The Only Thing You’ll Ever Need to Know about Socialism

When I think about socialism in America, I think about the white-tailed deer. To liberals, socialism is Bambi in all his furry cuteness – don’t you just want to give him a squeeze? They just can’t get enough! To conservatives, socialism is a four-legged pain in the ass, rarely around when you want it to be, but totally eager to jump in front of your headlights at 70 mph – ultimately leading to a bloody, hairy collision with your heavily-taxed vehicle. Before I go into detail, I want to show you the only thing you’ll ever need to know about socialism.

SOCIALISMSUCKS

The truth about socialism is that it can occur in various quantities and qualities depending on the economic system of the nation in question, and the successes and failures of specific socialist programs implemented ultimately determine how much a society is going to desire more or less of them. It is important, however, to remember that much like any government program, socialized programs must be restrained and not allowed to reach unsustainable levels. This is the problem facing America today.Route1A-Ellsworth-JCR.jpg

In the image shown above, I’ve cleverly graphed the relationship between three different topics: Amount of Socialism, Amount of Capitalism, and Quality of Life (read: Amount of SUCK). You see, we acknowledge that some socialist programs are completely
necessary. 
Which ones? I’m looking at you police officers, first responders, landfill workers, and guys holding the SLOW sign. Without those guys, let me tell you, life would SUCK. Notice how the curve SUCKS MORE when you go all the way to the left? The same thing holds true for the right. With too much socialism in our economy, life will SUCK. Where do we want to be? We want to be in that socialism ditch in the middle – not too little and not too much. We want to minimize suckage.

The police, first responders, highway workers, etc. are completely necessary to sustaining our way of life, and no one disputes that fact. But look, Bernie, that doesn’t mean that we need more and more and more of it. What are some examples of “bad” socialism? Well sOADSFJ;LKJ… oops… sorry. The elephant in my room is named Obamacare and just stepped on my foot. He and his friends named the Department of Education and Internal Revenue Service are on their way to a Irish wake for Bernie Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign.

Recently, some friends of mine who consider themselves far more intelligent than they are told me that the federal Department of Education was producing “stellar” results. The only explanation I have for such an ass-backwards belief is that they must’ve been educated in federally-controlled public schools (BAZINGA!). Want to see if we’re getting the “bang” for our buck? Check THIS out:

fed-ed-spending

Don’t worry, if that isn’t enough, try this one too.

fededucation

Hmmm… So, we pumped more money, more money, and more money for four decades and didn’t see any measurable benefit? That sure looks like a recipe for success! What did it give us, though? Well, a few things.

For instance: the inability to focus curriculum on what inspires students to learn. Why? Because on the federal level, everything is rated relative to your peers. If a low-income district in Detroit has students of a certain demographic that struggle in one regard, but a suburban school in Texas doesn’t have the same problem, then surely the problem is the school itself and not a more complex result of the composition of the student body, right? Anyone in education knows you cannot have the same expectations for all children’s behavior, so why are we doing it on a federal level with their academic expectations? What if instead of having the same required curriculum standards, students in Detroit who are inspired by its automobile industry and students in Texas inspired by agriculture could focus more of their time learning about those types of topics? Which is more important, having students kind of know a little bit of everything or having students become passionate for learning? By putting the accountability  for education back on the states and localities, they are better-equipped to handle the behavioral and intellectual development of children and can cater their methods to the needs of their students.

Here’s another example: Teachers not being allowed to give students a failing grade. Why? Well, a few reasons:

  1. Federal funding is so horribly allocated that there isn’t enough space in classrooms for children to be held back.
  2. Schools’ levels of success are measured by their ability to produce graduates. If the students can’t pass the tests, the easy solution is to lower the passing grades, right?

George, take it from here.

Since we’re talking about education, let’s talk about Bernie Sanders. Ol’ Bernie wants college in the United States to be tuition-free. Well, he did when he was running for president. I imagine today he’s just enjoying his new lake house (I heard they’re having a housewarming party/Irish wake with a few elephants of mine). Nonetheless, that frazzled old man inspired an entire generation of Americans to believe that they should get a free degree, and now we have to deal with it.

I’ve already shown the issues associated with having federally-mandated education programs, so I won’t revisit those, but let’s just talk about something on an empirical level. If the federal government subsidizes college tuition, it will control what it bought. What do I mean by that? College today is a beacon of what grade school should be: freedom. It’s free learning. No restrictions on which books can be purchased, which subjects can be taught, or which opinions can be shared. When the government buys higher education, it purchases the right to decide what is going to be taught.

Furthermore, more students are going to college than there are jobs existing for those students. In the words of Mike Rowe, “We’re lending money that we don’t have to kids who will never be able to pay it back to train them for jobs that don’t exist.” If the definition of insanity is repeating the same process expecting different results, then exploding our cost of education by billions of dollars only to see our job market become more unstable is certifiable lunacy.

Not only does Bernie think that piling on billions of dollars in wasted degrees is a good idea, he suggests that the alternative is PRISON. Bernie, I believe that while we disagree on your policies, you are a good man; however, you are so misled, and your message, despite its intentions, is so toxic, you have caused great harm to the youth of America. There are 3,000,000 jobs available right now in the United States and no one wants them. Why? Because they’ve been convinced by people like you that unless you have a degree, you’ve accepted a consolation prize in life. 90% of that 3 million requires no degree, only skill and the willingness to work hard. Congratulations, Bernie. Now put on your dunce cap and let Mike teach you a thing or two.

Supporting free healthcare and free education is a lot like getting in a van that has “FREE CANDY” written on the side. It might sound good from the outside, but you’re probably not going to like it once those doors slam shut.

See you guys next week, and I promise to deliver on that environmental hysteria post that I said was coming this week!

TP

Advertisements

Hate Crimes, or Just Haters?

Part I: The “Viral” Virus

Part II: Thank you, sir. May I have another?

Part III: Hate Crimes, or Just Haters?

Happy Thursday, folks! I’m back from vacation and back to posting. Because my previous two posts on racial tension got so much attention (nearly 2,000 people have been reached in the last 4 days alone), I decided to proceed forward with Part III into my dig on racial bias and its associated violence.

For review, let’s start off with a reasonable assumption from the perspective of the Black Lives Matter movement.

Assumption: Police are systemically racist against the African-American community. Young black men are being hunted down in the streets every day.

Now, let’s couple that assumption to a fact:

Fact: The police are 73% white.

With these two statements, we should be able to draw the reasonable conclusion that white-on-black racism is both systemic and on the rise, right? After all, is that not one of the BLM undertones? If most cops are white and cops are hunting black men in the streets, by translation one could assume the position that white men are hunting black men in the streets and using the badge to do it. If that’s the case, then we should see increases in all racially-biased crimes against the black community.

Let’s take a look at hate crimes by racial bias and the race of the criminal offender.

Hate Crime by Year
Hate Crime Statistics by Race and Year (Source: FBI)

As you can see in the graph above, overall, race-related hate crimes have been on the decline for several years. Between 2010 and 2014, hate crimes dropped by a total of 18%, but who was responsible for the drop? If we operate under the narrative described by Black Lives Matter, then surely the percentage of anti-black hate crimes didn’t have anything to do with it, did it?

Of course it did. From 2010 to 2014, anti-black hate crimes dropped by over 26%, accounting for the vast majority of improvement in race-related hate crimes. What about anti-white hate crimes? They have not decreased, at all. In fact, anti-white hate crimes are on the rise. The reason for this? Well, it’s anyone’s guess, but in this polemicist’s opinion, it has everything to do with the fact that black poverty in the United States has increased from 25% to nearly 28% under President Barack Obama. Increased poverty is directly correlated to decreased employment, and as the Good Book says in Proverbs 16:27, “Idle hands are the devil’s workshop.”

But what about homicides specifically, not just crimes considered to be caused by racism?

blackhomicide
Black Homicide Statistics (Source: FBI)
white homicide
White Homicide Statistics (Source: FBI)

Let’s break down the data shown above and compare the two graphs.

  • From 2010 to 2014, 2,600  and 3,100 black and white people, respectively, died of homicide.
  • The good news? During that time period, total homicides for both white and black people decreased. The bad news? While there is a slight decrease in the count of black homicides by a white offender (218 in 2010 versus 187 in 2014), there is absolutely no decrease at all in the count of white homicides by a black offender (447 in 2010 versus 446 in 2014).

This means that the notion of young black being being systematically hunted in the streets is completely false. As a matter of fact, the rate of white-on-black homicide has been half of the rate of black-on-white homicide the entire time. Take a look:

  • From 2010 to 2014, white people were responsible for an average of 7.5% of all black homicides.
  • During the exact same time period, black people were responsible for an average of 14.0% of all white homicides.

Black Lives Matter supporters, I hope you see this. Your movement is fueled by hatred and lies, and as long as the violence and riots continue, people like Korryn Gaines will continue to die for the most unfortunate crime of them all – being grossly misinformed.

Folks, this woman never deserved to die. I implore each of you to share information (especially the things you read here) and engage in positive dialogue with one another.

My final thoughts: Remember what I said last time? 

If the Democrats can keep black voters just satisfied enough to go out to the polls and just poor enough to remain loyal to the Democratic party, then they will have an iron-clad voter base for the indefinite future.

Never forget, the Democrats own the liberal media. The liberal media is feeding the Black Lives Matter frenzy, and we’re in an election year. This is not a coincidence. Black Lives Matter supporters, you are being herded like cattle for your votes. There’s a reason why black-on-white racism occurs at a much higher rate than white-on-black racism – and part of it all has to do with the information we’re receiving.

Until next time,

TP

Next week: We’re going to venture into the environmental realm for our next post. We do not want this blog to be interpreted as solely about race, and after 3 posts about it, our minds need a break! Keep sending us your comments and suggestions, and like us and share on Facebook!

Part I: The “Viral” Virus

Part II: Thank you, sir. May I have another?

Part III: Hate Crimes, or Just Haters?

Thank you, sir. May I have another?

Part I: The “Viral” Virus

Part II: Thank you, sir. May I have another?

Part III: Hate Crimes, or Just Haters?

 

So I promised a post on the Hegelian Dialectic. It’s coming, but this has been on my mind lately and I felt compelled to address it as Part II of my dig into Black Lives Matter. I’ll call this one, “Thank you, sir. May I have another?”jobs

Seriously, bro? You’re going to start off a post with THAT?

In the midst of probable irrelevancy, I’ve found relevance once more! What am I talking about? Millions of citizens in blissful, blind ignorance, pledging their support for causes which ultimately do not benefit them at all while proudly donning theirnc-crowd-01-800r bumper stickers, t-shirts, or whatever-the-hell this poor Republican National Convention-attending woman was sporting.

Who am I talking about? Well, it happens on both sides of the aisle, but today I’ll pick on a select few. Who in particular?

Poor Minorities who Support Democrats

Let me elaborate a little bit on a perennial issue – the welfare state. Actually, let me let Dinesh D’Souza do it for me. For the rushed crowd, start at the 1:02 mark. And if you don’t feel like watching, skip past and I’ll give you a quick synopsis.

Dinsesh makes an excellent comparison between Republicans and Democrats by using an analogy that I couldn’t have said better myself. In short, he says that Republicans believe in an America where you are solely responsible for your own successes. Conversely, Democrats believe in an America where the government will provide a fixed rate of sustenance for all citizens but retain the power to determine what that rate is at all times (aka, create an atmosphere of pure dependency). Why is this an issue? Here’s why: 64% of black voters consider themselves Democrats, and since 1964, no Republican has won more than 15% of the black vote. And why is that relevant? Here’s why: The average poverty rate for black voters is higher than any demographic in the United States at a whopping 16.1%.

Screen_Shot_2014-10-30_at_2.23.12_PM.0

In short, this means that the Democrats know they’re going to always get the majority of the black vote; however, it also means that they garner more of it by promising to “hold the rope” for poor minority communities. Think about the number of freebies that have come up, courtesy of the Democratic Party: Obamaphones, Obamacare, tuition-free college, etc., etc., etc. The Democrats possess the perfect recipe to lock up votes and effectively trick black voters into supporting political ideologies that actually prevent them from achieving economic equality with the white majority. If the Democrats can keep black voters just satisfied enough to go out to the polls and just poor enough to remain loyal to the Democratic party, then they will have an iron-clad voter base for the indefinite future.

Just in case you’re reading this screaming, “CONSPIRACY THEORIST!” let me add one thing. When Barack Obama became president, the black poverty rate was 25.8%. Fast forward six years to 2014. The black poverty rate? 27.2%. Conveniently, the black poverty rate has been on the rise under President Obama despite the wave of socialist programs pseudo-catered to the lower classes.

That’s why (many people don’t like to hear this) I have long-called the Democratic Party the American School of Systemic Socialist Racism – and for good reason. Let’s have a history lesson, shall we?

The Republican Party was founded to abolish slavery.

And just in case that wasn’t enough to make you go, “Wait, what?”

The Democratic Party filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for FIFTY-SEVEN DAYS.

That’s right, folks. The party of the people opposed some of the most influential civil rights legislation in history. If that’s the case, how did the black community becomeBlack_Party_ID(7) so enamored with supporting Democrats? Well, prior to 1948, the black community was split about half-and-half Republican and Democrat. Early in 1948, President Truman signed an executive order desegregating the military and began working on eliminating the racial bias in the federal government (FactCheck.org). You’ll see another spike in 1964. Why is that there? Because Lyndon Johnson was running for president, and at the 1964 Democratic National Convention, he helped eliminate the South’s all-white primaries, creating a huge wave of support for Johnson from the black community. When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed, only two Senate Republicans opposed it, one of whom happened to be Johnson’s presidential opponent, Barry Goldwater. Additionally, the Republican Party really had no footing in the South, so when the Voting Rights Act of 1965 passed (signed by then-President Johnson), naturally, the Democratic Party absorbed most of the black vote. At that point, the Democratic Party established itself as the party of the African-American people – despite the fact that Republicans supported their civil rights at a higher rate than Democrats (based on Congressional votes). From that point on, no Republican presidential candidate has garnered more than 15% of the black vote.

At this point you’ve got to be wondering why I called the Democratic Party systemically racist. It’s pretty simple. The Democratic ticket, since the implementation of the New Deal, has one massive flaw: Everything about it works against the people it claims to be helping. Since I mentioned the New Deal, let’s roll with that one for a bit.

FDR, a Democrat, initiated the welfare system as part of the New Deal (please envision that rope right now). Part of the welfare system includes the Farm Bill – a bill once backed by both parties but now opposed by many Republicans. The Farm Bill’s appropriations – originally intended as a way of helping farmers recover from The Great Depression – are about 80% food stamps (Oh, by the way, the total appropriations for it are about $1.2 TRILLION over the span of a decade). So, the temporary Farm Bill is alive and well nearly 100 years after The Great Depression.

Why is this important, and how does it make the Democratic Party inherently racist? Because welfare programs like the Farm Bill are responsible, in my opinion, for the completely stale Southern economy in states like South Carolina where the black community’s population is 300% more dense than it is in the rest of the country on average. By surviving on food stamps and government aid, rural areas highly dependent on agriculture receive absolutely no economic stimulation. That keeps the minorities in these areas (like the aforementioned black southern community) stuck below an already-low glass ceiling.

But let’s look at the impact on the world beyond the South.

Historically, one of the subsections of the agricultural industry covered by the Farm Bill has been the cotton industry. In 2003, Brazil filed a complaint with the World Trade Organization (WTO) that the United States’ cotton-farming subsidies had allowed it to dump its products into markets in developing nations in such a manner that it created unfair trade, causing massive losses for domestic cotton farmers in those developing nations.

The solution to that problem? Oh, nothing, just a massive “legal” bribe. The United States agreed to pay Brazil a $300 million payment to settle their dispute. In essence, instead of stopping subsidizing its own cotton farming, the United States began subsidizing Brazilian cotton farming, too.

Since that time, the US has begun to ratchet down on its cotton subsidies, but not so much 193as to change the fact that it is still the world’s largest exporter of cotton and second-largest producer.  And what impact have we made? Well, we’ve robbed the GDP of several developing nations, in particular those in West Africa. In Burkina Faso (one of the aforementioned developing West African nations), 85% of the country depends on cotton production and over half of the country lives in poverty (National Center for Policy Analysis). The cost to produce cotton there is about 1/3 the cost of cotton production in the United States, but the farmers there still cannot compete against American cotton in the global market. Over 150 years post-slavery, the United States is still abusing Africans with its southern cotton industry, thanks in part to the socialist ideology of the welfare state and the Democrats that the African-American community assists in electing. I wonder if the people of West Africa are feelin’ the Bern?

When modern liberals and groups like Black Lives Matter talk about systemic racism, they say it exists inherent to our culture – that white people don’t even realize they’re being racist. Well… I think they’re 100% right. Maybe one day the Democrats will figure that out, too. By the looks of things, the minority community is already starting to figure it out. I didn’t mention it before, but the portion of the black community identifying as Republican doubled between 2000 and 2004, and over the past decade, even fewer African-Americans identify with the Democratic Party. I’ll leave you today with one guy who gets it.

Until next time,

TP

Part I: The “Viral” Virus

Part II: Thank you, sir. May I have another?

Part III: Hate Crimes, or Just Haters?

The American-t Dream

Lee Greenwood: I’m proud to be an American, where at least I know I’m free

… and not much else. You know, that line has always resonated with me. In the opening line of the chorus of the most overplayed Independence Day fireworks background music ever known, the best we can come up with for why we’re proud to be Americans is because “at least” we know we’re free. Well isn’t that just spectacular. Know who else is?  Let’s take a look, courtesy of Freedom House:

freedome

Just to name a few: Canada, South Africa, India, Mongolia, Ghana, Chile, Argentina, UK, France, Italy, New Zealand… you can do the rest. I’d like to rewrite that famous line.

And I’m proud to be an American, where at least I know I’m as free as 46% of the rest of the planet.

Now, I know some of the naysayers will immediately say, “Well we’re MORE FREE than they are!” Okay. Fine Jimbob. Just how free are we these days? Well, George Carlin – one of my favorites – knew the answer better than anyone (NSFW – profanity).

The table is tilted folks. The game is rigged. And nobody seems to notice, nobody seems to care. Good, honest, hardworking people – white collar, blue collar – doesn’t matter what color shirt you have on. Good, honest, hardworking people… continue to elect these rich ********ers that don’t give a **** about them… It’s called the American Dream… because you have to be asleep to believe it.

Maybe it’s time we all woke up a little.

Cheers,

TP

The “Viral” Virus

Part I: The Viral Virus

Part II: Thank you, sir. May I have another?

Part III: Hate Crimes, or Just Haters?

I decided to kick this thing off by digging something out of my palm. What was it? Oh, just my face any time I open Facebook. What am I talking about? The things we, as pseudo-intellectual beings, “share” to support our points of view on various initiatives, causes, politicians, etc.. etc.. etc. Let’s take a look at a couple, courtesy of Occupy Democrats. I like to pick on “OD” quite a bit. Why? Well, in a world of good, honest people just trying to make the best decisions possible for their communities and country, OD is a cornucopia of asinine and baseless information whose only objective seems to be that I eventually leave a nose-shaped bruise in my hand. Let’s take a gander at some of their material.

13599988_1178236235602762_1993769324636685311_n

This is why they say black lives matter? Oh. I thought it was why they say that black and white math matters. Before I even dig into the numbers, I want to point out that the source used by OD is ProPublica. Why is that important? Well, ProPublica is an independent journalism site. They aren’t the Bureau of Justice Statistics. So, right off the bat, we can confirm that OD doesn’t really care about the source of their information. They care about the twisted message they can deliver with it.

In the interest of good faith, I’m going to break down the actual numbers. Unlike OD, I actually got my information here, from the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

victimsandoffendersbydemographic

Note: The image above does not separate the Hispanic population from the white population.

The above table represents homicides only, but I’m going to operate under the assumption that homicide rates correlate very closely to violent crime rates, and therefore, encounters with police. If we compare the white to black rate of offenders per 100,000 citizens, you will see that while there are 4.5 white offenders per 100,000 white individuals, there are 34.4 black offenders per 100,000 black offenders. Therefore, black individuals commit homicides at nearly 800% the rate of white individuals, per capita. Despite the fact that black people only account for 12.6% of the population, they commit over half of all homicides. Let’s make the reasonable assumption that if black individuals commit homicides at nearly 800% the rate of white individuals, they likely encounter the police at an equally high rate.

One would think that if black people have such an alarmingly high rate of violent criminals, wouldn’t they also have an alarmingly high rate of deaths by police, as Occupy Democrats suggests? Actually, they don’t. Now, I know what you’re thinking, “Surely he’s not going to say that in spite of producing over half of all violent criminals, more white people are shot, is he?” Well… here’s some data showing police killings by race for 2016, courtesy of The Washington Post (a relatively liberal source in itself).

Infographic: Breakdown of U.S. citizens killed by police in 2016 | Statista

As you can see, despite over 50% of homicides being carried out by black criminals, they represent only 24% of the individuals killed by police. The 2010 census reported a black population of 37,685,848. If we extrapolate the 123 black individuals killed by police to a full-year expectation of 246, that is still only computes to 6.52 deaths by police per million black citizens. That’s a little different from the 31.17 reported by OD, but they don’t care.

But what about the white people? Let’s do the same thing. Extrapolating 238 out to a full year total gives us a grand total of 476 dead white people killed by police. And their population per the 2010 census? 196,817,552. That’s 2.42 deaths by police per million white citizens. Instead of the 3,000% difference reported by Occupy Democrats, it’s actually only 300%. If we include Hispanics in the white category, it’s 2.56 deaths by police per million Hispanic and white citizens combined. Despite the fact that black people commit violent crimes at 800% the rate of White and Hispanics combined, they are only killed by police at 255% of the rate of White and Hispanic criminals combined.

Before continuing, I want to make sure it’s known that I’m not denying a police brutality problem in this country. The US seems to enjoy an unhealthily-militarized police force for reasons I do not fully comprehend, and we seem to justify a beatdown from the local lawman more often than we should. That said, Occupy Democrats would have us believe only that police brutality is a much more severe issue if you’re a person of color, but as you can see, there is absolutely no racial disparity, at all. The BLM narrative is simply a fraud.

That’s enough debunking for now. I want to discuss what concerns me even more than the lies fed to millions of social media users thanks to the writers of Occupy Democrats whose shoes I’d hate to be wearing on Judgment Day. What truly scares me is the lack of effort required for people to believe that the numbers these jokers report are actually true.  Take a look at this study by Columbia University and understand why I call this the “viral” virus:

6 in 10 of you will share this link without reading it, a new, depressing study says

Per the Post, this conclusion was drawn:

59 percent of links shared on social media have never actually been clicked: In other words, most people appear to retweet news without ever reading it.

Ladies and gents, if we’re ever going to see our society progress, we have to stop seeing our intellect regress. If you’ve made it this far, then I applaud you, you’re part of the solution. Now share this page, and let’s see who else can join in. After all, you’re only six degrees of separation away from the rest of the world.

Cheers,

TP

Part II: Thank you, sir. May I have another?

Part III: Hate Crimes, or Just Haters?