I lost count of how many times I’ve heard that the cause of all or our country’s problems is the fact that we have two parties that are at political extremes, leaving most of us, who are moderates that inhabit political middle, unrepresented.  The proposed solution to this is the formation of a political party that occupies the middle ground between both extremist parties.

It would seem, based on the heated arguments, the endless bickering, and the fact that nothing gets accomplished, that the two parties do operate at the extreme polar opposites of the political spectrum.  That is not true at all.  Only one party, the Democrat Party, has veered off into one of the political extremes.  The Democrats now inhabit the extreme left.  Don’t take my word for it.  Here is what Senator Bernie Sanders had to say about his political party in this video.  Rather than inhabit the extreme political right, the Republican Party now operates slightly less far to the left when compared to the Democrats.  If you don’t agree please explain to me the latest Omnibus spending bill, their push for amnesty, their failure to repeal ObamaCare, their watered down tax cuts, and their efforts to eradicate true conservatives from leadership roles.

Why are so many convinced that each party operates on an opposite end of the political spectrum?  Why are so many convinced that the policies of the political right are harmful and against everything this country was built on or stands for?  It is because of a phenomenon known as the Overton Window.  Here is how Wikipedia describes this phenomenon:

The Overton window is an approach to identifying which ideas define the domain of acceptability within a democracy’s possible governmental policies. Proponents of policies outside the window seek to persuade or educate the public in order to move and/or expand the window. Proponents of current policies, or similar ones, within the window seek to convince people that policies outside it should be deemed unacceptable.

The media, which is very left leaning, controls the narrative that forms the boundaries on either side of the window.  They focus on the political spectrum in reference to how the two political parties exist today leaving out how both parties have slowly moved toward the left.  What is left out by this narrowed window is how the two parties are now so far from the original position that was supposed to have been set in stone by the Constitution.  The media, academia, and the Democrats paint the ideals of the Founding Fathers along with those individuals as being outdated, deeply flawed, and racist.  They describe the Constitution and its principles using similar language.  The media also uses the deeply inaccurate political spectrum that equates Fascists, Nazis, and conservatives,

Unfortunately the Republican Party abandoned the Constitution and the principles of fiscal responsibility and limited government a long time ago.  Those in the party that still adhered to these principles are marginalized, ridiculed, and stripped of committee chairmanships.  The media paints these individuals as dangerous extremists while championing those with extreme liberal beliefs.

The Constitution, which was supposed to limit the size and scope of the federal government, was abandoned many decades ago by both parties.  The principles of federalism and limited government, which are enshrined in the Constitution, built this nation into the freest and most prosperous nation that ever existed.   Rather than a party that occupies a narrow niche between two parties on the political left, we need one that reclaims a constitutionally limited federal government and free market economics.  Can the Republican Party be reformed so it once again follows our founding principles, which are hallmarks of the true political right?  I now believe the Republican Party is irredeemable.

Instead of shifting the media defined Overton Window back to the right; we need to smash it entirely so everyone can view the political spectrum in its entirety.  This will be extremely difficult since the media is mostly controlled by liberals, along with social media.  Next we need set the record straight about our Constitution and founding principles.   Finally we need to start a new party that embraces these principles.  Once we do this we can solve all of our problems.

All across this country college students are being indoctrinated into believing a philosophy called “white privilege.”  The term seems rather innocuous but the philosophy is not.  This indoctrination has begun to spread down to the high school and grade schoo levell.  Like all race based philosophies, white privilege is a creation of the political left.  Like most creations of the political left, white privilege is based on fundamental mistruths.

Here is how white privilege is defined from this Wikipedia article.

White privilege (or white skin privilege) is a term for societal privileges that benefit people whom society identifies as white in some countries, beyond what is commonly experienced by non-white people under the same social, political, or economic circumstances. Academic perspectives such as critical race theory and whiteness studies use the concept of “white privilege” to analyze how racism and racialized societies affect the lives of white or white-skinned people.

The Wikipedia articles offers many other definitions, here is one, which was quoted from this source:  Pulido, L. (2000). “Rethinking Environmental Racism: White Privilege and Urban Development in Southern California”. Annals of the Association of American Geographers

White privilege is a form of racism that both underlies and is distinct from institutional and overt racism. It underlies them in that both are predicated on preserving the privileges of white people (regardless of whether agents recognize this or not). But it is also distinct in terms of intentionality. It refers to the hegemonic structures, practices, and ideologies that reproduce whites’ privileged status. In this scenario, whites do not necessarily intend to hurt people of color, but because they are unaware of their white-skin privilege, and because they accrue social and economic benefits by maintaining the status quo, they inevitably do.

Here is one example of what constitutes white privilege from the same Wikipedia article:

Williams and Rivers (1972b) showed that test instructions in Standard English disadvantaged the black child and that if the language of the test is put in familiar labels without training or coaching, the child’s performances on the tests increase significantly. According to Cadzen a child’s language development should be evaluated in terms of his progress toward the norms for his particular speech community. Cadzen, C.B. (1966)

To me, this example is racist because it is implying that nonwhites are less capable of learning Standard English than whites.  Other subjects such as math have been declared examples of white privilege yet the irony escapes those making the declarations.

Here is another definition of white privilege from the article called “On Racism and White Privilege” located on the website Teaching Tolerance.  This was the most popular Google search result.  I encountered many different articles with similar definitions.

White skin privilege is not something that white people necessarily do, create or enjoy on purpose. Unlike the more overt individual and institutional manifestations of racism described above, white skin privilege is a transparent preference for whiteness that saturates our society. White skin privilege serves several functions. First, it provides white people with “perks” that we do not earn and that people of color do not enjoy. Second, it creates real advantages for us. White people are immune to a lot of challenges. Finally, white privilege shapes the world in which we live — the way that we navigate and interact with one another and with the world.

Theses definition illustrate one of the fundamental lies of the philosophy of white privilege, that white people are inherently racist.  According to this philosophy, we have built this all encompassing structure that keeps everyone with nonwhite skin down because we dislike people with skin that is darker than our skin.  Underlying this philosophy are the mistaken beliefs that the United States is still a deeply racist nation and that racism is at the root cause of all of the problems nonwhites face.

Crime statistics are one popular proof of white privilege.  Here is an example I found in this  article

While people of color make up about 30 percent of the United States’ population, they account for 60 percent of those imprisoned. The prison population grew by 700 percent from 1970 to 2005, a rate that is outpacing crime and population rates. The incarceration rates disproportionately impact men of color: 1 in every 15 African American men and 1 in every 36 Hispanic men are incarcerated in comparison to 1 in every 106 white men…we are left with only one conclusion: White, European Americans enjoy a wide range of privileges that are denied to persons of color in our society.

Are higher incarceration rates the product of systematic racism or something else?  The answer is found in this Daily Signal article.

More black babies are born out of wedlock today (72 percent) than into married homes. That’s dramatically worse than when Moynihan initially raised the issue (when it was 23 percent)—thanks to fifty years of encouragement by the Democrat Party.

The Moynihan Report mentioned in that article was the justification for President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society.  This Front Page Magazine article documents the carnage caused by those deeply flawed programs.  Here is one quote:

The most devastating by-product of the mushrooming welfare state was the corrosive effect it had on American family life, particularly in the black community. As provisions in welfare laws offered ever-increasing economic incentives for shunning marriage and avoiding the formation of two-parent families, illegitimacy rates rose dramatically.

Thomas Sowell, an African American economist and philosophical rock star among conservatives, echoes these conclusions in this article called The Legacy of Liberalism.

The results of welfare policies discouraging marriage and family were dramatic, as out-of-wedlock birthrates skyrocketed among all demographic groups in the U.S., but most notably African Americans…The devastating societal consequences of family breakdown cannot be overstated. Father-absent families—black and white alike—generally occupy the bottom rung of America’s economic ladder.

Thomas Sowell also documents the carnage in this article A Painful Anniversary.  Here is a quote:

The War on Poverty represented the crowning triumph of the liberal vision of society — and of government programs as the solution to social problems. The disastrous consequences that followed have made the word “liberal” so much of a political liability that today even candidates with long left-wing track records have evaded or denied that designation.

White Privilege has a close cousin called White Guilt which is also being crammed down the throats of impressionable college and high school students; here is how Wikipedia defines the topic.

White guilt is the individual or collective guilt felt by some white people for harm resulting from racist treatment of ethnic minorities by other white people both historically and currently in the United States

It is fine if individuals want to feel guilty based on their own conduct; however we are only responsible for our own actions.  Collective guilt is an alien concept in the United States where our entire constitutional and legal system is based on individual rights and guilt.

The subtitle of this book, Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American left, is the only thing I dislike about this book.  The statement is accurate but incomplete because it is missing the word modern when referring to the American left.  Progressivism in America predated the Nazi party and was more closely influenced by Italian Fascism.  Actually, the fascism of Italy and the progressivism of America closely influenced each other and are very much related.  That is well documented in this book.  A much more accurate subtitle would be: The incestuous relationship between American Progressivism, Fascism, Socialism, and Nazism.

This book begins with a discussion on transference which is accurate but dull.  It gets much better after that.  The opening chapter  documents the explosion of calls that President Trump and conservatives are Fascist and Nazis, and how these accusations have been used as justification for acts of violence against Trump supporters at rallies and against speakers on the political right.

The Big Lie most correctly points out that fascism, Nazism, progressivism, socialism, and communism are all related and on the political left.  D’Souza uses two authors that I have read extensively to back up this claim – FA Hayek and Jonah Golberg.  Here are three quotes, the first is from page 23 and the other two are from page 24:

Hayek identified Fascism as a phenomenon of the Left, a cousin of socialism and progressivism

Golberg traces innumerable links between progressivism and fascism, spelling out the left wing laundry list in both the platforms of Mussolini and Hitler, and then showing their parallel in modern progressivism.

Hayek and Goldberg are the starting point for my book. But I go much further and delve into areas of inquiry untouched by them.

D’Souza documents how the Nazis actually learned very negative lessons from the American left.  Here is one from page 27

Forced sterilization and euthanasia aimed at eliminating racial “defectives” and producing a “superior” Nordic race were two additional schemes the Nazis got from American progressives.

Chapter 2 is devoted to the distortion of the political spectrum.  D’Souza documents how the political spectrum used by most journalists and the general public is meaningless because it was based on seating arrangements during the French revolution, where those who supported the ideals monarchy sat on the right and those who opposed it sat on the left.  He discusses a more accurate political spectrum which is based on the components of the political philosophies and the effects they have on the size and scope of the government that implements them.  Here are quotes from pages 31 thru 34 page which illustrate the differences between conservatives, which are on the actual political right, and progressives, which are on the political left.

The American Revolution was characterized by three basic freedoms: economic freedom or capitalism, political freedom or constitutional democracy, and freedom of speech and religion.

By limiting state power conservatives seek among other things to protect the right of the people to keep the fruits of their own labor

The left in America is defined by its hostility to the restrictions placed  by the founders on the federal government.  That’s why leftists regularly deplore constitutional restraints on government power, proclaiming the constitution woefully out of date and calling to adopt instead a living Constitution…

.,,progressives distrust the free market system and want the government to control and direct the economy, not necessarily nationalizing or taking over private companies, but at least regulating their operations  and on occasion mandating their courses of action.

Also in this chapter D’Souza introduces readers to Giovanni Gentile of Italy, who was the father of fascism.  His principles of fascism included: opposition to individual rights, the belief that he State is far more important than the individual, there is no distinction between private and public interests, and control of businesses through regulation.   Discussed in great detail is how Mussolini implemented fascism.

Chapter 2 finishes up with a discussion how the original platform of the Nazi party resembled the platform championed by progressives.  Here is a quote from page 60.

The Nazi party at the outset offered a twenty-five point program that included the nationalization of large corporations and trusts, government control of banking and credit…universal health care and education.

Chapter 3 discusses how Mussolini transitioned from socialist to fascist, which is common because of the failures of socialism, including the fact that it did not happen in wealthy nations

Chapter 4 documents American progressive ideas that inspirited Nazis.  Discussed and documented is the fact that the Indian removal under Democrat Andrew Jackson served as a model for the Nazi Lebensraum.  It was noted that slave plantations in the Democrat controlled  US South were similar to Nazi work camps, but there was no documented link.

Chapter 5 is titled  The Original Racists.  This chapter opens with the following quote. which is from Racism a Short History by George Fredrickson.

it was with the passage of the Nuremberg Laws in 1935 that Germany became a full fledged racist regime.  American Laws were the foreign precedents for such legislation.

Here are two quotes from this chapter which are found on page 132 and 133:

Racism, of course, preceded the Democrat Party but the Democrats, in a sense, invented political racism in the early 19th century to defend slavery.

Even after slavery ended , Democrats found racism to be very useful…They constructed a whole ideology, and structure of white supremacy in order to establish their political domination of the south.

This chapter also documents the similarities between the KKK and brown shirts including the fact that the Brown Shirts and Klan considered themselves to be champions of social justice

Chapter 8, Politics of Intimidation, illustrates the Nazi roots of modern American progressivism.  D’Souza documents on page 202, that political correctness is the progressive equivalent of Nazi Gleichschaltung, which was the “doctrine of political uniformity and social control.“   The most damming evidence that modern progressivism has its roots in Nazism is centered around this quote on page 204

Ever since the publication of his opus, Being and time, Martin Heidegger’s philosophy has been widely influential.  Specifically, it provides intellectual grounding for a whole series of progressive causes.

D’Souza discusses how this work inspired the leftist academic movement called deconstructionism.  Heidegger was an environmentalist, anti- capitalist, and founder of identity politics.  This work also inspired the belief that freedom of speech is a myth and offensive speech should be met by violence.  As you can see, Heidegger, who was a Nazi, provided the intellectual basis for political correctness and Antifa.

In the chapter Denazification, D’Souza discusses how the big lie, blaming conservatives for the sins of leftists, was created and spread by academia, the news media, and Hollywood.

This book is extremely well documented and well written.  I have encountered all of the subject matter many times before.  I only take issue with several solutions to the Big Lie that D’Souza  shares in the final chapter.   His solutions are based a bit too much on anger rather logic and principle.  It is a book most definitely worth buying and reading more than once.

In Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court, relying on little more than the majority’s “reasoned judgement” that “liberty” as mentioned in the Fourteenth Amendment somehow encompasses the dignity of same-sex couples, created a right to same-sex marriage. As the case was being deliberated, traditional marriage supporters, including me, were concerned that creating such a right would immediately create tension (to say the least) between this newly-created right and the right to Religious Freedom and Freedom of Speech. In his dissent, Chief Justice Roberts correctly pointed out that “Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is—unlike the right imagined by the majority— actually spelled out in the Constitution.” In a separate dissent, Justice Thomas elaborated on what Religious Liberty actually means, pointing out that it “is about freedom of action in matters of religion generally, and the scope of that liberty is directly correlated to the civil restraints placed upon religious practice.” In an apparent attempt to mollify the dissenters, Justice Kennedy explicitly stated in his majority opinion that “Many who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises, and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here.” Unfortunately, the LGBT community has done nothing but disparage us and our beliefs since.

Fast-forward two years and we’re back at the Supreme Court for Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the case where a same-sex couple sued a Christian baker to force him to create a custom cake to celebrate their “wedding.” The baker, Jack Philips, declined to create a custom cake, but offered to sell them anything else in the store. Naturally, the couple cried “discrimination” to the Commission who claimed that Philips not only had to use his creativity and talent to create a cake to celebrate an event to which he was morally opposed, but also had to teach his staff, including members of his family, that his religious beliefs about marriage were discriminatory. The Commission’s ruling blatantly violated both Philips’ right to freely exercise his religion and his freedom of speech, and eventually led to oral arguments at the Supreme Court last week.

I’ve read the transcript of the oral arguments, and while I’m optimistic that Justices Kennedy, Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch, along with the Chief Justice, will rule in favor of Philips, I’m a bit concerned that the ruling may be too narrow to fully protect religious liberty against the same-sex “marriage” onslaught. Much of the argument focused specifically on what aspects of a wedding ceremony counted as “speech” for the purposes of the First Amendment. Trying to draw a line and putting some wedding-related activities, such as cake baking and photography on the protected side and makeup and hairstyling, for example, on the other side, is a complete red herring.

Rather, I believe and hope that the court will take a broader approach to the question of religious liberty that was touched upon by Chief Justice Roberts when he asked whether a Catholic legal aid service could be forced to represent a same-sex couple in a marriage-related case simply because they offered pro bono legal services to the community at large. The question really goes beyond just a wedding. If “decent and honorable” people believe that same-sex marriage is wrong, their “freedom of action in matters of religion generally” demand that they be able to live out their faith.

Christianity teaches that we should treat everyone with love, but it does not demand that we approve of every choice that others make. Why should there be a difference between forcing a baker to create a cake to celebrate a same-sex wedding and forcing a Catholic adoption service to place children with same-sex couples? Why does the same-sex couple’s supposed right to adopt a child supersede a child’s right to have a mother and a father or the Catholic social worker’s right to live out his or her vocation to care for orphans by placing them in healthy family environments?

In either case, the state would be forcing the subject to endorse or facilitate an event or behavior which his sincerely held religious beliefs teach is wrong. It’s really that simple. In either case, the objection is not to the fact that the person is gay. It would be discriminatory if Philips refused to sell the couple a pre-made cake or anything else in the store because they were gay, but that’s not what happened.

The Constitution says there shall be no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion or abridging the freedom of speech. I believe the Court can and should develop a doctrine that allows Christians and other decent and honorable people to avoid endorsing or participating in events or behaviors that their religious beliefs proscribe while still protecting the rights of LGBT persons against discrimination. As Justice Kennedy said in the oral argument, “tolerance is essential in a free society. And tolerance is most meaningful when it’s mutual.”

Rock: You are the survivors. The others have run off. It would seem that evil retreats when forcibly confronted.

Star Trek: The Savage Curtain 1969

On April 19th in response to the Battle of Berkeley I asked this question:

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?

Yesterday in Berkeley we got the answer. Both the left and the right showed up (without Ann Coulter) as did people ready to record the actions of the authorities and suddenly the rule of law was prevailed.

Police showed up in force

Empty leftist threats were laughed off

The laws concerning wearing a mask were being enforced:

The reading of Ann Coulter’s speech by Gavin McInnes didn’t result in a riot

And Lauren Southern spoke without harm to herself and others

In other words all went as it should, people spoke, other people who didn’t like the speech either didn’t show up or protested or went to their empathy tents and everyone went home without any bloodshed because the police enforced the law.

The question is why? What was the difference, why were the police enforcing the law instead of hanging back? Why did Antifa choose “Narp” instead of “Yarp“?  Simple

The people in danger of being beaten were not the conservatives who were speaking but the ANTIFA thugs who wanted to stop them.

Once it became clear that it was the hired thugs of the left and not the conservatives that they loathed in danger suddenly Berkeley decided that the rule of law was worth enforcing to make sure nobody got hurt.  It was Lexington Green all over again, only this time the Redcoats declined to start a war.

And the fact that the right is learning this lesson is making all the right people angry:

Strange, is it now, how the SPLC never seems to take notice of antifa or any other violent left-wing group no matter how many people they assault. But when people merely begin to plan to start defending themselves against the violent left that is attacking them, well, it’s THE SHOAH ALL OVAH AGAIN, again.

So let me congratulate the left, which has taught the right that showing up ready to fight is the best way to stay safe and and to show up and be aware that from this point on when the right sees something like this:

The Seattle City Council passed a unanimous resolution this week which declares May 1 a “day of action” on which city employees are encouraged to attend planned anti-Trump protests instead of going to work.

The resolution—drafted by Councilmember Kshama Sawant, a member of the Socialist Alternative party—instructs supervisors of city government departments to remind their workers that they are entitled to take two days of unpaid leave for “days of faith and conscience,” and that attending Monday’s protests is a legitimate use of this leave.

and this:

“If we truly want to build a summer of resistance against Trump and the billionaire class,” Sawant said in a Tuesday interview on King5, an NBC affiliate, “then we will need disruptive action like shutting down airports, and shutting down highways.”

Other Seattle government officials, while eager to sign on to this “day of action,” are less keen about Sawant’s call for “disruptive action.” Mayor Ed Murray provided some rather impotent pushback saying, “We need to keep our freeways and our on and off ramps…the state, of course, needs to keep our on and off ramps open.”

Directed against them, rest assured they will not only be ready to answer speech with speech, but show up with enough muscle to make sure they can safely make said speech.

May you enjoy the incentive system you have created.


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.

A while back I was the training department head, called the “N7” in department head speak.  One of the divisions I owned was indoc, which has new people at our command before they go to their jobs.  Indoc gives new Sailors a place to work while they get their stuff moved in, find a place to live, and finish required paperwork they need for their new jobs.  This division included our junior officers, young ensigns that have recently graduated college and attended a few weeks of Navy training.  When I took over the job initially, I thought I would enjoy mentoring them upon arrival.

I was in for a rude awakening when one of my first check-ins told me “I’m really concerned about work/life balance.”  I told him “Uhm, you’ve had a lot of life and not a lot of work, so yes, you’re out of balance.”  It probably seemed like a dick-thing to say at the time, but it was true.

Seems doable…From Dilbert.com

Your first job out of college is a big challenge.  You have to prove yourself to your employer and your fellow employees, plus you have to learn about your industry.  This holds true for Naval Officers, who have to learn about the Navy, their specific job, and how to lead Sailors, all while getting qualified.  Oh, and occasionally contribute to the local community.  Until you get qualified, it’s an uphill battle that takes much more than 40 hours a week.

Increasingly people are graduating college with flawed ideas about work and a lack of critical thinking skills.  I’m shocked at the junior officers who can’t write a cohesive paper, can’t arrive on time for work, and think that the Navy’s rules about physical readiness are flexible.  Part of the point of college was to eradicate these bad habits, but college is increasingly becoming an extension of high school, rather than an adult incubator.  I used to think “adulting” memes were cute, but now I sadly realize they honestly reflect the internal thoughts of most graduates.

So if you’re a soon-to-be college graduate, and you’re looking forward to a graduation speech about taking on the world and how you’re going to solve world hunger, all within a 9 to 5, Monday to Thursday workweek…please stop yourself.  Get a job, and get a mentor or two that are successful.  Talk with someone successful about finances and how you build wealth in your twenties.  The “cool kids” that are drinking their pay checks and scamming out of paying student loans?  They aren’t going to be the cool kids in their thirties.  Trust me, it won’t mean working yourself to death, but it will involve a bit of sacrifice and thinking ahead.  The thing is, you’ll find real happiness and satisfaction when you do.


This post represents the views of the author and not those of the Department of Defense, Department of the Navy or any other agency.

Have you checked out my blog?  Have you donated to Da Tip Jar?  Because you know you should!


Vice President Pence speaking at March for Life, from Fox News

I watched Vice President Pence’s speech at the March for Life. It was…OK. As far as speeches go, it was along the lines of “Blah blah, President Trump loves you. Blah blah, you are making America Great Again.” Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad he was there, but I wish he had said something like this:

I am so honored to be the first Vice President to speak at the March for Life. In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote “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,” the first right he listed was for life, for all Americans.

The right to life is amazing because it cuts across all Americans, regardless of color, gender, or any other subgroup you could come up with. Some in America want us to keep these divisions, and we saw that last week. But today, we unite across those boundaries. Today, we welcome those that see life as a central part of this great country.

We also welcome those that perhaps chose death in the past, but now regret that choice. The right to life is for all Americans, including them. I have heard from those Americans, and the suffering they have gone through after making this choice…it just makes me sad. They have a voice in this movement, a voice that we welcome with open arms, just as we welcome them.

I implore you to carry the life affirming message into the world. Talk to your neighbors. Talk to your doctors. Talk to your family. And yes, even engage on Facebook once in a while. The media is happy to squelch what you say, although President Trump and I will do our best to change that. But changing hearts towards preserving life isn’t accomplished through news media. Changing hearts comes from heart to heart conversations that are full of love. Have those conversations with those you love and care about, and even those that perhaps you don’t.

Thank you for what you do and for what you stand for!


This post represents the views of the author, no the Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, or any other agency. If you want more of his professional views, check out his blog here.

I was working into the wee hours of the morning when I saw this at the Huffington Post

Southwest Plane Turns Pink Lights On For Women’s March Participants

The story said the following

Things got lit on a Southwest Airlines plane carrying men and women to the Women’s March on Washington.

Two women shared pictures of their Thursday flight, which turned on pink lights apparently in support of its passengers to mark Saturday’s special occasion.

“When your Southwest flight crew celebrate a plane full of kickass women and men going to the Women’s March by lighting it up #lit #womensmarchonwashington #lovetrumpshate,” Instagram user @kpmagnolia wrote in the caption of her photo of the colorful pink lights.

Now this would seem a bad idea as Southwest Airlines is not a niche market that caters exclusively to pro-abortion anti-trump people who think believing Catholics are Nazis so I wrote the following email to Southwest to clarify their position.

Hello:

I will be writing a story concerning the decision of a southwest crew to honor the so called “women’s march” on Washington DC as reported by the Huffington Post here

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/southwest-plane-carrying-womens-march-participants-turns-pink_us_58822e01e4b0e3a735687c05?ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067

I have several questions:

1. The so called “Woman’s march” specifically excluded pro-life women, does this mean that southwest Airlines embraces the Agenda of Planned Parenthood and those who oppose this administration and reject the hundreds of millions of pro-life people such as the hundreds of thousands who will be going to Washington for the march for life later this month?

2. The so called “Woman’s march” was explicitly anti-trump. does this mean that South West Airlines endorses the anti-trump message of the so called “Woman’s march” and embraces the designation of President Trump and his supporters as “anti-woman” and “nazis” by the marchers?

3. According to the Huffington post a statement by Southwest on the matter said this:

While we’re unaware of details surrounding a specific flight, our flight crews celebrate, commemorate, acknowledge and share in special moments with our customers all the time,

That being the case, given the fact that the March for life brings 100,000+ people to DC each year and the inauguration of Donald Trump brought 500,000 supporters to the capital can you cite a single instance of a southwest crew celebrating, commemorating or acknowledging these pro-life or pro-trump flyers?

4. Tens of millions of supporters of Americans voted for Donald Trump and he won the popular vote in 30 US states, what assurance can you give votes like myself who voted Trump that this is not a signal by Southwest that it will treat those who oppose the president in a more favorable manor that those who supported him, and given this public support of those who oppose the president that is now being reported nationwide what tangible proof of support will you give voters Trump voters who like all Americans have many choices when it’s time to fly, that flying southwest airlines does not constitute financial and moral support for those who oppose this administration and those who voted for it? [note the “and” in that last sentence should have been vs]

I intend to publish my piece by Monday 5 AM EST Said piece will include this email and the questions within. I will be glad to publish your response to these questions with them if I received them by 5 PM EST Sunday. If I receive them at any later time I will publish their response the following day.

Peter “DaTechGuy” Ingemi
Datechguyblog.com
Featuring DaTechGuy’s Magnificent Seven
Have Fedora Will Travel

P.S. As both a journalist who has often used Southwest airlines to go to events I am covering and as a voter who voted for Mr. Trump this time around your responses will be instrumental to my choice of airlines in the future.

Sunday morning Southwest replied with the following email:

Hi, Peter,

Here’s our statement in its entirety; we don’t have additional details to share at this time:

While we’re unaware of details surrounding specific flights, our Flight Crews celebrate, commemorate, acknowledge and share in special moments with our Customers all the time.  Some of our aircraft are equipped with mood lighting and while this was not a companywide initiative, at times, our Flight Crews will adjust the lighting for a Customer or group of Customers traveling on their flight.  For example, in October, one of our Flight Crews changed the lighting to honor a breast cancer survivor onboard their flight.

Emily

This is pretty much a reiteration of the statement already given.

Now I’ve flown Southwest & I like them and it’s not out of character for them to accommodate a particular batch of passengers, so to me vital question of this batch actually is #3  If Southwest can produce examples of their aircrews acting to support a group of pro-life or pro-trump flyers in a public way like this one I and I suspect others will be satisfied that this was the attempt of a particular crew attempting to inspire a particular group of passengers and give this a pass, but to do so risks the wrath of folks who have already demonstrated a willingness to retaliate with violence.

So how do we of he right respond?

Do we follow  the example described by Shelby Foote of Robert E. Lee who in late 1863 when an angry southern woman brought a group of young southern ladies before him who had attended a concert given by Union General John Sedgwick while occupying their area responded to both the indignant woman and the embarrassed girls thus:

I know General Sedgwick very well.  It is  just like him to be so kindly and considerate, and to have his band there to entertain them.  So, young ladies, if the music is good, go and hear it as often as you can, and enjoy yourselves.  You will fin that General Sedgwick will have none but agreeable gentlemen about him.

This is the line of Becca Lower a person not unfamiliar with the wrath of the left who reacted saying

In other words emulating General Lee, this is just a Southwest crew being nice so she’ll it go. This is certainly a Christian approach and consistent with American Values as they once were in our culture.

Alas another Lee from our modern era named Spike has, this very week, given us an example that is much less forgiving on accommodating those who encourage the political enemies of the left:

One singer, however, has learned the hard way that you don’t cross the elite in the entertainment world without paying a price. Grammy winning artist Chrisette Michele performed at one of the balls last night, reportedly receiving $250K for her efforts and an international audience. But that’s not all she got. She also received what amounted to a pink slip from Spike Lee who was reportedly “considering” using her music in an upcoming project.

Director Spike Lee has revealed he was considering using a song by Grammy winner Chrisette Michele in an upcoming project but has decided not to following her decision to perform at the inauguration of President-elect Donald Trump.

Thus following Spike’s example the response would be:  “If Southwest wants to accommodate the anti-trump left and doesn’t do the same for us they can join join the list of companies who have decided to take sides in the culture wars and can pay the price as pro-life people and Trump supporters have plenty of other airlines to choose from.”

This would also be consistant with what Jazz Shaw calls the new rules of engagment in political warfare:

But as far as I can tell, the gloves are now fully off and there are no longer any rules on the political battlefield. Democrats and liberals in vast numbers are trying to destroy the Trump presidency before it’s even begun and the silence of the Fourth Estate has placed the media seal of approval on the effort. They are hoping to shut down the executive branch and are clearly willing to engage in a scorched earth policy to achieve that goal. So the next time a Democrat winds up winning the White House, you can expect the same in return. I don’t care if they elect a white man, a black woman or a transgender Latino pirate. I don’t want to hear any kvetching from MSNBC about racism, sexism or any other isms. Everyone is free to simply swamp the public square and reject the election results if they don’t like them, no matter what the next president has done or, more likely, not even had time to do.

Progressives started this phase of the war

Perhaps almost as important, we must remember that if we emulate Robert E Lee’s forgiving and understanding response, no matter how proper it might sound to us as Christians, we are by emulating a Confederate General which by our current media template would make us all slavery supporting racists.

While if instead we emulate Spike Lee and retaliate against Southwest and any other company that serves the general public giving notice from this point on if they aid the enemies of this administration they are our enemies and we will no longer patronize them, we are emulating a person who is considered a black pioneer for equality in culture by that same media template.

So if the end result is that employees of business all over the nation are terrified of saying or doing anything that could be construed as being supportive of one side vs the other, (Can you imagine the result if President Trump tweets on this to his 20 million followers?) I’m sure our media and cultural better will tell us that’s certainly a small price to pay to avoid emulating a rebel general suggesting reconciliation even if it means that the right now has the same power to intimidate business that the left enjoyed in the past.

Isn’t it?


2016 Fabulous 50 Blog AwardsIt’s 2017 and we have a new chance to make our annual goal which requires $61 a day.

[As of Jan 11th between subscribers and tip jar hitters we are at a 64.9% pace for 2017 $436 of $671 based on our daily goal]

If you’d like to help support our award winning independent non MSM journalism and opinion from writers all over the nation like Baldilocks, RH, Fausta, JD Rucker Christopher Harper, Pat Austin, and John Ruberry plus Monthly pieces from Jon Fournier, Tech Knight and Ellen Kolb and want to help pay their monthly wages (along with the cartoonist) and new writers I’m looking to hire) please consider hitting DaTipJar.




Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. You can be listed as a Friend of DaTechguy blog for as little as $2 a week. If only 130 of the 209K+ unique visitors who came in 2016 .07% subscribed at the same levels as our current subscription base we would make our current annual goal with ease. If we could boost that number to 260 I could afford to go to CPAC and cover major events in person all over the country and maybe take some of Da Magnificent Seven writers with me.

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


Choose a Subscription level



Gondorff: There ain’t a fix in the world gonna cool him out if he blows on ya.

Hooker: I’ll take him anyway.

Gondorff: Why?

Hooker: ‘Cause I don’t know enough about killin’ to kill him.

Paul Newman and Robert Redford in The Sting

“Sincerity? I could fake that.”

Alan Alda as Hawkeye Pierce, M*A*S*H,
“Foreign Affairs” Season 11, Episode 3

Christopher Harper did a great job of explaining liberalism in a recent post. I’d like to share a slightly different perspective.

I have long subscribed to Charles Krauthammer’s rule fundamental law of American politics that conservatives think liberals are stupid while liberals think conservatives are evil. Let’s face it, some of the policies that liberals promote are pretty stupid. But to ascribe many of the things liberals do to simple stupidity requires an underlying concession that they are good-hearted souls trying to do what they think is best for the country but, as Ronald Reagan said, “they know so much that isn’t so.”

However, seeing the behavior of the democrats since losing the election in November, and considering their behavior going back to Teddy Kennedy’s original “borking” of Judge Robert Bork in 1987, and his original immigration reform back in 1965, it’s obvious that, like in The Sting, they have been playing the “big con” for more than 50 years. In the space of a few hours, an entire party and their stenographers in the Press went from being “horrified” at the “direct threat to our democracy” that anyone might not accept the results of an election to not accepting the results of an election because John Podesta was too stupid to sniff out a phishing scam (hmmm… more evidence to support Dr. Krauthammer?). Even on what should be a decorous occasion for the “peaceful transfer of power” in the House of Representatives last week, Nancy Pelosi was ungracious enough to allege, with no evidence, that the election was “subverted by the dark operations of a foreign regime.” Everything they’ve done for the last two months has been to deligitimize the new administration, and for one very good reason. They are scared to death that Trump might actually Make America Great Again.

Having painted Trump and his cabinet nominees as hateful-corrupt-xenophobic-racist-homophobic-bigots who will be dedicated to accommodating their Russian masters to whom they owe their positions, the democrats have taken the only possible path out of the corner into which they’ve painted themselves. If Trump crashes and burns, they can say “we told you so” and if he succeeds, their only option is to try to claim credit for having chastened or otherwise boxed him in to prevent what would surely have been a disaster had it not been for their courageous stand against all they’re pretending he claimed to stand for.

How can anyone take seriously this group who, after painting Mitt Romney (Mitt Romney!) as the second coming of Satan four years ago, then urged the republicans to save themselves from the Trumpacolypse by screwing the rules and nominating Romney? Just like Hawkeye in MAS*H, they have become very good at faking sincerity, and I continue to be stunned how so much of our country can be so uninformed as not to notice. I submit that rather than thinking liberals are stupid, we conservatives would do better to recognize that liberals are power-craving weasels who will do anything to accumulate power for themselves regardless of whether it is good for the country as a whole or for the people in it. It will make it even more enjoyable to watch Trump’s cabinet get approved with a simple majority in the Senate after the Reid-weasels abolished the filibuster.

CxCW_xtUoAAv4wI

Hot Dog Vender:Got no opinions Sir, they’re bad for business

Inherit the Wind 1960

One of the values of a being either company operating in a niche market, or serving primarily a niche market is that if you have strong political opinions consistent with said niche market you can release them in public secure in the knowledge that such a move will not hurt the bottom line.

Another type of company with this advantage is one that sells a unique product that can not be easily obtained elsewhere.  When that is the case the customer base, no matter how offended by a particular public opinion, particularly a business, will have no choice but to swallow it’s pride and continue to use said company.

Neither of these would be considered accurate description of the Kellogg’s’ corporation.

Kellogg, citing ‘values,’ joins growing list of companies that pledged to stop advertising in Breitbart News

From the story

The company cited concerns that Breitbart News, which has been described by many as portraying alt-right ideals, does not align with its values.Kellogg’s has announced that it will pull all advertising from the site. The company cited concerns that Breitbart News, which has been described by many as portraying alt-right ideals, does not align with its values.

Breitbart is not amused

Kellogg’s offered no examples of how Breitbart’s 45 million monthly readers fail to align with the breakfast maker’s values. Indeed, the move appears to be one more example of an out-of-touch corporation embracing false left-wing narratives used to cynically smear the hard working Americans that populate this nation’s heartland.

Breitbart News Editor-in-Chief Alexander Marlow encouraged the boycott of Kellogg’s products, describing their war against Breitbart News as bigoted and anti-American: “Breitbart News is the largest platform for pro-family content anywhere on the Internet. We are fearless advocates for traditional American values, perhaps most important among them is freedom of speech, or our motto ‘more voices, not less.’ For Kellogg’s, an American brand, to blacklist Breitbart News in order to placate left-wing totalitarians is a disgraceful act of cowardice. They insult our incredibly diverse staff and spit in the face of our 45,000,000 highly engaged, highly perceptive, highly loyal readers, many of whom are Kellogg’s customers. Boycotting Breitbart News for presenting mainstream American ideas is an act of discrimination and intense prejudice. If you serve Kellogg’s products to your family, you are serving up bigotry at your breakfast table.”

In response, Breitbart launched its #DumpKelloggs petition to encourage its vast readership and the followers of its #1 in the world political Facebook and Twitter pages to ban bigotry from the breakfast table by boycotting Kellogg’s products. 

Given the results of the election, the fact that the former Chair of Breitbart is now the strategic advisor for the Trump administration and that alternatives to the products offered by Kellogg’s made by other companies abound, this public statement, as opposed to something more generic like claiming they are simply decreasing advertising on political news sites post election, would seem to have been an ill advised PR move.   The trending #dumpkelloggs hashtag on twitter, the eruptions on facebook with the loss of 2% of the stock’s value would suggest this,  so I decided to try & find out what Kellogg’s had to say about it directly.

I called Kellogg’s Consumer affairs line at 1-800-962-1413. I had a very long wait before I spoke to a very busy young lady who informed me that the line was for product related inquiries and that she didn’t have a media contact number but she did have both a number for corporate 269-961-2000 and HR 1-877-694-7554 that she was kind enough to give me.

From there I called the Corporate number. The switchboard operator transferred me to the media relations department but before she did commented that while she had only fielded 2 calls on the subject her co-worker next to here was inundated with them with all but one call objecting to the move.

I reached the voice mail of the media contact leaving a message with both my phone number and email address seeking comment before this piece went live. As of this writing I have not been contacted by either method which means I didn’t get a chance to ask any questions concerning Kellogg’s statement on values. Here are some obvious ones they raise first about how the decision came to be:

Given that this was a very public move by a major corporation whose product is sold in practically every single town in every single state blue and red, what was the procedure that led to this decision?

Who made the initial suggestion for this move?

Was the company approached by an outside entity concerning Breitbart or was this raised internally?

How Much discussion went into making this decision?

How many people were involved in making this decision and when the decision was made was it reached unanimously?

Who drafted the initial statement and at how many levels was said statement approved before it was released to the media?

Those are all statements concerning “cause”, I also have a few on “effect”

as Kellogg’s considers the breitbart sites to be inconsistent with their values, or as Hillary Clinton would say “Deplorable”, do they consider the 46 million readers of Breitbart site equally “deplorable” or inconsistent with the values of Kellogg’s?

Given that the former CEO of Breitbart now has a high position, some would say the most trusted position in the incoming Trump administration does their statement also mean that Kellogg’s considers the values of the incoming Trump administration and the voters who elected them, including in the state of Michigan inconsistent with the values espoused by Kelloggs?

Given that Breitbart.com is inconsistent with the values of Kelloggs will Kelloggs decide that readers and supporters of the Breitbart site need not apply for the positions offered at the site & promoted on Twitter under the Kellogg’s jobs site and that current readers of the Breitbart site employed by Kelloggs should consider finding other work?

And finally one on the aftermath of all of this

Given the rise of the #dumpkelloggs hashtag, the apparent large volume of calls complain and the apparent conclusion by conservatives on social media that their business is no longer desired by Kellogg’s and the implications that has for both the stock price and the bottom line for the company, what affirmative steps, if any, is the company planning to assure these very upset customers that they are valued members of the Kellogg’s customer community or do they plan to wait it out?

If I get a response before I leave for my overnight job I’ll include it here or in an update if any shows up after the post goes up.

Exit Question:  Isn’t this either a class action or a “hostile work environment” case just waiting to erupt on Kellogg’s?

Update:  edited initial paragraph for clarity


If you’d like to help support independent non MSM journalism and opinion please consider hitting DaTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. Right now our subscribers consist of 1/50 of 1% of our total unique visitors based on last years numbers.

If we can get another 150 subscribers at $10 a month (another 1/10 of 1% of those who have visited this year) We can meet our annual goals with no trouble, with the same number of subscribers at $20 a month I could afford to cover the continual post presidential campaign meltdown of the left outside of New England firsthand.

And of course at that price you get the Da Magnificent Seven plus those we hope to add on and all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level