MacTexan Wallpaper o' th' Week

Snowy Sedona View

Help us, WE'RE BROKE:
Search MacTexan
MacTexan on Twitter


Proof That Liberalism is a Mental Disorder

If you agree with Mrs. Clinton that half of Donald Trump’s supporters are a “basket of deplorables” then I submit that you are a bigot of the first order and your views are so misguided that the only plausible explanation is that you are suffering from some sort of mental disorder.

Do I disagree that there are deplorable people who support Donald Trump? No. Do I believe there are deplorable people supporting Mrs. Clinton? Of course. Let’s face it. A certain percentage of any populace would be considered deplorable by most reasonable, thinking persons. Child molesters, wife beaters, animal abusers and the like certainly fall into the deplorable category. Does it make sense that these deplorable people would have differing political views? Again, of course. If one of these scum support a political candidate, does it follow that said candidate bears any responsibility for endorsing or encouraging that supporter’s behavior? Of course not. The relationship isn’t reciprocal. To assert otherwise is nonsensical. So, Mrs. Clinton’s statements are non-sequitur in the base case.

Next, let’s examine the list of “irredeemable” people Mrs. Clinton puts into her basket. She listed, xenophobes, Islamophobics, homophobes to name a few. For her assertion to be logical, millions of people must be afflicted with a phobia. The dictionary defines a phobia thusly:

phobia |ˈfōbēə|
an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something: he had a phobia about being under water | a phobia of germs | a snake phobia.

Mrs. Clinton characterizes people who agree with Donald Trump’s immigration policies as xenophobes. Xenophobia is defined as an intense or irrational dislike or fear of people from other countries. OK, I agree with Donald Trump’s view that our current practice of allowing anyone and everyone entry into our country, is crazy. Am I a xenophobe? Let’s see. Do I have an intense or irrational dislike or fear of Mexicans? No. (It would be impossible to live in Texas if I did!) Canadians? No. Moroccans? No. The French? No again. Do I fear the policy of allowing unchecked migration across our southern border will result in more crime, illegal drugs, gang violence and an increased probability of terrorism? Yes, and statistics bear me out. Is that fear irrational? Of course not. In Texas we live with that fear. We’re reminded of the consequences of current border policy almost every day when we switch on the evening news. By definition then, I cannot be xenophobic.

Am I Islamophobic? Let’s see. One of my best friends and business associates was born in Iran. He and his family are Islamic. I’ve been working with him and his wife for over 15 years and we’ve become close friends. I celebrated with them when they became naturalized American citizens and watched his two daughters grow up into beautiful young women. Were I to have an intense or irrational fear or dislike of Islamic people I would think all that would be impossible. Do I have an intense fear of allowing tens of thousands of undocumented, un-vetted young adult males from the middle east into our country? You’re damned right I do! Is that fear irrational? I don’t think so. Any reasonable person who cares about the safety and well-being of America and its citizens should be afraid of an exodus from the very cradle of terrorism to our country. Especially when our enemy has told us that they have every intent to infiltrate said exodus.

Homophobic? I guess not. My middle daughter is bisexual. I love and support her whether her current partner is a boyfriend or girlfriend. Believe me, I’ve been through multiple iterations of each. I admit to being ignorant about the LGBTQ community at first, but I’ve learned a great deal over the years. I wasn’t ignorant because of deliberate avoidance, any irrational fear or dislike. I just hadn’t had any exposure to it before sharing my daughter’s experiences. (Well, there was that one near miss in New Orleans a few years back. I was a bit dazed and confused.) Anyway, I think if any two consenting adults choose each other then, more power to them. Anyone who finds a soulmate in this world is a lucky individual and should be legally able to marry, co-habitate, one-night stand or anything in between. You see, I believe in legalizing freedom in America and that certainly includes the freedom to practice one’s sexual preference. Is there any less homophobic position than that?

Lastly, I’d like to address Mrs. Clinton’s accusations of racism. Here, I have no personal experience to relay. I’m as white as a human can get. My hair is blonde. My eyes are blue and my lineage is Polish. I’m married to a white, New Orleans girl whose ancestors descended from Ireland and our daughter is a strawberry blonde with hazel eyes. I grew up in a racially integrated neighborhood and attended racially integrated public schools where blacks were definitely in the minority.  And by minority I mean less than five percent. I would be lying if I said there were no racial tensions when I was growing up. It was the 60s in Texas after all. I played high school sports on teams that were around 25% black and 20% Hispanic (I dug up an old photo, counted and did the math.) and still count many of my former teammates of all races as friends. I spent the majority of my 35-year career working for the largest oil company on Earth that wasn’t only multi-racial, but multi-national. During that time, I had black and Hispanic bosses and peers and I supervised the same. To be honest, I cannot think of a single instance where I was personally involved with any work-related or personal incident of racism. I witnessed it from others on rare occasions to be sure, but I also watched my company deal with those cases swiftly and fairly. Racism and sexism simply were not tolerated.

So, I obviously fall into that half of Trump supporters who are not deplorable. Funny thing is, I’ve spent more than a little time interacting with literally hundreds of Trump supporters on social media and thousands at two separate live events. Guess what? I never saw the KKK represented anywhere, unlike those depicted in Mrs. Clinton’s attack ads. I do admit to being disappointed by the lack of racial diversity at the rallies I attended. If I had to guess, I’d estimate blacks and Hispanics made up around 20% of the crowds at each event. (One in Texas, one in Arizona. I have homes in both states.) But it was earlier in the campaign and I’m of the opinion Mr. Trump’s support among minorities is growing and that growth is accelerating. But I digress.

My point is, Mrs. Clinton blatantly insulted tens of millions of Americans with her obviously slanted statements. She made these insulting remarks as she was pandering to her wealthy supporters at a multi-thousand dollar-per-plate fund-raising event. What I found more disgusting than Mrs. Clinton’s statements themselves was the reaction of her supporters in attendance. This has gotten very little press, but I think it is very telling of the morally superior attitudes of the liberals who obviously share Mrs. Clinton’s views. As Hillary Clinton described the “irredeemable” people in her “basket of deplorables”, her wealthy contributors guffawed! How sick is that? Is this what we’ve come to in America? It makes me want to vomit. How dare we have a differing view about the way our country is governed? After all, we’re just the “little people” who are too stupid to understand how things should be done, right? We must all be afflicted with a phobia! There’s no other possible explanation.

The wealthy Hollywood-types in attendance look down their noses at the very people who made them rich. They are so insulated from the real world, they’ve created an alternate universe where Mrs. Clinton and her ilk know better than anyone what’s best for the rest of us and those of us who disagree are just mentally afflicted morons. I do so hope that on November 8th we deplorables send them a reply that lets them know in no uncertain terms, “We’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore!” (Sorry about the cliché.) I am sick to death of being told that my views are the result of my ignorance and/or stupidity, when it is the “inclusive” and “tolerant” left who keep trying the same solutions to the same problems and nothing improves. To my understanding that is the very definition of a mental disorder.


Why I Cancelled My New York Times Subscription (and You Should Too)

I am a creature of habit. Doing certain things at a certain time on a regular basis gives my life order. My wife thinks I may take this to extremes sometimes and she’s probably right, but it is what it is. I’ll be the first to admit my behavior may border on OCD, but I like doing things the way I do them. My daily routine is something I’ve developed over many years and I wouldn’t do things the way I do without purpose. The reason I spend a portion of every morning reading newspapers is to stay informed. Not the CNN or Fox News versions of informed, but the in-depth, behind the scenes version one can only get by reading quality periodicals. The periodicals I read frequently fall into three major categories; daily news, monthly news and specialty publications. It’s the daily periodicals, the newspapers, that make up a large portion of my routine and those are the ones I’ll address here.

2011 marked the end of an era for me. It was in 2011 when I got an original iPad as soon as Apple would let me order one. A couple of months after unboxing it I began moving my classic newspaper subscriptions to digital ones. I have to admit to going through some growing pains as my morning Wall Street Journal, New York Times and Houston Chronicle popped up a notification on my iPad in lieu of showing up on my driveway (sidewalk, flower bed, neighbor’s yard, drainage ditch…) every morning. It was a huge adjustment trying to find my favorite journalists’ articles by navigating a slew of unfamiliar menus and links versus leafing over to a familiar section of a newspaper I’d grown very familiar with over the years. No more smell of fresh newsprint. No more black fingertips and nothing to roll up and swat a bug (dog, cat, wife) with. It took some getting used to, especially enduring some of the horrendous version 1.0 newspaper apps, but in just a few months I adjusted and the apps got much better. Now, when I do occasionally get a print version, I wonder how I put up with them for all those years. What, no news video? No links to the new restaurant advertised in the lifestyle section? How barbaric! Yep, I quickly became a digital convert. Now with the periodical apps at version 6 or 7 and the new retina display iPad, morning reading is the best experience ever. And I don’t even have to cover up my underwear to retrieve my papers!

I always knew the New York Times was almost as left-leaning as Chairman Mao’s little red book, but I endured (for the most part) by avoiding the editorials. I stuck to the hard news and mainly focused on the business and technology sections. The Times really does employ some of the best writers anywhere. But this election season has caused me to re-think my $20/month digital subscription fee. I expected the editorial staff at the New York Times to be pulling for Hillary as sure as the sunrise, but what I didn’t expect was their willingness to print blatant lies about Mr. Trump while completely ignoring every negative associated with Hillary Clinton. I’ve put up with this crap for a year thinking it will all be over soon and I can get back to my normal OCD behavior when the Times did something that pissed me off so badly I had to immediately cancel my 20-year subscription.

My wife and I were driving home from a trip to visit my daughter at school in Baton Rouge (Geaux Tigers!) listening to a Trump speech on the radio. He was speaking about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama’s failed foreign policy as well as George Bush’s poor decision to invade Iraq. He spoke at length about the power vacuum created by deposing Kaddafi and Saddam Hussein and the resulting rise of ISIS. He emphasized how terrible the two dictators were using adjectives like “brutal”, “horrible” and “bad” to describe them. He went on to say that as bad as they were, their presence helped keep terrorism in check and that Saddam Hussein was particularly good at killing terrorists within Iraq. He again questioned the wisdom of the foreign policy that deposed them. Within minutes of the end of Trump’s speech, my  Watch chimed and displayed this notification from the New York Times: 

Donald Trump Praises Saddam Hussein for Being ‘Good’ at Killing Terrorists

I showed the notification to my wife and she was astonished. Unlike me, she isn’t a regular Times reader. She said, “He didn’t say anything like that!” Remember, we had just finished listening to his speech in its entirety. I told her that sort of word-smithing and taking phrases out of context is what I’d come to expect from the New York Times. She then asked me why I was paying them for distorted news. It got me to thinking. Had my OCD blinded me? Was I shelling out twenty bucks a month just because I always had and thought I always should?

I really like the Times’ technology section and their business section is second only to the Wall Street Journal, but I had to ask myself if they were worth the $20/month subscription fee. After all, I was basically ignoring the bulk of the newspaper to avoid their leftist propaganda. As a Libertarian, I’ve come to understand all news outlets have an agenda. I see the left-leanings of CNN, NBC & CBS as well as Fox and NewsMax trumpeting positions of the right. All of the above think of us Libertarians as “fringe” not worthy of covering, but being Libertarian lets me see content bias through eyes with no “left” or “right” filter. For example, a myopic leftist like Chris Breen probably views the New York Times election coverage as completely factual and fair while right-wingers like Ann Coulter probably think the same of NewsMax. Come to think of it, I can’t name a single unbiased news source, can you? In the end I decided bias is one thing, but misrepresentation is something else altogether. It’s fine to forward a political agenda within the confines of the editorial section, but it is completely dishonest to present it as “news”. With the example I just cited and many times since, the New York Times has crossed that boundary. I did a quick search on the web site for all articles published in the last 30 days relating to Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton. I then did a quick tally of negative stories about each. I expected Hillary to get more favorable treatment, but I was a bit surprised to learn Donald Trump’s negative stories outnumbered Hillary Clinton’s 9 to 1! (For Mr. Breen and those of you in Portland, that means for every negative story about Hillary, there were nine negative stories about Mr. Trump.) Like I said, the Times’ bias was to be expected, but this is more like an unmitigated frontal assault! Both candidates have said some truly outrageous things, but the Times embellishes Trump’s many faux pas while taking every proven lie that comes from Hillary’s mouth at face value. What a shame. What I once considered to be “America’s Newspaper” has disgracefully become little more than a shill for the left. I pointed out this fact to the NYT staff in the space provided on their cancellation page. If you truly believe in unbiased news coverage, I urge you to vote with your pocketbook and do the same.


It Should Be Harder to Vote, Not Easier

Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education.”
Franklin D. Roosevelt

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
Winston Churchill


It’s difficult to express my feelings more succinctly than by citing those two quotes. But, I’ll try anyway.

Have you ever watched any “Man on the street” interviews televised by popular talk show personalities? You know the ones. An interviewer takes to the streets of America’s cities and asks random passers-by questions like, “Who won the Civil War?” or “Who bombed Pearl Harbor?” or “Who is Vice President of the United States?” and only one-in-four people can answer the question correctly. Well, guess what? Those three imbeciles who gave the wrong answer get their votes counted the same as you and I. I think there’s something basically wrong with that. (Of course I'm counting you in. If you're reading this, you are obviously intelligent and well-informed.)This is obvious testament to the complete failure of our country’s education system. It is a fixable problem, but one that will take quite a while to resolve. More on that in a moment. In the meantime, I think we should do something to prevent our country’s destiny from being decided by uninformed morons.

I think obtaining a voter’s registration card should be handled much the same way as obtaining a driver’s license. After all, immigrants are required to pass a test on basic American history and civics before being granted citizenship. A test, by the way, that only 3 in 10 Americans would pass. One could argue that with a 97.5% pass rate, immigrants are more qualified to vote than native-born Americans. They certainly have a better grasp of what’s happening in America than your average Kardashian-swilling couch potato that seems to make up the majority of the American electorate. We need a way to disqualify potential voters who can name every winner of “American Idol”, but can’t describe what the 1st Amendment to the Constitution is about. No, democracy isn’t easy and American citizens should have to earn the right to participate. Sadly, the opposite is happening. All too often, judges strike down even the most minimal local voting requirements like a valid driver’s license or other proof of residency, citing discrimination. It looks like the trend favors letting anyone with a pulse cast a ballot. (Worse than that, the 2012 presidential election saw more votes cast by deceased persons than ever before. But, I won't be discussing voter fraud here.)

A conspiracy-minded person might argue that our government is purposely “dumbing down” its citizens by promoting a school curriculum exclusive of Constitutional principles, our Founders and basic economics.  All this in an attempt to keep Americans so ignorant they won’t recognize how badly their government is screwing them. With a near $20 trillion deficit turning our dollar into a peso, terrorists running amuck within our porous borders and politicians acting as puppets for big money special interest groups, an ignorant populace is required to avoid a revolution. What better way to keep most Americans ignorant than never teaching them what matters in the first place? Far-fetched? You decide.

So, should we allow uninformed dullards to cast their votes with the same weight as those of us who understand the workings of our government and take the time to keep up with current events? I say no. There should be at least some minimum level of understanding required to obtain the right to make decisions about the future of our country. I’m not suggesting that only college grads or even high school grads be allowed to vote, but that there should be some minimal requirement for issuance of a voter registration card. To keep numbskulls out of the voting booth, we need a simple test that asks questions like “Who is the current Secretary of State?” or “How many senators are there?” or “What is the term of a Supreme Court justice?”. Not too hard, right? Hell, make the test multiple choice. Anybody should be able to answer simple questions like that, or at least enough of them to score a passing grade, right? Guess what? Over half of America can’t! In my opinion, they don’t deserve to make critical decisions about who governs us.

I say,

If you can’t point to Washington D.C. on a map, then you shouldn’t be allowed to help determine who works there!
Joseph Kelley



It is Time for a Purge!

When will we set political correctness aside and admit there are people living among us that do not deserve to inhabit civilized society.

We’ve tried playing nice. We’ve opened our countries to these animals with all perks included and for thanks, these pigs drive trucks into crowds of innocent men, women and children. They assault crowded theaters and slaughter innocent, civilized people with automatic weapons. They bomb crowds at marathons. They open fire on newspaper offices who dare to question a God who condones such inhuman acts. They publicly behead people, drown people in cages or set them on fire and then post their animal acts for the world to see. I’m tired of hearing about their grievances. I’m tired of hearing about their holy cause. I say fuck them and the dirty sandbox they came from. It’s time to hear the grievances of the civilized persons in our societies. First or which: We are tired of counting the dead bodies of innocent men, women and children! We are at war. We didn’t ask for it or declare it. They have thrust it upon us with acts of barbarism. You can argue that our intervention in the middle-east is at fault, but that point is now moot. No matter what the cause or what justification or excuse the jihadists use, it is time for us to go to war and stop them. It is time to remove this jihadist cancer from our societies. Stop beating around the bush, people. Our world-wide law enforcement and intelligence communities know who the vast majority of these animals are. We watch them cheer and recruit on-line. We watch them gather in public and chant “Death to America”. It is time to remove them from our midst. Today, the French police have begun a much needed process. They are arresting every person suspected of having ties to ISIS. Any person who tweets or posts support for terrorist acts like the one committed in Nice should be immediately jailed. If they are residing with visa status, said visas should be immediately revoked and that person should be deported to their country of origin along with their entire family. If that proves too difficult, then they should be sent to Gitmo until they rot. Additionally, any mosque determined to be preaching support for this caliphate should have its Imam given the same treatment. If this sounds harsh, well, it is. Can you imagine the people of the 1940s tolerating German immigrants cheering on Hitler while they car-bomb a 4th of July celebration?

Sorrowfully, the time has come to cast a wide net. We no longer have the luxury of simply policing our way out of this. The cancer has metastasized. It’s time for chemotherapy. Unfortunately, like chemotherapy, many good will be purged along with the bad. That is inescapable. I would never recommend such drastic action were it not absolutely necessary. ALL the people these animals target are good, peaceable people. The dirtbags who support ISIS are far too impotent to actually target our militaries and they know it. It is time for “an eye for an eye”. It is time to bomb Raqqa, the capital of the ISIS caliphate, until there is nothing left standing. It is also time to deprive ISIS of revenue by completely destroying the oil infrastructure that feeds them. The nations of the civilized world could do this in hours without a single casualty…to themselves.

Next, we should immediately withdraw all troops from the middle-east and Afghanistan. The western world should not shed one more drop of blood in the region; oil be damned. I’m tired of living in a world where organizations like The Wounded Warrior Foundation need to exist. The ExxonMobils, Royal Dutch Shells and other petrochemical companies of the world are just going to have to live with it. Let people of that region of the world jihad within their own borders and leave the rest of the civilized world alone. They have demonstrated their inability to live among the people of peaceable, civilized nations. As far as their oil; let them drink it for all I care. I’m tired of financing the very people who have vowed to kill us. The only time we should act in the region is when we have solid, actionable intelligence against those sponsoring or supporting terror in any way. Then we should take unilateral action to surgically remove (kill) those terrorists and then leave immediately.

Wake up world (and I’m including the governments of the middle-east). We are running out of time. It won’t be long until even chemotherapy will not be able to rid us of this cancer.


Xenophobic? I think not.

Recently I’ve felt like politicians and members of the press view me as a xenophobe. Well, not directly of course, but they have called people with whom I agree xenophobic. I’m used to being called names and it generally doesn’t bother me because there is usually a grain of truth involved. Like when someone says I’m a “blowhard” or “loudmouth” I don’t get too bothered because I can see how someone might come to that conclusion. I do, after all, tend to state my opinions openly and frankly. I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said, “Tell us what you really think, Joe.” As a libertarian, my participation in political discussions often earns me the “crackpot” moniker, especially when I say things like “all recreational drug use should be legalized” and “a person should be free to marry anyone they choose as long as both parties are willing and of legal age.” As you might imagine, some of my friends here in Texas think I may not have both oars in the water.
I try to explain to people that we libertarians have a novel way of viewing the world. You see, I believe freedom should be legal. What a novel concept, right? As long as I don’t harm any other citizen or infringe on their freedom, I should be free to do whatever the hell I want. If that makes me a crackpot, so be it. I’ll wear the label proudly. One label I will not wear is xenophobe. Firstly, we live in a nation comprised almost entirely of immigrants. My father was the first in his family to be born in the United States. Two of my best friends are now citizens of the U.S., but one was born in Iran and the other in Mexico. Both legally migrated to the States as children. Guess what? Our country is better for having them both. By definition, were I a true xenophobe, I could not make that statement nor count them as friends, correct?
The key phrase in the above definition of xenophobia is “irrational dislike or fear”. Yes, there are immigrants to our country whom I fear and dislike. They are the murderous drug smugglers and coyotes who deal in poison and human trafficking along our southern border. They are jihadists who openly disdain all homosexuals, Jews and other non-Muslims and declare they should be killed simply because they don’t conform to sharia law. They are also the men who believe it is OK to discipline their wife by beating her and that there is no such thing as marital rape.
Yes, I do dislike and (in most cases) fear these people. They simply do not fit into our society. One can even make the case that they don’t fit into any civilized society. I don’t dislike and fear them because they are from another country. I dislike and fear them because of their beliefs and behavior. I fear for my children not being able to live in a country unwilling to protect them for fear of being politically incorrect. There is nothing irrational about that. So call me a xenophobe all you want. It doesn’t change the fact that we simply cannot allow these types of people to continue pouring into our country. It goes against everything this country stands for. Unfortunately, we don’t have an effective way to determine which of the millions of potential immigrants attempting to get here are the murderers, slavers, drug smugglers, wife beaters and rapists. I vote we err on the side of caution. We’ve already proven that once here, keeping track of or removing these animals is next to impossible. Too often we learn of their bad intentions only after we count the bodies left in their wake.