January 22, 2017

Linda Sarsour and Modern American Politics

Let me open today's blog post by saying I was moderately impressed with President Donald Trump's Inauguration Day Speech. I thought he touched on many important points. The point that struck me closest to home was his promise to remove control of the federal government from career politicians and return it the American people. I applaud this idea wholeheartedly. I am not convinced he can actually pull it off, but I am looking forward to watching him try.

The day after the Inauguration of President Donald Trump there was a nationwide march organized by a variety of women's rights groups. One of the organizers was a woman named Linda Sarsour whom I had never heard of prior to today. Her sudden entrance onto the national stage has captured the interest of many people on both sides of the aisle. Since the Democratic Party remains obsessed with identity politics, her connection with yesterday's Women's March has sent a wildfire burning through both liberal and conservative social media.

Apparently, the radical wing of Islam in America is far less impressed with Linda Sarsour than Jan Morgan realizes.

Ikhras: Linda Sarsour, Fake Activist

Former friends of Sarsour tell us with her rising public profile came a remarkable change in her private and public behavior. Her unabashed, self-serving approach has alienated many people and her early connections to the community and former colleagues are now virtually non-existent. She has also cultivated a public persona that those who knew her tell us is dramatically unlike the Sarsour they had encountered and previously worked with. Even Palestinian-Americans who do not know Sarsour personally recognize a caricature type quality to her public behavior.

The fundamental problem with politics in America today is that it has become impossible to distinguish between the corrupt, self-serving narcissists who use the system to enrich themselves and those individuals who are deeply concerned with protecting and improving the lives of we who are not members of the political class. The professional politicians have become very skilled at misdirection, deception, and hypocrisy. For all intents and purposes, the most corrupt politicians in Washington D.C. look identical to those politicians dedicated to public service. Even those of us with highly developed internet search skills often have problems accurately discerning between the heroes and the villains. This is true across both major parties along with the myriad of tiny, independent parties that dot the American political landscape. The unfolding story of Linda Sarsour and her growing fame within New York City is a perfect example of this conundrum.

As of this writing, Linda Sarsour's Wikipedia entry has only three sentences:

Linda Sarsour (born 1980) is a Palestinian-American activist who is the executive director of the Arab American Association of New York. Sarsour was a National Co-Chair of the Women's March on Washington, held on January 21, 2017, the day after the inauguration of US President Donald Trump.

In 2016, Sarsour endorsed Democratic Senator Bernie Sanders for President of the United States.

And yet, judging from Jan Morgan's Facebook post, along with the blog post at Ikhras, she has been very active in local New York issues for quite some time. Since she is a woman, a Muslim, and a Palestinian, she is the perfect identity politician for the modern Democratic Party. Between now and 2024 I suspect that not only will we see much more of Linda Sarsour, her Wikipedia entry will rapidly expand. Clearly she has been tagged by those within the New York and national political establishments as someone who has both the charisma and the background to become a female version of President Barack Obama. 2024 will probably see her already serving in either the House of Representatives or the Senate and no doubt she will be a highly visible component of the 2024 political season. If a Republican wins the White House in 2024, then no doubt Linda Sarsour will be pushed into the front of the party as a candidate for president in the 2028 season.

Those on the far right have already begun their campaigns to cut the legs out from under her political aspirations. In addition to Jan Morgan's Facebook post, there are a couple dozen "conservative" blogs and "news" websites where her ties to radical Islam are being listed up along with links to both one another and to all the available news reports about her past activities. Meanwhile, MSNBC, CNN, and the rest of the "mainstream" media have been very careful to list her as the National Co-Chair of the committee that organized yesterday's march. It is not accidental that her connection to this protest is the very first item mentioned in her brand-new Wikipedia entry. This is how political careers are born. They start with a few minor mentions in national news, then a local political campaign, then a national political campaign.

But who is she really? The dichotomy between her alleged links to radical Islam and her public presence is going to continue to grow. Meanwhile, as time goes by reports by minor players such as Ikhras and myself will vanish into the background. The search for genuine clarity will be ignored, questions about her motivations will be side-stepped, and no one except her immediate family will ever have a true measure of who she is as a person. From today forward, her public persona will be carefully cultivated and controlled. Provided she, like Barack Obama before her, is able to avoid any form of public scandal, there is nothing to stop her from making a run at the White House in 2024 or 2028. She is clearly ambitious, she is clearly loved by the fundraisers and organizers who make a presidential campaign possible, and her background in activism is a perfect launching pad for an identity politician of the kind the Democratic Party now prefers.

Let me state here and now, at the very cusp of her meteoritic launch onto the national stage, I believe it is possible for a Muslim woman to both become president and to be a good president. There are a few caveats. Her love for America must be greater than her love for Allah. Her devotion to the Constitution should be greater than her devotion to the Qur'an. She can have no tolerance or acceptance of any aspect of Shari'a, although making jokes about its perceived "advantages" would probably be a good strategy for winning support within the Muslim American community. If a Muslim woman can be dedicated to the Constitution, the nation, and the people of these United States then I have no problem with her running for president. If she puts forth a platform dedicated to a smaller, less intrusive, less expensive federal government and an absolute adherence to the Second Amendment, I would even vote for her, regardless of which party banner she ran under. If either of the major parties can find a Muslim woman who has all of these qualities and is also a veteran of the Afghanistan/Iraq wars, then she would have no problem winning enough support to become president. Linda Sarsour is not a veteran, but is she a woman capable of appealing to the full range of the American political spectrum? I don't know, but I'll be keeping an eye on her as she rises through the ranks.

I am not endorsing Linda Sarsour. I am merely using her as an example of how our political system works and how she could use the system to one day run for president. At this point, she is not someone I could trust for city council, let alone for the highest office in the land. I am not impressed by her ties to yesterday's Women's March. If anything, for me that is a major demerit. But she could redeem that demerit by taking on New York City's oppressive gun control regimen and restoring the Second Amendment rights of people living in New York City. If she does run for New York City Council, wins, and uses her new platform to create incentives for better access to firearms and firearms training by the people of New York City, then I would be very impressed. However, if she runs under the Democratic Party banner, then no doubt her emphasis will be better educational opportunities for minority children, higher taxes on New York's elites, stronger gun control within the city, and further restrictions on the ability of the New York City police department to do its job. The only aspect of such a platform I would find attractive is improved educational opportunities for minority children, provided it can be accomplished without raising taxes.

Naturally, since I do not live in New York City, my opinion is completely irrelevant. The only reason I am offering it here and now is to point out that if she begins her political career as a member of the New York City Council, she is going to have to remember that when she goes national she will also have to find common ground with people like me: small government, fiscal and social conservatives who emphasize the Constitution and whose first priority is preservation of the Second Amendment. As I pointed out on November 14th (Hillary's stance on gun control may have helped Trump win), people like me are a very important voting block at the national level.

So, Linda Sarsour, if you are hoping to one day be President of the United States, then it would behoove you to keep in mind the Jan Morgans of the world and their complete disdain for Islam. Calling them "Islamophobes" is not going to help you become president. The best counter to their inherent distrust of Muslims is to champion their love of firearms by fighting to both reverse gun control and to expand firearms ownership.


January 18, 2017

The Real Global Warming Scam

Pay attention, folks. I am about to teach you the difference between science and propaganda.

The entire climate change campaign was, and remains, a scam designed to enrich the world's elite while impoverishing you and I. Here is how it worked:

Someone with access to capital and resources would buy two pieces of property. One to use as a site for a new factory while the other would be a hundred acres or so of timberland. They would then pay an official assessor from the Carbon Exchange to come out and assess both properties. This assessment gave each property a Carbon Footprint, which is a number on a sliding scale somewhere between infinitely negative and infinitely positive. For example, the factory might have a Carbon Footprint of +2000 while the timberland had a Carbon Footprint of -2000.

At this point our heroically green capitalist had a choice: they could accept a Carbon Neutral rating from the Carbon Exchange which won them accolades from Leonardo DiCaprio, Cameron Diaz, and other famous climate change personalities, or they could participate in the Carbon Exchange. This was, and even now remains, completely voluntary in the United States because the proposed law requiring Cap and Trade and instituting a Carbon Tax failed. Also, now that the Chicago Carbon Exchange has vanished, this core element of the proposed solution to global warming has become a minor ETF traded on the NYSE.

If our environmentally conscious venture capitalist chose to participate, the -2000 Carbon Footprint for the timberland would be assigned a Carbon Credit value while the +2000 for the factory would be assigned a Carbon Deficit value. At that point the owner of these two properties would go onto the exchange and buy Carbon Credits to overcome the Carbon Deficit of the factory. Since a law requiring participation had never passed, the market was always very small. In many cases the property owner would wind up buying their own Carbon Credit from their own timberland, which in turn resulted in a monetary loss for the factory and revenue gain for the timberland. The factory's loss produced a reduction in taxes for the company while the timberland's gain was protected from taxation through participation in the Carbon Exchange. Once that deal closed, the property owner would then be free to lease the timberland for harvesting, producing a double revenue stream, one from the Carbon Credit sale and one from the harvest lease. In many cases, a really savvy property owner would negotiate a "harvest and maintain" lease with a third-party company such as Weyerhaeuser which enabled this process to automatically repeat itself once a year.

The real purpose behind the proposed Cap and Trade and Carbon Tax legislation was to force both individual homeowners and industrialists into the Carbon Exchange. This is why folks like Leonardo DiCaprio, Carmen Diaz, Rachel Maddow, and all the rest jumped on the climate change bandwagon. They all owned (or went out and purchased) land that had a negative Carbon Footprint. If the legislation had passed, forcing you and I into the Carbon Exchange to buy Carbon Credits to offset our homes, our appliances, our vehicles, and everything else, (either buy the credits or pay the tax), then the monetary value of the Carbon Credits owned by the celebrities would have risen exponentially, forcing money out of our pockets and into theirs.

This worked even better for people who invested in farmland because it also gave them access to agricultural subsidies. To collect those subsidies the investor would fill out a form with the USDA promising not to grow a particular crop (usually a special variety of wheat, corn, rice, or soybeans) which had produced a glut in the market and collapsed prices. In return for promising not to grow that crop, the government would give them a check to both cover the expected loss and purchase seed for a crop that was considered underfarmed and in demand. Instead of leasing the property out to a company like Weyerhaeuser, the property would be leased to a large commercial farmer supplying a particular market such as cereal makers, bread makers, or pet food makers. Naturally, the lease included prohibitions against growing whatever crop the landowner had received a USDA subsidy to not plant, and any other restrictions necessary to insure whatever crop the leasee did grow conformed to the requirements of the Carbon Exchange (usually non-GMO and organic). The property owner now had multiple revenue streams coming in from the same piece of land including: carbon credit sales, lease fees, USDA subsidies, and a percentage of the amount the crop sold for if the farmer succeeded (usually 5% or 7%). Naturally, since this property was being used as a "carbon bank" because it was granted a negative flow Carbon Footprint, all of these revenue streams were protected from taxation.

Had everything actually gone according to plan, over time the total amount of carbon dioxide and other pollutants would never have changed. In fact, as more and more people participated in the Carbon Exchange as speculators, investors, landowners seeking supplemental incomes, and so on, the amount of pollutants would probably have increased as Carbon Deficit industries and businesses split their investments between Carbon Credit holdings and Carbon Deficit holdings. Nonetheless, as each new carbon bank type property came online the people behind the scam would have gleefully deducted the amount from the National Carbon Footprint and proclaimed that they had saved the world from certain disaster.

Republican opposition to the proposed Cap and Trade/Carbon Tax legislation destroyed this scam just as it was getting off the ground. As a result, the Chicago Carbon Exchange could not cover its operating costs and was forced to close. For those idealists who want to drive expensive cars, own massive yachts, and fly around on private jets, but who feel guilty for the damage they are doing, the Intercontinental Exchange sponsors an Carbon Offset ETF on the NYSE. If you are often flying between the United States and some country that demands you offset your carbon production (such as Canada, Australia, or Germany), then you can use the ICE Carbon Offset Registry to gain significant tax savings in those countries.

Sadly, the entire anthropocentric climate change debate (AGW), including most of the "scholarly" research that loudly proclaimed we were all doomed if world governments did not take immediate action, has been driven by a small number of very wealthy individuals seeking to maximize their ability to add additional revenue streams to low-yield, long term investments in timberland and farmland. In anticipation of the legislation passing, Hollywood celebrities by the dozens gleefully went out and invested in hunting lodges, woodland cabin vacation properties, and other forest, grassland, or marshy real estate they could list as "carbon banks". Athletes, for some reason, seemed to prefer investment in farmlands. In an effort to preserve their image with fans and followers, many of them have retained these properties and are still clamoring for Cap and Trade/Carbon Tax legislation to save the planet from global warming. Federal bureaucrats who favor the opinions of these very famous advocates, focus grant money on research that will confirm or reinforce global warming while denying grants to anyone who dares to question the "reality" of anthropocentric global warming. These investors don't sell it that way, of course. They clamor on about saving the planet and helping indigent farmers in Africa, but the reality is, they are only looking for a way to line their pockets with your money.

Wikipedia: Chicago Climate Exchange
Intercontinental Exchange: Carbon Offsets Registry
Fox News (November 9, 2010): Collapse of CCX Means Strategy Shift on AGW Curbs
New York Times (January 3, 2011): CCX Closing Ends Nation's First Cap and Trade System

January 16, 2017

Like it or not, Donald Trump is Our President

I have been very patient. It has been three months since the polls closed. The inauguration is in four days. But enough is enough. Donald Trump is the 45th President of the United States. Maybe he will eventually go down in history as the worst president of them all. Maybe he will lead us into our first military dictatorship in over 240 years of history as a nation. Maybe this is the dawn of the most glorious golden era in the history of humankind. No one knows. No one can know. At least, not until the future unfolds and reveals itself. Me, I'm betting he'll go down as a strictly average, middle-of-the-road, inconsequential president like Calvin Coolidge was. A century from now, if anyone is still studying American history, he probably won't even rate a footnote.

However, the one thing that is really making me angry is this constant, unyielding clarion call coming from CNN, MSNBC, ABC, and now even an icon of the Civil Rights Movement. Somehow all of these people believe that the election of a successful, blonde real estate tycoon somehow magically proves that the United States of America is a deeply racist country that hates black people. Somehow we are all supposed to accept on faith that an intelligence report which has now been discredited somehow "proves" that the only reason Hillary Clinton lost the election is because Russia flooded the internet with "fake news". Oh, and somehow Russia also managed to convince the head of Hillary Clinton's campaign to open his email to a Russian hacker who then passed those emails to Wikileaks. We are supposed to just ignore the damning, hateful, vitriolic condescension those emails contained. Somehow, the fact that American citizens could read those emails and think for themselves, completely ignoring the very expensive, masterfully crafted DNC and Clinton Machine propaganda campaign, is proof positive that America is racist.

All of our most highly paid athletes are black. Many of our most highly paid business executives are black. Many of our most prominent medical researchers are black. The departing president is black. Several of the most highly paid and award-winning entertainers in Hollywood are black. The most outspoken critic of Hollywood is black, and so is the most outspoken advocate! There are black people living in every neighborhood in every major city in America. The vast majority of our schools have a large proportion of black students. Black people are succeeding all over these United States in all walks of life and in all forms of business. The 1960s are over. The Civil Rights Movement succeeded. So stop with all the lying, the fake statistics, the phony assertions, and the false narratives. The United States of America has become the closest thing to a colorblind society in the history of the world. It does not matter if you believe it. The facts are clearly there right in front of your eyes in the people you see and interact with every single day.

There will always be a small number of people who are racist. Humans are free to choose what they believe, regardless of how it contradicts reality. We will always have a group of racists, a group of murderers, a group of organized criminal gangs, a group of corrupt politicians, and a group of greedy businessmen. Human nature it what is. There will always be both good people and bad people. The best we can hope for is to minimize the amount of self-destructive, parasitic behavior present in our society. Unfortunately, it can never be completely eliminated.

Enough already. The election is over. America is NOT racist. Climate change is NOT going to destroy the world in our lifetimes. This is NOT the collapse of freedom and the imposition of a fascist dictatorship. The LGBT community is NOT going to be rounded up and sent to re-education camps.

I am a fiscal and small government conservative. I am an avid firearms enthusiast. If the federal government starts rounding up gays, or blacks, or hispanics, or muslims, or any other group on the basis of their race, creed, religion, or gender, then I will be at the front of a massive armed resistance to this policy. All of you who feel you are oppressed, take heart, you don't need government to defend you. There are countless people just like me, whom you hate with an absolute passion, that will defend to the death your right to enjoy the freedoms granted to you by God and enshrined in our Constitution. We, the people you are intent on labeling as "deplorable racists", we will be your defenders to the death. Not because we like you, we don't, but because we believe you have every right to be who you are, regardless of how we feel about it.

Trust me on this, if that day comes, the Rachel Maddows, Al Sharptons, and even the John Lewis of the world will suddenly vanish into the shadows they crawled out from. They will not stand beside you to fight off jack-booted federal thugs come to haul you from your bedroom, but I will. I promise you this, as well, I will not be standing alone. Let us both hope that day never arrives in the first place. Then you can freely going on hating me, insulting me, and believing the worst of me. After all, the same Constitution that protects me, protects you, and if there is one thing you can be certain of, I will serve and protect the Constitution of United States of America from all enemies both foreign and domestic, even when it means defending people who hate me.

Happy birthday, Dr. King. I'm sorry your movement has abandoned your dream. I wish I could restore it.

January 09, 2017

Meryl Streep at the 2017 Golden Globes

I woke up this morning to a Facebook feed overflowing with outrage at Meryl Streep's speech during Golden Globe Award Ceremony last night. I didn't watch the Golden Globes. In fact, the only award ceremony I have watched for years is the American Country Music Awards. I am not boycotting the dozens of other award ceremonies broadcast on live television every year, I simply have no interest in them. I enjoy the ACM Awards because I enjoy the way the vast majority of country music performers live their public lives. They don't go on protest marches. They don't preach about their lifestyle. They don't demand the world conform their opinions. Country music performers present themselves as simple, honest folk, regardless of how complex and multidimensional they are in real life. They still understand the primary role of an entertainer is to entertain.

I am a firm believer in freedom. Period. I don't expect other people to agree with me, mimic me, idolize me, or follow me on Twitter. It's always nice when they do, but I never expect it. Because I believe in freedom, it does not bother me in the least that Meryl Streep used this moment in the spotlight to preach down at us peasants and scold us for our audacity in voting for Donald Trump. Meryl Streep, like so many performers in so many different arts, believes she is the nobility of the modern world. Like any aristocratic class, they assume they are "right" by default, therefore, anyone who disagrees with them is "wrong". Their worldview is very simple, and in their own minds, very honest. They do not recognize their own hypocrisy because they assume they are always right.

Hollywood performers are a wonderfully diverse group of people. In her speech, Meryl Streep highlights that diversity. This is very real and not faked. In the modern world Hollywood directors and producers have gone to great lengths to insure their movies and television programs feature as diverse a cast as possible. They have scoured the world in their search for talent and collected the best of the best within the utopian bubble of the Hollywood hills. There is nothing wrong with this. However, it is a very insular and internally focused community. They love themselves and they know by their receipts that the world loves them, too. Within the prison of their sheltered bubble things like love, respect, and courtesy are the norm, not the exception. Therefore, when a particular director or producer behaves in an unethical manner, the entire community is up in arms. The anger this community pours out on Donald Trump is not really directed at him. It is directed internally at the abusive producers and directors within their community who behave in ways the majority of them feel are inappropriate. I must confess, if a producer demands a sexual encounter from an actress (or actor) in order to pay the bills to produce a movie, it's inappropriate. I definitely agree. Unfortunately for the rest of us, that actress (or actor) cannot respond in anger and outrage at the producer. Their very livelihood depends on it. So they grit their teeth, smile, pretend they are in love, and jump in bed. After all, acting is what they do for a living and sometimes this is part of their making a living. But the anger remains, so they pour it out on we peasants who are powerless to object even as they were powerless to object when the producer demanded a night of hot, steamy sex.

Another result of Hollywood's insularity is complete ignorance about how the rest of the world lives. If they see video footage on the news about a Yazidi girl forced into sexual slavery by ISIS, they feel great pain and sorrow. When they see the body of a four year-old pulled from the Mediterranean they are overcome with grief. There is a great deal of evil in the world and the only time they encounter this evil is through the filter of the news media. So a few of them join charity groups and become some variation of the "Goodwill Ambassador". Escorted by armed guards, they travel to carefully selected villages and schools to see firsthand the horror of life outside their utopia. Then they use the footage they obtain to make television commercials begging for someone to do something. Despite my deeply cynical response every time their pleas interrupt my favorite television programs, I understand that they mean well and they are genuinely heartbroken over the horrors they have seen.

We live in an ugly world. This is entirely true. There is no form of life in all creation more cruel and destructive than the human animal. In order to have this modern world we had to claw our way up from the muck and violence of nature. The primary purpose of our big brain is to provide us strategies and tactics for killing. This has always been true. This will always be true. Art, philosophy, science, religion, kindness, empathy, and even love, are all secondary ancillary effects of the very necessary ability to kill without mercy the multitude of stronger, better equipped predators and competitors that seek to eat us for lunch. Once we overcame all of them, we naturally turned this skill on one another. ISIS is not born of poverty or exclusion or prejudice. ISIS reflects the most basic and fundamental core of human existence: killing without mercy even at the cost of our own life. ISIS is who we are.

This is why we need the Benjamin Netanyahus and Donald Trumps of the world. From time to time there will always be men who fall back into our most basic animal instincts and ignore all of the ancillary effects of our big brains. When those men turn their violence on other people then someone equally lacking in empathy must step to the front of the pack and destroy them. If no one is willing to do so, the animals will win out once again and everything we have fought to achieve will be destroyed. Meryl Streep and the Hollywood community are not wrong in their assessment of Donald Trump, of the Nation of Israel, and of people like me. The one thing they do not realize is that the only reason they can live in their protected bubble of love, courtesy, and respect is because there are people who are willing and able to stand up to those men who have reverted to being nothing more than violent wild animals.

It would be very nice if particular producers and directors would stop demanding sexual favors from the people who depend on them. It would also be very nice if men who choose violence over diplomacy would magically self-combust without ever doing any harm to anyone else. Unfortunately, there will always be violent men. It does not matter how many emotional, tear-filled speeches people like Meryl Streep give. We are what we are: human animals who evolved in a world where everything in nature had better natural weapons and stronger muscles. This is why there will always be some form of ISIS. This is why from time to time we will need someone rude and belligerent to oppose them. We tried the soft diplomacy of Barack Obama, but the evil of ISIS has grown, spread, and metastasized. Now we need someone who is both clever enough to develop a strategy to destroy them and stupid enough to actually carry it out.

January 07, 2017

A Story of Two Maps

Election Results 2016 by County

Active Sex Slave Cantinas

Everyone who is important enough to have an official, public opinion is arguing over the Russian hacking of DNC mail servers. This is a very real problem, and a serious one, but it seems to me the most important fact to derive from this debate is the poor personal cybersecurity practices of the people entrusted with running our government. It should surprise no one that Vladimir Putin did everything in his power to stop Hillary Clinton from being elected. As I pointed out repeatedly in this blog (August 15th, October 11th, October 12th, October 20th), if she had won the November 8th Presidential Election then Vladimir Putin would have felt compelled to launch a nuclear first strike against the United States. Even knowing that it might fail, he would have believed the benefit of destroying the United States would have far outweighed the cost of spending four or eight years suffering under the yoke of Hillary Clinton. Her victory would have doomed us, and quite possibly doomed our entire world, to a level of destruction no one even thinks about anymore. The only thing accomplished by President Barack Obama's policy of appeasement and inconsequential sanctions in response to overt military adventurism was to place both Putin and us in an untenable situation. If Hillary Clinton had won the election then Vladimir Putin would have seen the interim between November 9th and January 20th as his one and only opportunity to destroy America and suffer almost no serious consequence in return. I will go to my grave convinced that Donald Trump's victory on November 8th averted a global thermonuclear war.

As President Barack Obama pointed out when he won in 2008, elections have consequences. We are now faced with the consequence of electing a billionaire New York real estate mogul as president. President-elect Donald Trump has no real background in foreign affairs beyond his manifold overseas business interests. His only administrative and management experience is related to his various business ventures which feature both spectacular successes and dismal failures. Doing business, even global business, is not the same as doing politics. Some of his skills will transfer over and serve him well while other skills will rapidly prove to be liabilities rather than strengths. Our future depends on how well and how quickly he can adapt to his new responsibilities. So far, we have seen that he is a tireless worker who is not afraid to take risks, but we have yet to see if those risks will prove to be great successes or explosive international incidents. There is little doubt that 2017 is going to be a year of great turmoil as President-elect Donald Trump learns the differences between political success and business success.

All of this, however, is largely irrelevant. A new year has begun, we have a new president being sworn in soon, but many of the same problems are sitting there festering. Russian hackers are problematic, but the real problems of 2017 and beyond are going to be much more complex than remembering to create secure passwords and change them frequently. Domestically, and directly related to Hillary Clinton's ability to win the popular vote while losing the electoral college, is the moral decay of American cities. If we cannot reverse this trend then it does not matter how many jobs President-elect Donald Trump restores to the American economy or how successful his relationships with our allies and enemies turn out to be. By the time he leaves office 4 or 8 years from now our nation will still be headed rapidly into a massive collapse and quite possibly a bloody civil war. Notice the two maps at the top of this page. Every county that Hillary Clinton won is also a hotbed for sex slave trafficking. This is not an accident and this is not a coincidence. Concentrated urban population centers are the prime targets for Russian mafia, Chinese youth gangs, and Mexican drug cartels. In today's world all three of these groups focus their criminal activities on illegal drugs and sex trafficking. The streets of American cities have become war zones where these three groups fight block by block for domination of key properties for plying their two favorite illegal trades, often by employing impoverished blacks as foot soldiers. According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting database, black on black crime has risen to new heights every year for the past decade and a half. Even as all other categories of crime decline, violent black on black crime continues to rise. What the FBI UCR database doesn't show you is that these young black men who seem obsessed with murdering one another in our streets are not fighting for their own benefit. Far too many of them are in the direct employ of Russian, Chinese, or Mexican organized crime syndicates. Their "gangbanger" lifestyle, encouraged by rap music and Hollywood movies, is in fact, a modern slavery to foreign global crime masters. I don't know if the Congressional Black Caucus, the NAACP, or the Black Lives Matter advocacy groups realize this or not, but by using "social justice" to undermine "criminal justice" they are empowering foreign masters to continue sending young black men into our streets to kill one another.

The internet is filled with stories that portray global corporations as evil, the United Nations as corrupt, and the American government as conspiring against the American people to enrich American politicians. Countless conspiracies abound blaming the "Illuminati" or "Freemasons", or other "secret societies" for all of the evils in both our nation and the world at large. The members of these secret societies are always pictured as wealthy white men with too much political influence who are willing to sacrifice the poor non-whites of the world on the altar of greed and success. Meanwhile, both the conspiracy theorists and the modern media completely ignore the very real evil tearing through our world, poisoning our youth, funding terrorism, and igniting a multitude of civil wars around the world. Who profits when ISIS captures half of Syria and Iraq? The arms merchants and weapon manufacturers of course, but their profits are miniscule when compared with the trillions of dollars in drugs, antiquities, sex slaves, and stolen commodities that ISIS lawlessness enables. Eastern Syria and northern Iraq have become a huge corridor for a more direct flow of opium out of Central Asia and into Europe where it is shuttled to the United States, Canada, and Russia. Organized crime is much more profitable than terrorism. So much so that terror organizations often earn funds to finance their operations by serving as armed guards to drug shipments flowing from both South America and Central Asia into the wealthier industrialized nations.

The United States has spent trillions of dollars fighting two wars that we are losing and losing badly: The War on Drugs and The War on Terror. These two underground worlds have been steadily converging ever since the American invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. As Iran rises to prominence and Saudi Arabia struggles to remain relevant in a world of falling oil prices, the terror groups ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hamas, and Boko Haram, have been quietly forming alliances with the Sinaloa Drug Cartel, the Tong Triad, and various Russian Bratva. These alliances allow both terrorists and gangs to streamline supply routes while gaining footholds in the local political structure of American and European cities. Anywhere there are concentrated populations there are also organized global crime syndicates providing drugs, sex slaves, stolen antiquities, and unregulated commodities to anyone who will buy them. Simple things like cigarettes and vodka run through the same smuggling tunnels as cocaine and heroin. Sex slaves are brought into the United States across and underneath our southern border carrying bundles of illegal drugs, unregulated cigarettes, stolen Iraqi art, and other illegal goods. Warehouses as far away as Seattle, Quebec, and Anchorage take possession of these bundles while transferring control of the sex slaves to local pimps. Liberal progressive political agendas that claim to be protecting gay rights, preventing young black men from being shot by racist cops, and providing healthcare to impoverished women also happen to empower these gangs by preventing law enforcement from getting search warrants while providing free care to keep their sex slaves healthy. Liberal judges who refuse to grant arrest powers to law enforcement regardless of how much evidence they gather, along with liberal prosecutors who turn a blind eye to pimps while prosecuting gun shop owners for minor paperwork violations, are not making America safer and more free. For every uneducated and unemployed woman treated by Planned Parenthood for venereal disease, that same clinic treats a dozen sex slaves for the same ailment without reporting the pimp to local law enforcement. For every free abortion provided to a poor high school student without notifying her parents, a dozen more are provided to prostitutes brought here from every corner of the world to spend their lives servicing scores of customers every single day.

Densely populated cities provide both the market and the protections global organized crime syndicates need to operate with impunity. I am not advocating for draconian policing, prosecution of liberal politicians, or the disbanding of liberal progressive NPOs and NGOs. However, by the same token, the politicization of law enforcement in the United States to the point that police resources are wasted on 24/7 surveillance of themselves while ignoring underground bordellos and warehouses packed with illegal drugs or other smuggled goods is not helping us. When we reach the point that politicians invite drug lords to their cocktail parties while prosecuting street cops for defending their life against thugs twice their size and half their age, then we run the very real risk of collapsing under our own narcissism. The Department of Justice, the Supreme Court, and the Attorney General's office need to change their focus from investigating every incident where a black person dies in police custody to locating and convicting the leadership and senior management of every organized crime syndicate operating in our cities. Instead of focusing on hate crimes, our media needs to be investigating basement drug labs and local sex slave operations along with the corrupt politicians who play golf with pimps and gang lords. Instead of spending half a day reporting on a lone gunman who kills five people in an airport, how about spending those resources finding out how illegal drugs and sex slaves move through that airport on a daily basis? That information can then be turned over to law enforcement. It would also be good to let local law enforcement move in and arrest the major players before broadcasting your report. All of our major networks have had cameras sitting on Trump Tower 24/7 ever since November 9th. Wouldn't it be better to focus those cameras on the sex slaves plying their trade up and down Broadway and Sixth Avenue, identifying the pimps who own those slaves, and then highlighting the local groups working to free them?

Our most peaceful and progressive cities are filled with "non-violent" criminals. By focusing on identity politics while opposing the War on Terror, the Democratic Party has spent over a decade empowering global gangs operating in our cities. By calling Republican politicians "facist" and "racist" and labeling the Republican Party itself a "danger to the freedoms we enjoy", the Democratic Party has forced too many of our urban law enforcement organizations to spend more time policing themselves than they do policing our streets. The Democratic Party obsession with providing government money to unwed mothers while demanding prosecution of gun manufacturers and ignoring businesses that depend on the labor of illegal immigrants, has made it easier for global crime syndicates to bring foreign women into our cities and force them into sex slavery.

There is a story being told by the two maps at the top of this page. It is the story of a great nation in decline. I don't know if Donald Trump can reverse that decline or even slow it down. I do know that if the Democratic Party spends the next four year opposing his every policy initiative just because he told a few really disgusting sexist jokes to a reporter on a bus over a decade ago, then they will be empowering and accelerating this decline.