deeper antipathy toward the wealthy than could be addressed with a few new policies.

“Generally, if you are self-made man and earn money, you are looked at with suspicion,” said Erick Rinner, a French executive at Milestone Capital Partners, a British-French private equity firm, who has lived in London for 20 years.

Mr. Hollande’s election, and especially his proposal — since ruled unconstitutional — to impose a 75 percent tax on the portion of income above one million euros (about $1.4 million) a year, have only reinforced that perception.

“It is a French cultural characteristic that goes back to almost the revolution and Robespierre, where there’s a deep-rooted feeling that you don’t show that you make money,” Ms. Segalen, the recruiter, said. “There is this sense that ‘liberté, égalité, fraternité’ means that what’s yours should be mine. It’s more like, if someone has something I can’t have, I’d rather deprive this person from having it than trying to work hard to get it myself. That’s a very French state of mind. But it’s a race to the bottom.”

Sharing Space, Waiting Tables

“In London, every day is a fight,” [said Emilie Bellet, 30, who in less than a year raised a half-million pounds to finance her venture, SeedRecruit, which finds talent for other start-ups]. “But then you get rewarded. I don’t think this would have been possible in France.”

 … Back in France, Mr. Santacruz’s parents were still trying to grasp their son’s decision. Having spent her career at the state telecom company, his mother, like many others in her generation, assumed that her children’s main aspiration would also be lifelong job security. …

France? Maybe for Retirement

 … Guillaume Santacruz was grateful for the benefits that his country gave him. But he wanted something else — to innovate. By September, his project was not where he wanted it to be. Yet he maintained that he was better off pursuing it outside France.

 … Even if [the company that Mr. Santacruz was trying to build (Zipcube)] fell apart, he told me one chilly weekend at his Kensington flat, where paint was peeling off the walls, “I would not change my mind and head back to France; I see only cons to doing that, no pros.” He was skeptical that the government’s recent offensive to spur France’s entrepreneurial environment would quickly bear fruit.

Several of his French friends in London felt the same way. “I asked them, if things don’t work out, will they go back? Not one of them would,” Mr. Santacruz said. “Maybe for retirement. But not for work — we’d rather go to the United States or Asia before returning.” France seemed to have lost another citizen in the prime of his productive working years.

 … And while the bar to succeed was high, “I’m confident I’m going to make it,” he declared.

In leftists' minds, protecting the delicate feelings of the mentally ill is more important than protecting women and children from pervs

Have you ever noticed that whenever liberals say that something won’t happen, it happens? 

asks Benny Huang.

Yeah, I’ve noticed that too. Just weeks after Washington State implemented a new nondiscrimination law that protects “gender identity” a man walked into a women’s locker room at a public pool in Seattle, a possibility that liberals had pooh-poohed when passing the bill.

Other women were shocked because the man evidenced no outwardly feminine characteristics. This was not a dude carrying a purse and wearing a miniskirt; this was a dude who looked like a dude. He calmly began to undress in front of the women who quickly reported him to staff. When he was asked to leave he reportedly said, “The law has changed and I have a right to be here.” He later returned at a time when several young girls were changing for swim practice.

The police were not called and the unidentified man was therefore not arrested. No surprise there; what would they have charged him with? The law, which opponents claim enables voyeurism, would have been on his side. All he would have had to say is that he feels himself a woman in his heart of hearts. If he had been arrested he would have been able to sue the police for wrongful detention.

Such is the insanity of these transgender “rights” laws which completely abandon the idea that maleness and femaleness are objective realities. Those are just social constructs, they argue, and they can be altered with surgery, hormone therapy, or even just a personal decision to be “true” to one’s self. In order to muddy the waters they speak of gender rather than sex, two words that were once synonymous but have recently diverged. Even transgender activists acknowledge sex as being determined by biology though they afford it little importance. It’s gender that concerns them because gender is entirely self-determined.

Nor is gender binary—an “either/or” decision between male and female. Facebook, a company always on the forefront of deviancy, allows its US-based users 51 options for defining gender including “androgynous” and “genderqueer.”

 … In short, the transgender movement’s Big Idea is that no one can tell anyone else what his/her/zir gender is because it’s a personal choice. Though completely bonkers, I can see how this idea would appeal to the Left because it rejects the concept of objective reality and fetishizes self-determination.
I’ve often wondered just how far the Left will extend this principle. There must be a bridge too far but where is it?

 … Now I don’t really believe that the Left intends these laws to facilitate voyeurism or sexual assault even though that’s been the effect. What they want is for men who genuinely feel they are women to be treated as women. (And women who feel like men, of course.) They essentially want everyone to engage in a mass delusion because it makes delusional people feel better. They’re still wrong about this. Even if we could filter out the pedophiles and peeping toms from the truly gender dysphoric I’d still be against it because I’d rather not lie to myself. But as a matter of fact we can’t filter them out. If each person has full autonomy to decide whether he is male, female, or something else, then each person’s stated gender identity is sacrosanct and non-debatable.

Guys like Christopher Hambrook can of course be arrested and jailed after they assault women but they can’t be preemptively barred from women’s shelters as a precautionary measure. Which is utter madness, plain and simple.

I can only conclude that in their minds, protecting the delicate feelings of the mentally ill is more important than protecting women and children from pervs.

But what can we do about it? 

asks Benny Huang as ze ponders the solution to whether we can choose race (can Rachel Dolezal be black if she wants to be?), whether we can “identify” as disabled (“transabled”), and whether we can determine our own age (at least one gender dysphoric man from Toronto — “Stephonknee” (an adopted name) Wolschtt — has decided that he is in fact female and six years old).

In A Rape Survivor Speaks Out About Transgender Bathrooms (thanks to Ed Driscoll), The Federalist's Kaeley Triller, states that while feeling

a deep sense of empathy for what must be a very difficult situation for transgender people, at the beginning and end of the day, it is nothing short of negligent to instate policies that elevate the emotional comfort of a relative few over the physical safety of a large group of vulnerable people. …

What About Women’s and Children’s Rights?

 … There’s no way to make everyone happy in the situation of transgender locker room use. So the priority ought to be finding a way to keep everyone safe. I’d much rather risk hurting a smaller number of people’s feelings by asking transgender people to use a single-occupancy restroom that still offers safety than risk jeopardizing the safety of thousands of women and kids with a policy that gives would-be predators a free pass.

Is it ironic to no one that being “progressive” actually sets women’s lib back about a century? What of my right to do my darndest to insist that the first time my daughter sees the adult male form it will be because she’s chosen it, not because it’s forced upon her? What of our emotional and physical rights? Unless and until you’ve lined a bathroom door with a towel for protection, you can’t tell me the risk isn’t there.

The ultimate political chameleon, Trump was a wealthy, secular, country club Republican who bragged of hiring illegal aliens

Ann Coulter’s got a crush

bemoans Benny Huang,

and his name is The Donald. The Right’s queen of wit has fallen head over heels for Donald Trump, the candidate who forced the GOP to talk about the issue of illegal immigration.

My feelings about Coulter are mixed. I enjoy her columns and always buy her books when they come out, even if I don’t always agree with everything she says. She, like Trump, revels in shocking liberals, which goes a long way toward explaining the attraction. Admittedly, it’s not difficult to shock liberals, who take offense at things like colorblind hiring, the American flag, and virtue. I admire Coulter’s sass but I frequently question her judgement when it comes to picking political candidates. Over the years she’s endorsed Ron Paul, Chris Christie, and Mitt Romney; all duds in my book.

But never before has she been so enthusiastic about a candidate as she has been about Donald Trump because he speaks to the issue that she cares the most about—illegal immigration. It’s an issue that many Americans, particularly many conservative Republicans, care about. Until recently we have had no audience in Washington for our concerns. Neither party seems willing to crack down on rampant lawlessness and one party clearly encourages it by portraying the lawbreakers as victims. They told us that no one should have to “live in the shadows;” as if illegal immigrants weren’t boasting of their lawbreaking on television and being invited to the White House. Where are these “shadows” liberals are always talking about? They certainly can’t be found in our two hundred plus “sanctuary cities” where federal law is null and void.

 … Unfortunately, Ann Coulter has become a single issue pundit, focusing her attention for the better part of two years on illegal immigration. Her excellent book “Adios, America: The Left’s Plan to Turn Our Country Into a Third World Hellhole” is filled with startling facts about the Mexification (and Somalification, Hmongification) of America …

 … As someone who’s read “Adios, America” and most of her columns, I think I can summarize her views on illegal immigration, which I mostly agree with. According to Coulter, no other issue matters because if Democrats bring in poor immigrants by the boatload they will sweep to power and shape policy on everything including guns, crime, taxes, and the culture wars. As the saying goes, if immigrants and their children were destined to vote Republican even Harry Reid would join the Minutemen to defend our border.

What motivates the Democrats is not compassion for the downtrodden but naked self-interest. Coulter explained her position in an interview with the Daily Signal’s Genevieve Wood:

“It’s the only issue because once we have only Americans voting again we can win those other issues. If we keep dumping—and oh my gosh, if amnesty goes through well then it’s over overnight. As soon as they become voters, that’s 30 million voters for the Democrats.”

 … Coulter appears not to know this, as she told Charles Cooke of National Review: “He has certainly been consistent on caring about illegal immigration.” Donald Trump has not been consistent on the issue of illegal immigration. He’s a flip-flopper, a fact that should surprise no one because Trump is the ultimate political chameleon. He’ll say whatever he has to say to secure power. In that regard he’s not unlike Barack Obama…with fewer scruples.

 … My theory is that Trump was considering a run for the White House but hadn’t yet decided which party would better serve him or which views he should pretend to hold. He doesn’t instinctively know these things because Trump has no core principles. Instead he has interests, and right now he believes that those interests are best served by focusing on this issue.

To Trump’s credit, and I don’t give him much, he has his finger on the pulse of America. He reasoned, not incorrectly, that people are sick of Obama and that he could ride the tidal wave of disgust all the way to the presidency. He zeroed in on this issue not because he gives a hoot (he doesn’t) but because he thinks that it will ultimately pay dividends, which it may. It’s just business; and Donald Trump is the consummate businessman; except for all the bankruptcies, of course.

What Ann Coulter doesn’t see is that Donald Trump fits the profile of the amnesty shill to a tee. Before he was a thorn in the side of the pro-amnesty GOP establishment he was part of that establishment; or at least he was fully qualified to be a member. He was a wealthy, secular, country club Republican who bragged of hiring illegal aliens for cripes sake! As many conservatives have argued, they can’t get the corporatist Republicans to enforce the law because they see illegal aliens as a source of cheap labor. Don’t forget that The Donald was one of those corporatist Republicans just two short years ago; and before that he was a Democrat who partied with the Clintons, praised Barack Obama, and donated to Planned Parenthood.

But surely Donald Trump will fulfill his campaign promise, right? If it suits him he will. He will of course be thinking of a second term and it might be difficult to get reelected if he angers the people who supported him the first time around, though the same could be said of a candidate like Ted Cruz, who is supposedly only jumping on Trump’s bandwagon. I would argue that Trump has jumped on Cruz’s bandwagon, a man who fought to defeat the Schumer-Rubio amnesty bill.

America Is Nothing But the Country of a Band of Despicable Racists, Quips French Cartoonist

As we have been saying for the past years or so, the election of Barack Obama will never Lessen the European (and American!) élites' (self-serving) perception that America is nothing but a hell-hole of racist nightmares. (Why would it? They have too much invested in it, Europeans and American leftists alike.)

From Le Monde's Plantu from one of the final days of December 2015, with the typical stereotypes of the obese white American, the complicit judge under the star-spangled banner giving him a wink, and black victims all children:
• Plantu: The American policeman who had shot a 12-year-old child will not be indicted

• Winking judge: Alright! … we'll let you go this time, but we will be keeping an eye on you!

Practical Advice Regarding College Campuses

Wizard of Id
(it's good to know that Glenn Reynolds seems to check in on No Pasarán once in a while…)

French Philosopher Equates Today's English-Language Ads with Nazi-Era Proclamations of the 1940s

Same old, same old.

The Daily Telegraph's Stephen Clarke can usually be counted upon to get up in arms about denizens rising to the defense of the French language.

A French philosopher, whose philosophy clearly isn’t strong enough to make him philosophical, has been complaining about the amount of English used in France. Michel Serres told a newspaper that he had seen “more English written on the walls of Toulouse than there was German during the Occupation”. He means advertising, not graffiti (which is pretty illegible anyway).

Now, leaving aside the fact that the “English” adverts in question are very often bilingual puns invented by French companies rather than Anglo invaders, it is pretty thoughtless (to say the very least) to compare advertising posters that we are free to ignore completely with Nazi proclamations informing people that they will be shot if they are found out of doors after curfew or sent to death camps if they belong to certain ethnic groups. Perhaps Monsieur Serres is just practising the philosophy of the absurd. The absurdly absurd.

The above-named “philosopher” (sorry, I can’t believe he “loves ideas”) also suggests that French people boycott any shops that have English names or use English slogans. Why just English, though? Why not boycott every pizzeria that doesn’t change its name to “Italian-style restaurant selling hot, circular covered breads”? And why not encourage foreigners to do the same whenever they see a French brand in their mall or high street? Michel Serres would translate as “Michael Greenhouses”, and a jibe springs to mind about throwing stones.
 
Surely if you are a true philosopher and believe in individual freedom, you should let people buy what they want – as, in fact, they currently do? Anyone who doesn’t like the English name of a shop or café in France simply doesn’t go there. No need to call for a boycott. The French are free. You see, Monsieur Greenhouse, it’s not really like a Nazi occupation at all.

… People everywhere are inventing new phrases and new words every day. Language is a DIY affair, not a government policy.

 … despite what certain “philosophers” think, the ideal solution to language issues is not to have things banned, it is to see them shared and explained. Why make people poorer when you can enrich them? As Albert Camus said, “the evil in the world usually arises from ignorance.”

Paul Theroux Shows His Infinite Wisdom by Naming Noam Chomsky as Required Reading

What’s the … last book that made you furious?

When I read anything political and polemical by Noam Chomsky, I think (angrily): Why isn’t anyone listening to this man?

Perhaps, Paul Theroux, because Chomsky is a far-left kook who believes in elaborate fairy tales? The author, most recently, of “Deep South”, Theroux answers questions by the New York Times.

Whom would you want to write your life story?

No one. I will put every obstacle in the way of any future biographer. I have described this noncooperation in detail in an essay in Smithsonian magazine. My life belongs to me — do not interfere or presume. I have used it continuously in my work, and that indeed is my life story. But if you insist on a biographer’s name, I would suggest Hieronymus Karl Friedrich, Freiherr von Münchhausen, a.k.a. Baron Munchhausen.

You really can’t have a Scandinavian-style welfare state without a broad high tax burden

American capitalism has always been distinct from continental European capitalism

notes David Brooks in the New York Times (more on Denmark here).

We’ve had more entrepreneurial creativity but less security. Our system has favored higher living standards for consumers while theirs has favored stability for employees and producers.

 … American values have always been biased toward individualism, achievement and flexibility — nurturing disruptive dynamos like Bell Labs, Walmart, Whole Foods, Google and Apple — and less toward dirigisme, order and economic equality.

It’s amazing that a large part of the millennial generation has rejected this consensus. In supporting Bernie Sanders they are not just supporting a guy who is mad at Wall Street. They are supporting a guy who fundamentally wants to reshape the American economic system, and thus reshape American culture and values. As he told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, he wants to make us more like northern Europe.

 … First, Sanders would centralize power in Washington. If you radically increase the amount of money going to the Washington establishment, as Sanders would, you’re giving that establishment greater resources to control American life.

Second, Sanders would weaken the ability of members of the middle class to make choices about their own lives. He would raise taxes on the rich, but there is only so much money you can squeeze out of such a small group of people. European welfare states generally rely on a highly regressive value-added/sales tax — usually around 20 to 25 percent.

Middle classes across Europe bear a much higher tax load than the American middle class. As Austan Goolsbee, a former economic adviser to President Obama, has noted, you really can’t have a Swedish-style welfare state without a broad high tax burden. That means less spending power for most Americans, and fewer resources to choose one’s own lifestyle.

Giving that establishment greater resources to control American life…

Less spending power for most Americans, and fewer resources to choose one’s own lifestyle…

Hm…

Isn't that exactly what leftists — and not just Bernie — want?! (Even your beloved Obama, David Brooks?)

Third, Sanders would change the incentive structure for the country’s most successful people. He proposes raising the top tax rate to 52 percent. As Josh Barro noted in The Times, when you add in state, local and other taxes, top earners would be paying a combined tax rate over 73 percent. 

 … When you make risk-taking less rewarding, you get fewer risk-takers, which is exactly what you see across the Atlantic. When you raise taxes that high, the Elon Musks of the world find other places to build their companies.

Fourth, Sanders would Europeanize American public universities. It sounds great to make college free. In fact, it’s a hugely expensive program that would mostly benefit the already affluent.

It would create, as in Germany, a legion of eternal students who have little incentive to leave school because the costs are so low. It would give Washington officials greater control over state universities, determining what sort of faculty they could hire and what sort of programs they could run. It would threaten hundreds of private colleges, which could no longer compete against the completely subsidized state system. It would reduce the pressures universities now feel to reform themselves because it would cushion them with federal largess. Slowly, American universities would look more like their European counterparts. They’d be less good.

The changes in the health care system would be along the same lines. Sanders would create a centralized and streamlined system. His approach would also, as in Europe, reduce the rate of medical progress, increase the rationing of care, increase the wait times for patients, induce many doctors to retire and centralize decision-making. He might reduce health care costs by $6 trillion over the next decade, but his proposal to do this gives new meaning to the word vagueness.

 … It’s amazing that so many young people want to mimic a continent that has been sluggish for decades. It’s amazing that so many look to the future and want a country that would be a lot less vibrant.

That's what state education will do for you, David Brooks…

Related: Scandinavia’s quality of life didn’t spring from leftist policies; It survived them

The accusation of “verbal harassment” is the authoritarian censor’s primary weapon against our constitutional rights

“It’s illegal to offend people,” said the UT-Austin police officer to [the] Christian evangelist. The officer then proceeded to write the evangelist a citation. Yes, that actually happened in America.

Benny Huang can hardly believe that Colleges Are Cultivating America’s First Truly Authoritarian Generation (thanks for the Maggie's Farm link, Bird Dog).

Thankfully, the citation was later voided and the officer received re-training.

The event occurred just off campus where two evangelists were preaching against homosexuality. According to the police officer, a student complained that he was being “verbally harassed” which in fact he was not. The whiney student, if he exists at all, was simply being exposed to words and ideas that offended him. The accusation of “verbal harassment” is the authoritarian censor’s primary weapon against our constitutional rights.

Three officers responded to the call (three!) and together the five of them then proceeded to have a conversation that was cordial but nonetheless alarming. Most of the conversation occurred between an evangelist named Joshua Borchert and a certain Officer Wormsley, who proceeded to inform Borchert that he had a duty to enforce the law; and the law, according to Wormsley, is that any speech that offends anyone is illegal. He’s apparently never heard of this other law called the US Constitution.

 … “So the job here is to write you up as a citation, disorderly conduct, for offending someone.”

Officer Wormsley later conferred with another officer, saying: “He indicates that it’s [his] first amendment, he can say what he wants, freedom of speech, but that’s not what the law says. The law says, I mean, if you offend somebody, if they want to press charges, you can’t do that.”

Perhaps the most terrifying part in the video is when Borchert asked the three police officers if they have ever issued citations for the “crime” of causing offense. “Yes,” said one cop. “Oh yes,” said another. When Borchert asked what fine the judge might impose the officer replied: “We write so many, I can’t answer that question for you.” That alone should tell you that this is not an isolated incident.

 … Across the fruited plain, on campuses both public and private, universities strictly regulate student speech. The first amendment watchdog group Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) annually rates colleges on their free speech policies using a color-coded system. … Only 5 percent got a green rating.

I wish I could say that I’m shocked by this but I’m not. College campuses are hostile environments for all of our first amendment rights but especially to our right to free speech. … The whole purpose of the first amendment is to protect offensive speech. But alas, UMass received a red rating from FIRE and for good reason; it’s basically a gulag on a picturesque New England campus.

It’s important to note however that the campus authoritarians are not just cops and administrators. The students are cool with being told what to say and they won’t hesitate to rat you out for thought crimes. Censorship is accepted practice and no one bats an eyelash. 

 … Thirty-five percent said that the Constitution does not protect “hate speech,” an imprecise term that basically means whatever liberals hate hearing. Among self-described liberals 30 percent said that the first amendment was “outdated.”

Free speech is all too often perceived as a shield for bigots to hide behind—which it is, of course, though I don’t mean to imply that everyone accused of bigotry by the campus authoritarians is guilty as charged.

“Bigotry” is an all-purpose word used to describe Orwellian thought crimes, most of which are not bigoted at all.

It nonetheless protects authentic bigotry too. There’s absolutely no need to parse out the difference between genuine bigoted speech and non-bigoted speech because both are constitutionally protected. Yet campus authoritarians don’t want anyone to have a shield to protect themselves so they attempt to delegitimize first amendment protections as somehow cowardly; as if standing against majority opinion doesn’t take guts. “Quit hiding behind the first amendment!” they shout. Why the heck shouldn’t someone hide behind the first amendment? That’s what it’s for—protection.

Part of the reason that censorship is so rampant on college campuses is that people are by nature selfish. They want protection for themselves but won’t extend it to others.

 … The very notion that people can just speak their minds is considered dangerous in and of itself. It’s a thought too scary for a generation raised in safe zones to contemplate. Ideas must be controlled!

My only hope is that the Constitution will protect us and someday this will all be straightened out, perhaps by some watershed court decision. But I doubt it. Our constitutional rights are only as good as the public officials who interpret and enforce them. I have little faith that tomorrow’s judges, cops, and college administrators will allow the first amendment to be anything more than dead words on a page, hypocritically maintained in theory while endlessly violated in practice. After all, the students who clamor for “safe spaces” today will someday be the public officials whose job it is to safeguard our freedoms. This is truly the first authoritarian generation reared on American soil. Should they fail to mature in their appreciation for the first amendment our freedom will be lost.

Thanks to Obama's 7 Years of Peaceful Outlook on the World, a "New Cold War" with U.S. Army and NATO Forced to Enhance Military Presence in Europe

Shouldn't we all pause and say a prayer of gratitude to the Nobel Peace Prize-winning apologizer-in-chief for the smart diplomacy that is making the world more safe and more peaceful?

Russia's prime minister seems to be especially grateful — accusing as Dmitry Medvedev is the United States of rekindling a new Cold War — as should be the members of the U.S. Army as it pivots back to Europe (thanks to Instapundit's Stephen Green).

The New York Times' Michael S. Schmidt:

The defense ministers from all 28 NATO countries approved a plan on Wednesday to enhance the alliance’s military presence in Central and Eastern Europe, part of its expanding efforts to deter Russian aggression, according to NATO’s secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg.

 … Among the countries that NATO and the United States are looking to protect are Hungary, Romania, Ukraine and the Baltic States, according to administration officials.

The size of the American contribution surprised some analysts, who saw it as one of the most aggressive moves the United States has made in the region since the fall of the Soviet Union. Administration officials have said they hope that their commitment to protecting these countries sends a message to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia that his aggression in the region will no longer be tolerated.

Update: none of John Schindler's recommendations on how to prevent Cold War 2.0 from going hot were implemented by the Obama administration

Prime Minister [Dmitri] Medvedev then echoed [foreign minister Sergei] Lavrov’s alarming statement by warning of “a new world war” in an interview with a German newspaper. The Kremlin promptly objected and released a Russian-language version of the interview that included the gentler phrase “another war on earth.” This appears to be a trademark Moscow provocation since the German-language interview unmistakably says “a new world war” (einen neuen Weltkrieg). Releasing different translations of key statements is an old KGB trick that Mr. Putin’s regime has played on the West more than once, but here they are truly playing with fire.

Spasibo, Tovarich Barack Hussein.

Unexpectedly: MSM Article Stars Republican Politician as a Good Guy, Never Identifies His Party

Haven't we heard regular reports about how, when a scandal envelops a politician who is a Republican, his party is mentioned immediately — and prominently — while, when a scandal hits a politician who is a Democrat, his party is either never mentioned at all or only, in passing, towards the end of the report — if the scandal, small or large (see IRS and email controversy), isn't ignored altogether.

Instapundit's Ed Driscoll has a current example of the “name that party” game:

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS:
Ex-NY Gov. Eliot Spitzer being investigated for assaulting woman.
Curiously, at least in the initial version of the Daily News’ article,
Spitzer’s party goes “unexpectedly” unmentioned.

Head over to USA Today for another case in point:

In the front-page article (or at least the main online home page article) on background checks for teachers or the lack thereof, we find what in the writer's view is a good politician and what is a bad politician. First, Steve Reilly describes the good politician:

A bill first introduced by former Florida Congressman Adam Putnam in 2007 would have required the U.S. Department of Education to develop a database of teachers found to have engaged in sexual misconduct and make that information available to the public.

 … Putnam's legislation failed to grain traction, but advocacy and education policy groups have continued to push for a more reliable way to share information between states.

Then Steve Reilly describes the bad politician:

Concerns by anti-federalist lawmakers have prevented the legislation from moving forward. Opponents included Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., who said during floor debate in April 2014 that he opposed the bill because responsibility for checking the backgrounds of teachers should be local.

“If we want safe schools, that is the job of parents, communities, school boards and states,” Alexander said. “It is not a duty to be bucked upstairs to the Senate and the Department of Education.”

The bad politician is (immediately) named as a Republican.

(Both men, need less to say, have good points, and whether you agree with one or with the other — or with both or with neither — is beside the point; what matters is which man, from USA Today's perspective, has the compassionate viewpoint — protect the children — and which man has no compassion but is finicky if not crazed and hateful.)

Although all other politicians in the story were duly identified ("the Protecting Students from Sexual and Violent Predators Act was championed by U.S. Sens. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., and Joe Manchin, D-W.Va"), the good politician's party is never named.

So what we have is "Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn." (bad guy) vs. former "Florida Congressman Adam Putnam" (good guy).

How much do you want to bet that the good politician (Putnam) is not a Democrat (or he would have been immediately identified as such)?

You would win a lot, you know…

Now, do you understand the difference between a Conservative and a Liberal?

Quoting Jim Spivey on Facebook, YesImRight's Elvin Bartley recounts the difference between a Republican and a Democrat:

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were walking down the street when they came to a homeless person.

Trump gave the homeless person his business card and told him to come to his office for a job.

He then took $20 out of his pocket and gave it to the homeless person.

Hillary was very impressed, so when they came to another homeless person, she decided to help.

She walked over to the homeless person and gave him directions to the welfare office.

She then reached into Trump’s pocket and got out $20.

She kept $15 for her administrative fees and gave the homeless person $5.00.

Now, do you understand the difference between a Conservative and a Liberal progressive?