Honey Badger don’t care, and neither does Mike Huckabee – and for that, we thank him.

Today is the fifth day of May, which means tequila and margaritas are flowing in American bars, to celebrate a Mexican holiday that few really know anything about. Mike Huckabee offended the perpetually outraged by saying on Twitter that he would celebrate Cinco de Mayo by drinking salsa and watching Speedy Gonzales cartoons. Hysteria ensued, of course!

The former Arkansas governor quickly drew criticism comprised mostly of howls that he is raaaaacist, but some people hope he will post video of his festive activity.

Remember last year when Donald Trump tweeted about a taco bowl on this day? Snowflakes got all worked up over that one, and they are all worked up over Huckabee’s tweet today. Trump and Huckabee seem friendly with each other and neither one of them seems to really care at all if they tick off the tolerance mob; I wonder if they are engaged in a competition to see who can get the most histrionics out of the SJW crowds with the least amount of effort? I’m pretty sure my Donald is winning that contest, but it’s not for lack of trying on Mike Huckabee’s part, and I hope the games never end because every time the left loses its collectivist mind, an angel gets its wings another American realizes that the petty leftist temper tantrums are never ending and of no importance other than being nuisances.

Here is the “controversial” Huckabee Tweet:

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

When I saw the uproar I said to myself, “I hope he doesn’t apologize, the right needs to stop apologizing for trivialities while the left runs roughshod over us with impunity!”, and I am delighted to report that The HuckaBadger ain’t backing down:

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Right on, Mad Mike, sock it to ’em!

*******

MJ Stevenson, AKA Zilla, is best known on the web as Zilla at MareZilla.com. She lives in a woodland shack near a creek, in one of those rural parts of New York State that nobody knows or cares about, with her family and a large pack of guardian companion animals. 

…is an important fact concerning the 2nd world war.

If you watch this video he mentions that the left considered the 2nd world war the “last good war”

but he fails to mention that once Hitler made his pact with the Soviets suddenly the Seegers, Chaplains of the left became completely anti war…until of course he invaded the Soviets and then they became the most strident voices for going over there. As I wrote at the time of his death:

Pete Seeger song on involvement in WW 2 before the Nazi’s attacked the USSR:

Franklin D, listen to me,
You ain’t a-gonna send me ‘cross the sea.
You may say it’s for defense
That kinda talk ain’t got no sense.

Pete Seeger song after Hitler invaded the USSR

Now, Mr. President
You’re commander-in-chief of our armed forces
The ships and the planes and the tanks and the horses
I guess you know best just where I can fight …
So what I want is you to give me a gun
So we can hurry up and get the job done!

Coincidence I’m sure.

It’s why a Newspaper is Missouri home of the late Michael Brown feels fine with ditching Stacy Washington a Black Woman from their paper, Black live and opinions may matter but not if they are heretical to the church of the left.

Every time the left’s double standard on Nazi’s vs Communism comes up, this fact should be shouted loudly

by baldilocks

I’m sorry that I missed Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day, April 24th. It’s usually very difficult for me to miss it, since I spend a lot of time in Glendale, CA—a city which has a high percentage of citizens who are of Armenian descent. But I was at home most of the day, caught up in my own life and its issues.

A site which I read often posted a photo which was emblematic of what Turkey was trying to achieve when that country, under the agency of the then-nearly dead Ottoman Empire, attempted to wipe out the Armenians. If you’ve never seen any of this particular genocide’s photographic evidence, consider this fair warning.

Photo.

A granddaughter of Armenian Genocide survivors tries to detect the pattern of how genocides begin.

Perhaps most important to a genocidal plan is neutralizing any possible support for the victims. The Ottoman government maintained a well-coordinated propaganda campaign that vilified the Armenians in the eyes of their Turkish neighbors. In like manner, the Jews were demonized among their neighbors in Nazi Germany.

This sort of thing happens in all mass killings, including those done for reasons other than ethnicity. For example, in Stalinist Russia, several million peasant farmers in the Ukraine were deliberately starved to death in the winter of 1932-33 in what is known as the Holodomor. Soviet propaganda demonized these people, known as “kulaks,” as enemies of the people because they resisted the forced collectivization of agriculture, i.e., the confiscation of their farms. In Rwanda, Hutu propaganda vilified and scapegoated the Tutsis, often through radio, priming the popular mindset for the mass slaughter of 800,000 Tutsis during a 100-day period in 1994. The list of “final solutions” goes on and on.

Information warfare through a centrally controlled media is key to turning neighbor against neighbor. It plays a huge role in caricaturing perceived enemies and growing an us-versus-them mindset. In short, propaganda that psychologically manipulates a population is key to laying the groundwork for extreme social polarization, and ultimately for genocide.

There’s more.

About information: I’ve long postulated that too many people think that the quantity of information is was makes a person intelligent and knowledgeable. I vehemently disagree. It is the ability to analyze information that determines the existence of these personal qualities.

In short, it’s all about the existence and regular calibration of one’s BS detector.

And pride vs. humility, and tribalism vs. reasoning. And the visions of human fallibility vs. the vision of human perfectibility. And…

Sin.  I don’t want to forget that.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. (Her older blog is located here.) Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game, was published in 2012. Her second novel tentatively titled Arlen’s Harem, will be done on April 2017! Follow her on Twitter and on Gab.ai.

Please contribute to Juliette’s JOB:  Her new novel, her blog, her Internet to keep the latter going and COFFEE to keep her going!

Or hit Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar in the name of Independent Journalism!

But apparently the whole idea of the propagation of the species is highly overrated.

Trans-activist Riley J. Dennis says having ‘genital preferences’ in dating is transphobic.

Yes, you read that correctly. If you’re a man who wants your woman to have a vagina you’re a bigot.

Dennis released a video at Everydayfeminist.com about his theory on “cissexism”, which he says is interchangeable with “transphobia” and means “prejudice or discrimination against trans people.”

Think about that statement for a second and the fact that institutions of “higher” education (which seems to mean these days that the professors and administrators must be on something) are more likely than not to support this kind of claptrap means.

It means that if an organism chooses a mate based on the idea of propagating their genetic material you are behaving in a way that is beyond the pale.

Who knew the majority of species were a bunch of bigoted rat bastards? Who knew that survival of the fittest is now hate? Are we going to see people protesting cars with Darwin fish on them because they suggest breeding species?

Now there is some comfort that because the future belongs to those who show up, the people who advance this nonsense, by their very philosophy will eventually die off like the shakers, but the concept that basic biological facts are too much for these people (many of who supposedly “marched for science”) just a few weeks ago takes the irony meter beyond 11.

But as long as people are able to make a living off of this kind of nonsense and are awarded by status by it those who wish an easier way of gaining status or funds then hard work or actual achievement will be jumping all over it.

During the first Day of his visit to Boston a group of people from Prayers for life and other Pro-life groups joined Fr. Stephen Imbarrato of Priests for life at a protest at Planned Parenthood in Boston.

It was a rather rainy day

But that didn’t stop this protestor

Or these two

Or this deacon and his wife who gave some interesting perspectives on the permanent deaconate

After a little while Fr Imbarrato arrived and spoke to the folks

They prayed together

and after a few others arrived

And he blessed some holy water and prayed some more

there was a procession that went from the back of the building

and back to the front

the person asking the question was a police officer assigned to the area.

the area was more confined than usual due to some sidewalk being laid right in front of the building that complicated keeping the egress open for passers by, but what really struck me was this.

Planned Parenthood and their workers are no strangers to protesters and people praying. It happens regularly so the idea of seeing us in the rain would not seem to be anything that should have caused any kind of commotion among the workers etc. However it seemed to me that the sight of fr. Imbarrato seemed to particularly disturb these folks far beyond the norm.

This impression of mine was shared by at least one other person who has been there in the past.

A Photo gallery follows


If you think this and all we do is worthwhile and would like to help us pay our writers and make our annual goal Consider subscribing and become (if you wish) a listed as a Friend of DaTechguy blog

Remember all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



And of course if you want to give a one shot hit (and help pay DaWife’s medical bills) you can hit DaTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

If you are not in the position to kick in your funds we’ll always accept your prayers.

United employees forcibly drag a doctor off a plane.  American employees hit a mother of two across the face.  What in the heck is going on here?

Fluffy guidance, that’s what.

Airlines are in a heavily regulated industry, with rules upon rules.  Every time you fly, government regulations demand you hear the same ditty about lighted egress routes and oxygen bags, the excuse being that they save lives (although rear facing seats would be more effective).  In most cases, the rules tend to cover the circumstances.  But not always.

When rules hit a snag, employees do one of two things:

  1. Strictly enforce the rules.
  2. Use guidance to modify the rules and accomplish your end state.

But have you looked at corporate guidance lately?  It would be hard to do so for the airlines.  I tried and struggled to find anything publicly posted.  When I look at other companies, I find guidance, but it tends to be fluffy, using big words like “empowered” that don’t mean much when you’re dealing with irate customers.

The civilian side could take a lesson from the military.  Commanders are taught to issue guidance so that their subordinates will have principles to guide their actions when they face situations not covered by the rules.  A good example is Pacific Fleet, where the guidance fits on a sheet of paper but covers their mission, principles and what the end state should be.

Guidance gives employees flexibility.  United could have offered to boot four passengers and give them first class tickets on a follow-on flight.  It could have offered more than 800 dollars.  If employees knew that their CEO wanted passengers to be happy flying United, then an employee bending policy to accomplish that would be celebrated.  Guidance also gives employees a voice, because when established rules conflict with guidance, employees can and should point it out.  Overbooking makes it hard to keep people happy if you get bumped.  I’m willing to bet more than a few United employees have good ideas on how to prevent overbooking issues, although it’s doubtful they will be heard.

We have too many people claiming airlines haul people off because of profits.  Yes, that’s a motivation, but not the entire story.  I think it’s laziness on part of management.  Issuing iron-clad rules is easy, especially from a cushy office building.  Writing guidance so that your employees can navigate the difficult situations they face each day is much harder.


This post represents the views of the author and not those of the Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, United Airlines, American Airlines, or Disney.  I don’t have the training in force choking and hand to hand combat to properly represent any of those organizations.

If you enjoyed Darth Vader as a United Airlines employee, please check out my blog and donate to Da Tech Guy.

Before answering that question, it is essential to define exactly what rights are.  The only truly valid rights are God-given Natural Rights.  Thomas Jefferson articulated  the most accurate definition of a God-given Natural Right when he stated so eloquently in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

These rights are granted to every single individual directly by God.  George Mason echoed these sentiments when he wrote the Virginia Declaration of Rights in  1776

SECTION I. That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

Liberty is second only to life when it comes to importance.  Here is how Thomas Jefferson described liberty in a letter to Isaac Tiffany

…rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will, within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’; because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual

I have always defined liberty as the freedom to do as you wish as long as you do not hurt others or interfere with the rights of others.  It is freedom with the responsibility to not harm others or infringe on the rights of others.  If someone harms another individual or interferes with the rights of another individual then government has the duty and moral obligation to step in, restrain, and punish the individual that caused the harm.   Governments at all levels must leave individuals alone if they do not hurt others.  A large percentage of the founding fathers of this nation believed the only legitimate functions of government are protecting the safety, property, and rights of individuals living in this country.  Forcing individuals to purchase health insurance and interfering in the healthcare marketplace through onerous regulations violates the liberty of individuals and businesses.

The freedom to acquire property, hold on to property, and use property as you wish, are also essential God-given Natural rights.  Income and wealth are both forms of property. The pursuit of happiness mentioned in the Declaration of Independence refers to acquiring,  holding, and using property.  If a government body seizes an individual’s property, or income, and redistributes it to another person, that is a violation of a God-given natural right.

Here is what John Locke, the primary influence for all of the framers of the Constitution, had to say on this subject in his Second Treatise on Government:

the supreme power cannot take from any man any part of his property without his own consent. For the preservation of property being the end of government, and that for which men enter into society, it necessarily supposes and requires that the people should have property, without which they must be supposed to lose that by entering into society which was the end for which they entered into it; too gross an absurdity for any man to own. Men, therefore, in society having property, they have such a right to the goods, which by the law of the community are theirs, that nobody hath a right to take them, or any part of them, from them without their own consent; without this they have no property at all.

John Adams agreed.  Here is what he had to say on this subject in “Defense of the Constitutions of of the Government of the United States:

The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence

Redistribution of wealth for charity and entitlements violates the United States Constitution.  Here are three quotes that proves this:

James Madison Annals of Congress, House of Representatives, 3rd Congress, 1st Session, page 170

I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.

James Madison Speech before Congress 1794

The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.

Thomas Jefferson 1st Inaugural Address

A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government,

The debate whether healthcare is a right or not first took center stage in this country back in 1912 when Theodore Roosevelt first proposed national health care during his run as president for the progressive party.  It was revived by President Truman in 1945 when he proposed national health insurance.  President Johnson signed Medicare and Medicaid in 1965, establishing healthcare as an entitlement that is provided by the Federal Government.  Ben Shapiro discusses this deeply flawed notion that healthcare is a right in this National Review Article.  Here are the most important passages from this article:

Morally, you have no right to demand medical care of me. I may recognize your necessity and offer charity; my friends and I may choose to band together and fund your medical care. But your necessity does not change the basic math: Medical care is a service and a good provided by a third party. No matter how much I need bread, I do not have a right to steal your wallet or hold up the local bakery to obtain it.

Because medical care is a commodity, and treating it otherwise is foolhardy. To make a commodity cheaper and better, two elements are necessary: profit incentive and freedom of labor. The government destroys both of these elements in the health-care industry. It decides medical reimbursement rates for millions of Americans, particularly poor Americans; this, in turn, creates an incentive for doctors not to take government-sponsored health insurance. It regulates how doctors deal with patients, the sorts of training doctors must undergo, and the sorts of insurance they must maintain; all of this convinces fewer Americans to become doctors. Undersupply of doctors generally and of doctors who will accept insurance specifically, along with overdemand stimulated by government-driven health-insurance coverage, leads to mass shortages.

This article by the Mises institute chronicles the disastrous effects making healthcare a right has had on the cost of healthcare in the United States and the problems caused by this deeply flawed thinking.

Benjamin Weingarten proposes a solution to our healthcare crisis in this Conservative Review Article

If government extricated itself from the system, we would see innovation and falling prices. One can imagine any number of solutions that the market would provide, including one in which people are able to purchase cheap catastrophic insurance and only pay for the medical care they need. They could shop for procedures from menus with transparent pricing. Health care would look more like The Cheesecake Factory than the Soviet supermarket.

For those who could still not afford sufficient medical care in a system of greater options and cheaper pricing, the private sector, faith and community-based institutions, and, if need be, a small and stringently managed government safety net would pick up the slack.

If a government safety net is used it would have to be administered by the States because the US Constitution prohibits the federal government from engaging in any entitlements.

My solution to the healthcare crises is to get the federal government out of healthcare completely and let each state come up with their own unique solution.

I came across this on Memeorandum,
She wanted her ex-husband to die with a happy thought; she told him Trump had been impeached

When Michael Elliott died, the last voice he heard was that of his ex-wife, his best friend.

In a short phone conversation moments before Elliott took his last breath, she told him what he wanted to hear.

“I told him that everything’s going to be all right,” Teresa Elliott told The Washington Post. “And Donald Trump has been impeached.”

What saddens me about this item is not that someone lied to a person in the last moments of his life, or the political nature of the story.

I know exiles who told a dying relative good news about their country, and the news were totally invented. The person on their deathbed had suffered horribly in their native country at the hands of a cruel dictatorship which for decades denied them their most basic rights, unlike Mr. Elliott, who reportedly collected Porches and founded a golf club in Oregon.

God knows what we would say while trying to ease a loved one’s last moments.

What saddens me is that this is news.

Back in the olden days there was a word of Latin origin people used: Decorum. There were notions of what was considered proper or improper behavior: If you demeaned yourself by lying to the dying in what would be regarded as a most private moment, you certainly didn’t brag about it, much less in public.

Nowadays those old notions have been pushed away in favor of political correctness and scoring political points.

After lying to the deceased, apparently the liar picked up the phone and alerted the media, which brings to mind this John Gielgud scene from Arthur (language NSFW)

In this age of social media and “reality” TV, losing our notions of what belongs in the public domain is more than just a character flaw. It is a self-inflicted wound on our right to privacy.

Fausta Rodríguez Wertz writes in U. S. and Latin America at Fausta’s blog.

Yesterday we mentioned that the Battle of Berkeley was a Yarp or Narp moment for Antifa, but it’s also decision time for those who have keep the police from doing their job.

Over the last year it’s been very plan that as long as the people doing the beating were leftists and the people being beaten were supporters of Donald Trump, leftist mayors and campus administrators have been more than happy to let it happen on the grounds that they don’t want to escalate violence.

But the battle of Berkeley has made it clear that this dynamic is now over. Now leftist Antifa thugs are subject to the same beating they once dished out and college student who once thought it was cool to put on a mask and throw punches without fear of reprisal now are vulnerable to physical injury.

In other words, the people being beaten are the political allies of the leftist mayors and administrators.

It’s the same dynamic from the classic comic Batman Year one from the 1980’s the corrupt Police Chief turns down Jim Gordon’s manpower requests to capture until he threatens the mob who backs and pays him, once that happens suddenly it’s catch the Batman or it’s your badge.

So it’s time for administrators to decide, are they going to continue to sit back watch while the left gets beaten the same way the right was, or are they, now that their ox is being gored, finally going to decide the free speech and assembly are things that are going to be enforced in their cities and on their campuses?

Of course if may be too late to check the violence but if they had enforced the rule of law in the first place, they wouldn’t be in this situation now.

By:  Pat Austin

SHREVEPORT —  In the continuing saga over the New Orleans Confederate monuments, word leaked out late last week that Mayor Mitch Landrieu was planning to begin monument removal in the dead of night before the Easter holiday weekend.

Sources within the New Orleans police department confirmed to The Hayride blog that there were plans in place to begin removal of two monuments at 1:00 a.m. Thursday morning.  But, once word leaked out the plans were abandoned. Landrieu’s office at first denied the claims, then acknowledged them.

With the Louisiana legislature now in session, and with several bills in play to preserve the monuments, Landrieu’s office is likely feeling some pressure to get them down quickly.

Meanwhile, a feud has erupted between The Advocate, Baton Rouge’s flagship newspaper, and one grassroots preservation group, Save Our Circle. The Advocate has reported that the Save Our Circle members are threatening the contractor hired to remove the monuments, a fact the SoS members deny. Save Our Circle has an active Facebook page with over 13,000 members and while not all members live in New Orleans, all do have an interest in preserving the historical monuments.

When interviewed about the threats, a spokesman for Save our Circle, George Peterson, explained that their Facebook group is a peaceful one and that moderators try to block or remove any posts or comments that reflect otherwise.  At the same time Peterson pointed out threats made by the Take ‘Em Down NOLA group which seem to rise far and above anything Save Our Circle members tolerate from their members:

Peterson insisted the Save Our Circle group is peaceful and that it is supporters of taking down the monuments who pose truly violent threats. He pointed to a tire that was set on fire at Confederate Memorial Hall near Lee Circle after Donald Trump’s presidential election and to threats by Take ‘Em Down NOLA — a group pushing for the removal of the four monuments and other statues honoring slaveholders — to drag the statue of Andrew Jackson in Jackson Square off its pedestal.

In addition, he said that some of those who showed up at a September protest at the Jackson statue wore masks and carried anarchist flags, and he noted that the monuments have repeatedly been vandalized with graffiti calling for their removal and some more violent messages such as “Die whites die.”

Louisiana’s Lt. Governor, Billy Nungesser, opposes removal of the monuments, as does most of the New Orleans population, has appealed to President Trump to intervene:

“I implore you to utilize the powers bestowed upon the Office of the President in the Antiquities Act, passed by Congress in 1906, which granted you the authority to declare by public proclamation, historic and prehistoric structures and other objects of historic significance as national monuments,” Nungesser wrote to Trump, according to WWL-TV.

With Landrieu now having made clear he has no qualms about moving in the dead of night to remove the monuments, everyone is now on high alert. Legislators are getting slammed with emails and phone calls from all over the country to support the preservation bills.

Regardless of how one feels about the Confederacy or about monuments in general, the bigger issue is the slippery slope this argument represents. The ever present “What is next?” question looms.  Some are now even calling for removal of lamp posts in NOLA.

Where does it stop?

 

Pat Austin blogs at And So it Goes in Shreveport.