I never felt "panicky" until now.

 Add on a little depressed as well.

I'm about to incur 45K in student debt for a damn Masters in Social Work. Fuck this shit.

Should higher education be free? Fuck no. Should the masters level be free? Fuck no. But G_d dammit why the fuck do a majority of institutions charge so much for a degree in a sector that pays crap? You'll be lucky to have a 50K yearly income as opposed to 30-40K yearly income.

A MSW ROI is the complete opposite when compared to an MBA. In fact, I bet one can do more effective good with an MBA than with a MSW. I'll most likely be the only conservative in my cohort and the one who says, "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." I'm entering leftist territory here. The academic belly of the beast.

I mean, if I become a social worker how the heck I'm gonna live? How the heck am I gonna buy a wedding ring for my future wife, let alone afford the church ceremony & reception, and raise a family? If I find a suitable wife I can't be "the man" making a poultry 30-40K salary. Fuck no. It's ironic, really, since social workers no doubt give direct service to those on welfare (if you're in child/family specialty) and have no conscious problem suggesting abortion clinics. Some welfare recipients also have more babies to get more welfare checks. And I can't even start my own family because I'll be employed by a shitty sector with shitty pay with leftist retards and the "governing" body that is the CWRE? Everything is backwards here. Social workers might as well get on welfare and join the people they try to help.

Fuck the pathetic pay.
Fuck social work being bloated.
Fuck the welfare queens.
Fuck the anti-"pull yourself up by your bootstraps" people.

All of a sudden an MBA from Cornell's Johnson program looks like gold. Maybe greed is good. You have a good chance of landing a low six figure salary if you make good, that's why. Add on promotions that pay (unlike social work) and versatility of the degree. I suppose the downside is instead of being surrounded by idiots who are leftist retards you're surrounded by assholes who think they're G_d. Meh. At least the ROI gets you starry eyed and say you're a graduate from a top program. In social work it doesn't actually matter where you get your degree from, so paying for a UPenn MSW is messed up. It's a little over 40K a year. Their MSW is a two yr program if you are a full-time student. At the end, for that Ivy pedigree, you'll be over 80K in debt working for half of that once you're in the work force.

What the fuck are UPenn MSW student paying for? I'll tell you: The name. They're going to get the same pay and the same jobs as a MSW student in the New Mexico State program.

Note: I need find a new job and drop out of this program ASAP. When I told my parents that I got accepted into the program they gave no shits. I knew I should've went big and applied for T-25 MBA. But no - I had to go the fucking social work route. I'll be swamped by do-gooders who don't know how the world work while they stupidly say, "We help people!" Yea, so do Wal-mart associates who help stock the shelves. 

CA raises minimum wage to $15.

They're getting what they want. By "they" I'm referring to the "living wage" people. If you do the math for a full-time line-cook at a dinner in CA, working 40 hrs a week, he'll be making $2, 400 a month. If he works for 12 months straight he's before taxes income is $28, 800.

Non-profits who mostly hire people who are college graduates don't get paid much - I've read some are earning anywhere between $30-35K a year. That's the range for a starting position. You're lucky if you're earning $45K within five years.

Now I'm no economic whiz, but that reality sort of leaves me a little bitter. A college graduate wanting to dedicate his life to public service is earning $10K above the official USA poverty line. A line-cook is $2K just underneath him. The salt in the wound part, say for social workers who belong to CSWE, is that CSWE isn't known to advocate for a higher wage for social workers -- a group almost uniformly supporting the "living wage" concept. There is a common rhetoric from social workers to say that they do so much for people yet their pay is diddly squat for a working professional. Now that's a tough pill to swallow. Adding more insult to the injury, many who advocate for a "living wage" are mostly talking about the McDonald's cashier, the Wal-mart greeter and the line-cook. They aren't including the social worker or the non-profit employee.

 The disastrous march towards "equality" and "fairness" is leaving a dusty road filled with irony.  I bet a decade from now the minimum wage will be pushed towards $20. Why even attend university then? I suppose the great joke about this is is that any potential future Leftist would be spared the debt, the four years of "enlightenment" and the posturing of other bushy-tailed 17-18 yr olds. They might get a job as a line-cook and add something to society, because, truth be told, I am fan of dinners. More line-cooks, longer hours,  more food for me! I suppose I can rationalize it as a fair exchange.

New link added.

The (infamous) John McAdam's blog, Marquette Warrior.

You can google the man and how he became infamous. Some say he's a bully. Some say that his right to free speech is/was being violated. Some say that "free speech doesn't mean immunity to the consequences (unless you're a leftist)." Whatever. I haven't really formed my opinion on the matter. What I have formed is that I like his blog. Many of the topics he writes about are the topics that bounce through my head when it comes to politics and modernity.

Calm the f_ck down you d_ck.

Jenna A. Robinson, a contributor over at The John William Pope Center for Higher Education Policy, or simply known as The Pope Center, wrote an article entitled "Five Ways You Can Improve Higher Education." It's an interesting read.

1. Stop giving money to your alma mater—and tell them why!
If you send money in response to annual appeals, it allows university administrators to spend that money on whatever they choose: instruction, research, athletics, centers, campus speakers, or even administration. The money may support programs or ideas with which you don’t agree, such as a diversity center, social justice courses, or “student life” activities that you might not consider very wholesome.

Or your donation might simply fund waste. For example, take a look at pass-through rates for campus giving. At one school in the UNC system, 71 percent of all donations fund the campus giving office. If you considered donating to a charity, you would never choose one with that kind of wasteful spending. You should apply the same standards when giving to a university.

If you do give to your alma mater and try to direct your gift to a particular cause, the university may not abide by your wishes. Universities have a poor track record of respecting donor intent.

Two examples illustrate this. In 1992, Mattie Kelly gave her 13-acre waterfront homestead to Okaloosa-Walton Community College in Destin, Florida. Kelly expected the land to be the home of a cultural and environmental institute. Instead, the college sold the land to a housing developer. Also, in 2006, Tulane University eliminated its women’s affiliate, Newcomb College, and took over Newcomb’s endowment. Josephine Louise Newcomb, who donated $3 million to the women’s college more than 100 years ago, expected her money to be used for a women’s college. Her heirs sued Tulane, but lost in state court.

2. Support a school that takes no federal money.
Several schools take no money from the federal government. That means they accept no grants, no student loans, no funding whatsoever from Uncle Sam. You’ve probably heard of Hillsdale College and Grove City College, but Pensacola Christian College, Patrick Henry College, Christendom College, New Saint Andrews College, and Wyoming Catholic also operate independently.

This allows the schools to spend their money on instruction instead of administration. (Federal compliance costs thousands of dollars per student, per year.) It also allows schools to ignore federal mandates that run counter to both good practices and traditional values. (They can ignore the “Dear Colleague” letter, for example, which demands that universities trample the due process of students accused of sexual assault.)
You can support a school like Hillsdale in two ways—either send them a check or encourage your children, grandchildren, and friends to attend.

3. Support a center or institute that focuses on ideas that are important to you.
Around the country, there are many privately funded academic centers that preserve and promote the knowledge and perspectives that are disappearing from the academy, with an emphasis on undergraduate education. The Pope Center’s director of state policy analysis wrote a report on the topic early last year called “Renewal in the University.”

Many of these academic centers engage in the same type of work that occurs across the broader university, but without the activist leanings that are present in so many schools today. They: Engage in research; sponsor speakers and debate series; support undergraduate fellowships and services; distribute books; partner with local communities; and (of course) offer classes to undergraduate and graduate students.

4. If you are an employer or hiring manager, stop insisting on a degree when making hiring decisions.
Here’s why: Many students don’t actually learn much. In their 2011 book Academically Adrift, authors Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa found, “with a large sample of more than 2,300 students, we observe no statistically significant gains [after two years] in critical thinking, complex reasoning and writing skills for at least 45 percent of the students in our study.”

Executives who employ recent college graduates can confirm that finding. In a 2014 poll by Hart Research Associates, business leaders said that many new graduates are not “well-prepared” for the workforce. The poll results revealed that many employers believe that the majority of graduates are deficient in terms of their ethical judgment and decision-making, oral communication, statistics skills, critical thinking, and creativity.
Instead of assuming that a B.A. or B.S. is a guarantee of competence, ask for evidence of a person’s grit, intelligence, and work ethic. For example, ask for a portfolio; carefully read the cover letter; and get recommendations from Scout Masters, youth group leaders, or former bosses. Yes, as an employer, the hiring process will be a little more onerous, but you’ll end up with employees who are more likely to have proven worth instead of just a piece of paper.

5. Stop relying on U.S. News and World Report to evaluate colleges and universities. 
This resource bases its ratings on measures that don’t actually affect student learning. Instead it includes the opinions of administrators at peer institutions; how well faculty are paid; and how selective the student body is. That last measure, of course, invites universities to game the system. They issue invitations to apply to far more students than they can actually admit, artificially inflating their “selectivity” numbers.

Other resources are much more helpful for students and parents, including the Intercollegiate Studies Institute’s Choosing the Right College, FIRE’s free speech ratings, and the Brookings Institute’s new value-added assessment of graduate salaries.
You can also take a look at ACTA’s “What Will They Learn” website, which assesses universities’ general education curricula. It grades universities from “A” to “F” based on whether students are required to take core courses like math, science, literature, and American history.

Citizens, parents, and students can make a difference to the future of higher education. Together, you can change the market with your actions and contributions.

 I think all are decent tactics, especially the last one.

Apparently one poster, "DrOfNothing" (an apt name), thought it was nonsense and went on a pathetic tirade.

Absolutely ridiculous and irresponsible suggestions on all fronts. How can a center that repeatedly bemoans ideology in education so recklessly advocate measures that are purely ideological? This is the absolute height of hypocrisy, and truly reveals the Pope Center's tagline of "pursuing excellent in higher education" for the duplicitous double-speak that it is.

1.) Stop giving money to your alma mater—and tell them why!
- Of course, because every private individual in an absolute _expert_ on higher education infrastructure. Don't bother looking into the larger picture of their finances, which would reveal that the overwhelming majority of a university's expenditure is on teaching and research. Instead, trust us, the Pope Center, when we tell you that it all goes to fat-cat administrators, Title IX regulations, and Liberal professors!!!

2.) Support a school that takes no federal money.
- Why give money to your struggling local university when you can give it to a god-fearing Christian school instead? After all, this country was founded on the principle of promoting Christian ideology, especially in governance . . . oh, wait, wasn't there some bit about separation of church and state? Never mind, just right a check for some bible college in Florida. Or better yet, send your bright and inquisitive teenagers there. I can just imagine the conversation: "well, Bobby, we know you got into UNC-Chapel Hill, but we're going to insist you attend Hillsdale College instead. It may not have anywhere near the teaching quality and the diploma might barely be worth the paper it's printed on, but gosh darn it, they're good Conservatives and have notable alumni such as Arizona Cardinals offensive tackle Jared Veldheer!" Or you could send them to Biola University. No doubt the evangelicals will encourage their rational inquiry into science and religion! Onward Christian donors!!!
3.) Support a center or institute that focuses on ideas that are important to you.
- Yeah, to hell with the priorities that experts in the fields of science, medicine, technology, law, the humanities and social sciences set. You have a BA, you read Pope Center articles, YOU are the expert. You should only fund ideas you agree with--that way, no one can ever tell you that you're wrong! What better way to cultivate free speech and intellectual freedom than defunding anything that disagrees with our ideology? That's how we at the Pope Center work, whooppee!

4.) If you are an employer or hiring manager, stop insisting on a degree when making hiring decisions.
- Seriously, who needs a college degree? Education is _obviously_ just a Liberal conspiracy, and all that evidence that college degrees invariably lead to higher earnings and a better lifestyle is just propaganda. What you really need to do is encourage narrow-mindedness and ignorance, and focus on the only thing that matters in this world--money! We certainly didn't look for any flimsy "qualifications" when we built our staff at the Pope Center. As long as they had "grit," that was enough for us. All the degrees we hold are just for wall decoration, and none of them have anything to do with educational policy anyway.

5.) Stop relying on U.S. News and World Report to evaluate colleges and universities.
- Absolutely, you shouldn't trust the globally-recognized system of assessing the quality and prestige of a university. You can also ignore all those so-called "scientific" rankings by QS, ARWU, and Times Higher Education. Algorithms are for suckers. Forget that they've all been doing this for decades, and that employers read them, professors respect them, and they've become an essential metric of educational prestige throughout the world. Instead, you should rely on these niche rankings put together by the completely biased groups that agree with our ideology. Spurn Georgetown University (#21 nationwide, and top 100 in the World) and shun the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (#59 in the world, 23 Nobel Prizes to its name, and a leading center in the development of artificial intelligence, cybernetics and robotics). FIRE don't like 'em! Instead, you should go to Mississippi State University, the center of agricultural and veterinary science in the rebel state. Go Bulldawgs, woof, woof!!!

And, as further incentive, the first 10 subscribers to this whacked-out agenda get a free "Vote Drumpf" baseball cap and a copy of Allan Bloom's "Closing of the American Mind."

It's clear this poster is a Grade A douchebag (he has had his say on numerous Pope Center articles). The guy is the typical Leftist, so enraged by a thoughtful alternatives - though flawed, that he just throws cliches and assumptions like most Leftists do when criticizing a work that does not embrace the given the common belief amongst the average American on higher education. Let me point out his #5. Even students, parents and academic counselors are realizing that solely focusing on US News rankings is a flawed way of going about selecting a university (collegeconfidential,com). Obviously this poster takes the guide for granted and doesn't question it. All of Robinson's reasons for not relying on US News rankings have been already been supported by even the most college crazed parents and counselors.

The man has issues. In recent comments on other articles he has made sharp tones towards "market based" and "consumer students." I suppose that he is not for the research oriented universities (state) as opposed to ones that mainly focus on the students (hence why he holds the US News rankings in high regard) like liberal arts schools and privates like the Ivies.

But the poster was all too friendly on an article where the writer said she was attaining her Maters in History for the sake of learning. Oh he was gushing and offering his kind words and advice!

He's curious because he doesn't think what they said was anything controversial  (even though youtube, Campus Fix and Minding the Campus have proven professors are arrogant bastards). Jane S. Shaw politely declined his request.

UPDATE: This cunt bag has replied to my posts. I wonder if I should fully engage.

UPDATE: I have decided to become the "goon," the enforcer, between us. I'm just going to troll his posts on The Pope Center. My comments may be deleted - I might even get banned (ban #4 for me, if so), but I'll make clear that, without much bias, that he's a straight-up tool which is something, if we ever meet in real life, I'll say straight to his face.

Speaking of being banned, I've been banned from the following sites;

Dappered.com
The Hollywood Reporter
Red State

Talking to a Swede about politics, let alone meritocracy.

There is no point, really. They're secular as can be and so far left that it ain't funny. In fact, their country is put on the pedestal by the American Left. That's one sign that tells you what you're dealing with.

The funnies.

If you upload a video saying that men who vote for Bernie Sanders are "not real men" be prepared for some butt hurt from his supporters.

Now, can "real men" vote for Sanders? Yes. They're just politically confused and historically igorant of socialism, but Kirchoff does have a point. Most of the males I saw at my Sanders rally experience were young, probably smoke pot besides cigarettes, and generally wet themselves when Sanders wants to take down the billionaires. There's a particular subset of Sanders supporters that I'd definitely classify as "pussy" if not arrogant towards "men stuff." Of course, it would be fair to say that there's a particular subset of Trump supporters that are indeed racist, but I don't sense that that subset is as nearly as big as the MSM and The Left makes it out to be. But Limp Wristed Sanders supporters who drives a Prius for ethical/moral reason for the environment while getting high on 420? Probably more than 40%.

New link added

The Occidental Observer.

I know there's a description on top of the masthead that says, "White Identity, Interests and Culture." That doesn't really bother me. I don't believe Kevin MacDonald, the editor, is a racist or anything like that. You can say that he's part of the alt-right white nationalist sect, and I believe that's sorta fair, but like I said I don't get any malicious vibes from the articles (and the man) so far. The site is said to be anti-Semitic and, as I've read, other scholars - like Jeff Lipke and Jared Taylor, I can't say I fully agree with that accusation. It's critic of the Jews who are in power because it sees such a demographic as controlling the media and academia.

The reason I like OC because it does a fine job at putting in perspective ethnic and political networking. It happens. My family is guilty of it, at least my mom is, though I will admit what my mom has done is nowhere close to what politicians, or even Jews, have done. My mother got an interview for a family friend's daughter and she bombed it. The interviewer told my mom that her body language was horrible - slouched in the seat, many "Yea"s and a nonchalant attitude about the process. She didn't get the job. But hey, my mom get her an interview. The reason I separate my mom's efforts is because ascent to the higher positions in her field is mainly due to experience. I sense that the coveted shadow internship is the only help she'll give to that one family friend. The rest is up to her if she wants a job and to advance in the field.

But back to OC. It's not Stormfront. It's not. I view OC as an intelligent and respective critical response certain issues like political incest that no doubt happens in American politics. My own state does it, both on the city council level and state level. The residents of the state are well aware of it, not just me. 

Note: It's seems like American Clarity is no longer in existence - it's link leads to an expired domain. Shame, really. AC is now removed from the list.

God's Not Dead: Real Life

You can't make this stuff up.

“Don’t take this class if you believe the Bible is inspired or infallible.”

That was how a professor at UC Berkeley had launched his “Jewish Civilization I: The Biblical Period” course, a class in which a stunned doctoral student David Kurz sat.

“This stuff isn’t taught in synagogues or churches because they don’t want to piss people off,” the professor had continued. “… Anyone can take this class, as long as you play by the rules of the game. … If you disagree with the approach we use, that’s an F.”

Kurz — who earned his bachelor’s degree in ecology and evolutionary biology from Princeton University and master’s degree in biological science from the University of Cambridge — was shocked at the professor’s declaration.

Kurz decided to challenge the professor:

I politely peppered my professor with questions to try to better understand his intellectual paradigm. Just to be clear, there is a correct answer you want us to accept, I asked. “Correct.” What about rigorous biblical scholarship claiming, for instance, that Moses did, in fact, write the vast majority of the Pentateuch? “That doesn’t exist.” It does, I argued. “I don’t want people who are going to disagree with me all semester,” he repeated. I thought a university was an environment in which multiple viewpoints and debates were encouraged, I countered. “Not in this classroom” came the maddeningly smug response.

After the class, I was left shaking my head, a mixture of indignation, sadness, confusion and frustration exploding inside me. As I packed up my things, other students came over to me and thanked me for my questions, explaining that they, too, were upset about the professor’s overly harsh attitude toward religion and religious students. We all felt the arrogance of the professor and the injustice of the situation, but did not know what to do about it.

And the comment box ... Classic. Atheists found their way to the article and act as typical Gnus that they are.

I also want to note that CollegeFix.com, depending on the article's topic, tends to get its typical posts from opposing groups e.g. God's Not Dead gets atheists and such groups usually play the standard cards of which I'm all too fluent it.

There are have been numerous accusations that the stories on CollegeFix.com are exaggerated (see: Steven Glick story, David Kurz story) and many who believe that the atmosphere once inside the classrooms on the majority of campuses, whether they be private or public institutions of higher learning, is not liberal -- many believe that it's a neutral atmosphere. Clearly, as sites like CollegeFix.com and Mind the Campus prove otherwise. What's interesting about those who say that both Glick and Kurz are lying is that both have written articles about their respective incidents in their school newspaper, detailing what has happened to them (unlike pieces written in Yale Daily News about racism and sexism without actually giving clear examples). The notion that maybe misunderstanding in on the students part is reasonable, but as I think about it I do not believe that is necessarily so. I am convince that what both Glick and Kurz write about is fairly accurate on how the event(s) took place. If they were indeed lying then the professors that they accuse would have called them out on being liars. So far they have not issued a statement to clear things up.

A different subject for a change.

Sorta.

If were to become POTUS I'd make all patriotic pins made in the U.S.A., creating more manufacturing jobs and eliminating our dependence in pin making on China and Mexico.

Yep. That's my presidential promise.

Fickle. Sensitive.

That's what I think of the people who are so disappointed with Ted Cruz when he said that Donald Trump helped create the atmosphere that happened at his Chicago rally. I'm also a little disturbed by people who said Trump had it coming (and yes, it seems like Trump lied - Chicago policemen have denied that he consulted them when cancelling the event, same with STL policemen).

There are two issues I have with the anti-Cruz and anti-Trump camps in this scenario. The first being those that support Cruz's words (anti-Trump people) by practicing the really sloppy and pathetic logic of "I'm free to attend a rally but that freedom doesn't mean I'm 'free' of not being attacked." What kind of stupid plebeian logic is that? The second are the fickle and sensitive kind (anti-Cruz people) who now resort to "Cruz is nothing to me" after he sorta threw Trump under the bus that Friday night. They then complain his whole support of the Constitution is now a farce. Puh-lease.

Look, Cruz and Trump are rivals. It's understandable why Cruz said what he said (even though I somewhat disagree). He's condemning Trump for his rude comments and arrogant words towards minorities and women in order to make himself look like the better person. Does that make me think less of him? Not really. I think it's a little sloppy thinking, less so than "I'm free to attend but not free to not get punched in the face."

Yes, Cruz should've said that the protesters were out-of-line. They were indeed rude and arrogant, being hypocritical towards Trump's own rudeness and arrogance. He should've called them fascists and punks. Whether or not Trump "deserved" his rally to be treated like that is neither here nor there; the protesters helped destroy free speech that night because they failed to "peaceably assemble." They assembled, they infiltrated the auditorium and then caused chaos.

I side with the people where there to hear Trump speak. They have every right to become angry, and in my eyes the people who acted like punks towards the supporters are closer to deserving spit and kicks. I don't like bullies, especially when they're in the form of The Left. You didn't see the KKK at Obama's 2012 rallies. You didn't see people on The Right constantly interrupting Obama's speeches when he ran for a second term.

The victims of that night weren't the protesters (the protesters are cowards and are overreacting, and I say that as a person who isn't white) or Trump. It was free speech, the city of Chicago and the people who came peacefully to hear Trump's words. I give no sympathy to Trump because I believe he bailed out of concern for his own safety, not the safety of the people who supported him, none to Cruz and absolutely no sympathy to the protesters.

Look to Illinois.

A QZ article notes that if political observers want to get an idea of the country's next president, look to Illinois. My comments are added below with emphasis in bold.

Critics say the US presidential primary system is disproportionately influenced by early voting contests in Iowa and New Hampshire.

The influence wielded by these races is little more than a happy accident. New Hampshire only lost its first-state-to-vote status in 1972, when a lack of hotel rooms in Des Moines forced Iowa officials to move their election to the front of the pack. Nevertheless, Iowans and New Hampshirites often set the tone for the rest of the primaries: elevating winners, bestowing momentum, and winnowing out the weakest campaigns.

This gives a small fraction of the US population an exorbitant amount of power in selecting the future commander-in-chief. And neither of these states are particularly reflective of the national electorate, socially or economically.

I believe this is the most insightful paragraph in the entire article.

But if you want a real understanding of what America likes in a president, look beyond Iowa and New Hampshire to the great state of Illinois.

Along with California and New York, Illinois almost always casts its 21 electoral votes for the Democratic candidate in general elections. That said, internally, Illinois is quite diverse. It recently elected a Republican governor, boasts one of the country’s most notable centrist Republican senators, and its state legislature bursts with conservative lawmakers—representing a constituency anchored in the agricultural south; far from bustling, blue Chicago.

Illinoisans have also selected the eventual party nominees every election year since 1988, when Democrats opted for their congressman, Paul Simon, over Massachusetts governor Michael Dukakis.

Illinois is also a microcosm of the nation. Quartz looked at the demographic data for all 50 US states and compared them to national averages. Illinois has by far the most in common with the country at large, according to 2014 census data:

Demographic data	US	IL
Median age (years)	37.4	37
% pop. between 20 and 34 years	20.6	20.7
% pop. aged 65+	13.7	13.2
% pop. that is female	50.8	50.9
Average household size	2.63 people	2.63 people
% men currently married	50.2	49.9
% women currently married	46.7	46.2
% families w/ children under 18	29.2	29.5
% pop. that are veterans	8.7	7.1
% pop. w/ a disability	12.3	10.6
% pop. that is foreign born	13.10	13.95
% pop. that speaks English at home	79.1	77.5
% pop. that is white	73.8	72.5
% pop. that is black	12.6	14.4
% pop. that is Hispanic/Latino	16.9	16.3
% pop. that is Asian	5	4.9
% pop. that is Native American	0.8	0.2
% pop. that IDs as “other race”	4.7	5.8
% pop. that is mixed-race	2.9	2.2
Unemployment rate	5.8	6.6
% workers employed by gov.	14.6	12.8
% workers in agriculture/nat. resources	2	1.1
Median household income	$53,482	$57,166
% households receiving Social Security	29.3	27
% households receiving food stamps/SNAP	13	12.5
% pop. health-insured	85.8	87.7
% pop. below poverty line	15.6	14.4
Median home value	$175,700	$175,500
Median gross apartment rent/month	$920	$903
% pop. w/ at least a BA	18.3	12.5
% pop. attending religious services weekly*	36	34

I will admit, how close these numbers are is rather fascinating if not a little creepy. I consider myself an amateur sociologist, and damn, this is some great social data.

Fewer Illinoisans receive Social Security and food stamp/SNAP benefits than the average American, and a smaller proportion live under the poverty line. That said, the unemployment rate is almost a full percentage point higher than the national average.

Points of particularly significant similarity include the median age, and percentages of adults aged between 20 and 34 years (major Bernie Sanders supporters) and 65 or older (Hillary Clinton’s camp). It’s also worth noting how startlingly parallel the racial demographics break down—Illinois’s African-American, Latino, Asian-American, and other minority communities are quite proportionate to their numbers nationwide.

In many ways, Illinois is a miniature version of America. A perfect RINO in Senator Kirk. Machine Politics. A bustling, sorta-Alpha city in Chicago, with small towns, farmland and small cities once you exit Chicagoland where religion is more important than said area, and where hunting game, guns and the American flag are done, carried and waved with support and reverence. Average state universities save for its flagship; top privates in U of C and Northwestern, with Notre Dame a stone throw away in South Bend, Indiana. Solid LACs as well. The state is also more interested in professional sports, with high school basketball rivaling Indiana's Hoosier passion. Out of all the cities, I do find Chicago a bit more libertarian than say NYC, LA and SF and bit more saner when it comes to liberalism (SF in just stupid liberal; NYC is corporate liberal; LA is debauch liberal). In terms of Seattle & Portland's coffee, Chicago has a growing scene of micro-breweries. Also Chicago is more of a tea city than a coffee city.

I'll also add that the electorate can be rather stupid, constantly voting (D) while complaining about political corruption. Every now and then they might get fed up enough, get some oxygen to their brain, and vote for someone not in the political system -- even if he's a white multi-millionaire in Bruce Rauner (a calmer, more cordial version of The Donald?). But vote for an actual conservative as Junior Senator? Leave that to Big 'Ol Texas. Illinois loves their RINOs for their upper chamber.

Protest to Power

As I write this, Missouri and Illinois are on their last legs for precinct reporting. In Missouri it's truly down to the wire for Cruz who is less than a percent from Trump's lead. In Chicago, Sanders has gained a sizeable since the start of today's voting. He has 48% of the votes while Clinton has approaching 51%. I find the latter group, Sanders and Clinton, to be a far more interesting battle.

Here's why. As the Salon article states -

Bernie Sanders’s political revolution blew into Chicago last week and smacked its embattled mayor upside the head. “I want to thank Rahm Emanuel for not endorsing me,” Sanders deadpanned at a rally outside the city on Friday, the same day that a huge crowd of activists shut down a Donald Trump event.

“I don’t want his endorsement!” Sanders told the crowd of supporters. “I don’t want the endorsement of a mayor who is shutting down school after school and firing teachers.”

In the Sander's rally I went to the "DNC establishment" is not well-liked by Sanders; he clearly threw Mayor Emmanuel under the bus, and those who supported him at the rally gave a good cheer. Chicago is the epitome of DNC establishment, afterall the city gave the country Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Let's not forget the infamous Daleys and the current mayor, Rahm Emmanuel. I'd even go and say that Chicago's politics is currently running this country aka machine politics.

As the article's headline, "The revolution vs. Rahm Emanuel: Why tomorrow’s Illinois primary could remake Chicago politic" a win for Sanders can send a clear message to Chicago's DNC party: Stop f_cking around with the CPD (Chicago Police Department). Sanders is the DNC as Trump is to the GOP (I'll add in Cruz as well). 

The slow downfall of Mayor Emmanuel is mainly due his handling of LaQuan McDonald's death. It seems as the days go by that Mayor Emmanuel helped protect the Chicago Police officer who shot him to death. With Ferguson, Baltimore and campus chaos like Yale's Halloween Costume Fiasco the BLM movement are yearning for heads to roll. It doesn't matter if it's President Obama's best buddy. 

Of course Jesus Garcia is hoping on the bandwagon to help get Mayor Emmanuel out of office so he can become mayor.

“It looks like the race has tightened up in Illinois,” chuckled Cook County Commissioner Jesús “Chuy” García, a progressive who last year failed to beat Emanuel after pushing him into the first runoff vote since Chicago switched to a nonpartisan system in 1995. “The impossible seems to be coming to true.”

The article goes on (bold mine)-

 Across the country, Sanders and Hillary Clinton have fought to attract young black voters amidst a year of raucous protests against police violence. Despite Clinton’s much-maligned history with tough-on-crime measures, she has managed to win overwhelming majorities in the South. But in Michigan, Sanders greatly improved his performance with black voters, fighting Clinton to a draw amongst those under 40. Last week, his campaign rolled out three new ads, featuring García’s endorsement, hammering Emanuel’s education policies, and highlighting his role in the city’s civil rights movement. In Chicago, Clinton’s allegiance with the mayor has provided Sanders with an unparalleled opportunity to attack 21st-century Clintonism as business-as-usual hostility toward the poor and people of color.

. . . .

The big local race is the Democratic primary for state’s attorney. Like most big city prosecutors, Alvarez had provoked little opposition while running an office soft on police misconduct and mercilessly bent on incarceration in a city where rampant gun violence often dominates criminal justice debates. But that all changed in November, when a video was released showing Police Officer Jason Van Dyke shoot Laquan McDonald, a black 17-year-old, 16 times as he walked away. It was only then, hours before the video’s release, that Alvarez charged Van Dyke with murder. Throngs of protesters took to the streets, demanding that Alvarez and Mayor Emanuel resign.
“It’s become primarily a referendum about Alvarez’s tenure in office and particularly her handing of police abuse cases,” says Dick Simpson, a professor of political science at the University of Illinois at Chicago. “And it’s quite clear that a majority of voters do not approve of her performance.”

Alvarez’s biggest threat is Kim Foxx, a former prosecutor who grew up in poverty, including years in the now demolished Cabrini-Green projects. Foxx pledges to crack down on police misconduct and get smart on crime by keeping low-level offenders out of the system. Donna More, a resident of wealthy Lincoln Park who has worked as a prosecutor and lawyer for casino companies, could play spoiler. She’s very unlikely to win, but hundreds of thousands of dollars in family money have put her ads on TV.

Both the Foxx and Sanders campaigns are testing the strength of a growing rainbow coalition on the city’s left, a coalition that brought Mayor Harold Washington to power in 1983 and then fell apart under Richard M. Daley. The public schools movement, and now the anti-police brutality campaign, has prompted its reemergence. Foxx, who is black, must win over Latino and white voters to win. Sanders must expand his appeal to blacks and Latinos. A win by either, and especially a win by both, would signal a sea change in local politics and bad news for Mayor Emanuel.

Last year, García was not the left’s first-choice candidate for mayor. Just as Sanders stepped forward after Senator Elizabeth Warren demurred, García announced his candidacy late in the game after teachers union head Karen Lewis was diagnosed with brain cancer.

Emanuel held him off with help from the city machine, wealthy whites and, critically, majority black wards. García had strong support from the Latino wards, along with white and black progressives. But at the time, widespread anger over school closures failed to translate into a multi-racial front with sufficient strength to win. Though García performed well with black voters, a majority of voters in majority black wards stuck with Emanuel. He benefited from an endorsement from President Obama, for whom he served as chief of staff; from mistrust between Mexican and black communities; and from Emanuel’s charge that his Mexican-American opponent was incompetent to manage the city’s huge financial mess, a charge that García says was geared to appeal to white prejudice.

In the world of García and race baiters, your opponent is appealing to white prejudice because he's concerned that you lack experience in budget/fundraising. Either García is just using the race card for political purposes or he's dead right serious. But not to worry, Mayor Emmanuel totally f_cked up by practicing old-school politics.

The McDonald video, however, has changed a lot. A close relationship with Obama might carry less weight today.

“I think that it’s a process,” says Jitu Brown, a community organizer from the heavily-black South Side neighborhood of Kenwood-Oakland. “There was a multiracial coalition that had worked together for years around education issues that really fortified Chuy’s campaign…What’s coming to the table now that wasn’t really involved in the process before” is “the voice of young black people.”

Foxx will likely receive widespread support in black wards, and Latino support for Alvarez, a Latina, is now in peril. García has endorsed Foxx, and called on Alvarez to resign last year after the McDonald video was released.

“The crisis in the criminal justice system has struck a cord with people, and now it’s not a question of voting for someone from their ethnic group,” says García, even though Alvarez “was the first woman” and “the first Latina” to serve as the county’s top prosecutor. “I have never been as optimistic about a truly diverse coalition coming together than I am now.” Which is not what he expected given his loss last year. “I think there’s a new level of awareness that we need to transcend some of Chicago’s patterns of racial block voting and go beyond those patterns into real multiracial, multiethnic, across faith coalitions.”

People don’t make history in conditions of their choosing, and Tuesday’s vote will show whether the left’s impressive organizing in Chicago has caught up with public sentiment rapidly shifting in its favor. The left in Chicago, as elsewhere, has been rushing to build up the organizing base and institutions necessary to translate public outrage into electoral power. The Chicago vote will likely be much closer than the Clinton camp anticipated. After years of defeat and in the streets, the left is ready to move from protest to power.

BLM movement is about to move from the streets to the political office. Watch out, Chicago. It doesn't get better.

“Win or lose, I think we’re in position now to be able to challenge corporate interests and beat corporate interests” in the coming years, including in the 2019 mayoral election, says Brown. “Win or lose there is a movement brewing. There definitely is.

 Bill Ayers must be patting himself on the back.

Civic lesson: Illinois Primary "Loophole"

Huh?

All 69 of Illinois' delegates to the Republican National Convention will be bound to Presidential Candidates based on the results of today's Illinois Presidential Primary.

• 54 National Convention District delegates are elected in a so-called "Loophole" primary (a Delegate Selection Primary combined with an Advisory "beauty contest" presidential preference vote). Each candidate for [District] delegate ... must file a Statement of Presidential Preference supporting a specific presidential candidate, or a statement that he/she intends to run uncommitted [SBE No. P-1E]. District delegates are directly elected by the voters and individually listed on the ballot with their presidential preferences indicated.
• 12 National Convention Statewide Delegates are bound winner-take-all to the candidate receiving the largest number of votes statewide. These delegates do not appear on the ballot and are chosen at the State Convention.
• The 3 party leaders, the National Committeeman, the National Committeewoman, and the chairman of the Illinois Republican Party, will attend the convention, by virtue of their position, bound winner-take-all to the candidate receiving the largest number of votes statewide.

RedState.com further explains -

So, what about the other 54 delegates? That’s where the “loophole” comes in.

Along with voting for presidential candidates, you also vote for the delegates at the same time. This means you can in theory vote for John Kasich (why) in the primary, but vote for Ted Cruz’s delegates in your Congressional District’s race. This means that it is entirely possible for, say, Donald Trump to win the popular vote, and therefore those 15 delegates, but Cruz could win more Congressional Delegates. Though it is rare for such a thing to happen, that is the hope of several conservatives in Illinois and elsewhere.

 Quadrangle also tries to clear the confusion -

Technically, Illinois holds a "loophole" primary in which district-level delegates will be elected directly on the ballot. And that has candidates packing events and pleading for votes around the region. The remainder of the delegates will be divided proportionately among candidates based on their statewide vote, with 15 percent again the minimum threshold to get delegates.

 Totally understood.

Creatine & weights. And voting.

GYM, LOCKER ROOM, TV WITH CNN ON

Guy A: So where do you live?
Guy B: I live in so-in-so.
Guy A: Really? I past right through when I go to work. Say, what you got there?
Guy B: Oh, just some creatine. LIGHTLY SHAKES DRINK.
Guy A: Yea, I do some creatine after workouts, too.

GUY C WALKS IN, OPENS LOCKER TO FETCH GYM BAG
CNN COMMENTARY ON SUPER TUESDAY IS HEARD

Guy B: So did you vote?
Guy A: Nah. I don't like any of them.
Guy B: Meh.
Guy A: Did you vote?
Guy B: Nah.

BOTH LAUGH

Guy C: You know, you got till 7PM to vote.
Guy A: Yea. Did you vote?
Guy C: Nope.

ALL LAUGH.

Guy C: It doesn't really matter who's elected. It [bills] still needs to go through Congress. PICKS UP BAG. See ya.
Guy B: See ya.
Guy A: Bye.

GUY C EXITS

Voter donations in Chicago and Illinois.

Here's an interesting map measuring who donated to who in the city of Chicago and the state of Illinois.

Key takeaways from the interactive map below include: (my comments added)

* Overall, Chicago is a wildly blue city. There's not a zip code in the city limits where the majority of donors gave to Republicans.

Maybe some should consider taking the red pill for a change.

* Chicagoans disproportionately support Hillary. Cook County donated $3 million to her campaign, more than we gave to all the other presidential candidates combined.

Hillary is a familiar name. Add in Hillary has ties to Chicago and Chicagoland. Add in Obama and her ties with him.

* South Shore and Lincoln Park support Hillary most strongly. South Shore had the highest proportion of donors (65 percent) that gave to Hillary; Lincoln Park gave her the highest proportion of its donations (69 percent).

South Shore is predominately black, and probably the "wealthier" predominately black Chicago neighborhoods. Lincoln Park is mostly college educated residents; YUPPIES if I may say so (and I don't say that in a condescending manner since I could be categorized as one -- and I'd embrace it as well).

* Bernie Sanders dominates Rogers Park. A whopping 74 percent of the donors there gave to his campaign.

Go figure. Rogers Park has a sizeable Jewish population with Evanston, a suburb immediately north of the neighborhood. Evanston is to Rogers Park as Summit is to Garfield Ridge/Archer Heights/West Elsdon/West Lawn/Ashburn.

* Our most generous zip code is the Mag Mile area. 60611, home to Water Tower and most other Mag Mile landmarks, donated $651,175.11 to presidential candidates—more than half of that to Hillary.

Mag Mile is alongside the most wealthiest neighborhoods of Chicago e.g. Gold Coast 

* Cook County supports Marco Rubio more than any other Republican. We gave him $549,690—which is still less than the $604,335 we gave Bernie.

Rubio, besides Kasich, is the most "friendly" (R). Kasich is more moderate than Rubio, though. Many see Trump as a bigot, sexist and xenophobic. Many see Cruz as too outspoken about his faith and is a Constitutionalist aka extreme/radical (in their eyes).

* Basically everyone in Chicagoland hates Donald Trump. Out of roughly 6,000 political donors in Cook County, only 40 gave to Trump, and they only gave him a paltry $18,172.

See: March 11, 2016 Trump protest.

* Even in the zip codes where Trump is most popular, he's not popular at all. In Lemont, the zip code where the highest percentage of donors gave to his campaign, only two people gave Trump money.

I believe Lemont is traditionally (D). It's also a somewhat wealthy suburb. It's the (D) equivalent to Glen Ellyn.

This picture, if you're familiar with the demographics of Chicago and Chicagoland also comes to no surprise. Besides South Shore/Calumet Heights, all mentioned neighborhoods or suburbs are mostly college educated, vote (D), are liberal socially and economically,  and are, you guessed it, white. South Shore/Calumet is predominately black. Do you see a pattern with Clinton voters? I do.

Let's look at Sanders' donations.

As mentioned before, Rogers Park is where the highest Jewish population resides (mostly secular if not Reformed). Oak Park, in terms of ethnic diversity, is the most diverse inner ring suburb of Chicagoland and nationally, I believe, is held as a standard for integration. Oak Park residents tend to be socially liberal and college educated. Lincoln Square/Albany Park, like Rogers Park, has a sizeable Jewish population - mostly orthodox - and a large Hispanic and East Asian population as well. LWS is a huge Hispanic enclave. Evanston, like Rogers Park, has a big Jewish population. Lake View is more bohemian (home to famous Boystown) than Lincoln Park. Edgewater, Uptown and Logan Square are the cheapest North Side neighborhoods for the "urban cool" hipster crowd looking for a not-so sanitized urban experience (Uptown is infamous for its crack whores, prostitution, thievery, while Logan Square gets some of Wicker Park's boho vibe), so Sanders appeal is understandable. They're in love with socialism and think wee is a victim of prejudice.

The southern suburbs, which I'm more familiar with than the north suburbs, turned out be as expected. Rubio faired alright as did Cruz, depending on which suburb you clicked on. The further south you go into the farmland (R)s donations grow.

My Cruz & Sanders rally experience.

Yesterday I attended a rally in the suburbs of Chicago; to be exact I went to Glen Ellyn where a Ted Cruz rally was being held around noon. Last Friday I attended a Sanders rally. First, I will recall Cruz.

The following is what I experienced.

• Cruz likes his rallies, if they aren't held in a convention center, to be rather posh. This past Friday he was a guest speaker at Chicago's Palmer House. Tickets cost $$. I assume most at the Friday non-free event were mostly older than 40 and white. In my case the Glen Ellyn rally was free and was held in a nice wedding banquet hall. 
• Glen Ellyn would be considered an upper-middle suburb. About $90K per household. High $39K per capita.
• When I arrived the line wasn't long, just a bunch of people waiting outside the banquet doors. People were filling out "info cards" and were buying Cruz football jerseys ($45 each as opposed to $50 on his site).
• There was no one telling people to empty out their purses and bags. There was no security vetting the crowd. You simple had to walk in with a smile and present your ticket if you had one.
• People in my age bracket, millennials, weren't smoking like the Bernie Sanders crowd (which I will give a post later this week). They were mostly better dressed than the Sanders millennial crowd.
• Speaking of millennials being present - they were a minority. Most of the crowd that I've observed were on the older side, say 40 and up. To bring in race, many were white; some of Cruz's event helpers were Asian and black who were well-dressed. Very professional.
• As the banquet doors opened and people filed in, I was able to snag a seat near the press stage where the network cameras were to be set-up. I over heard an elderly woman saying to another to not take radiation because it causes cancer. "Don't let them [doctors] talk you into therapy you're unsure of." She was talking about mmograms because her doctor encouraged to take one for her left breast as well as her right. She didn't trust her.
• The event started only three minutes late. Cruz was on stage within 15 minutes after his introduction.
• A local conservative talk show host, Wheaton State Representative Jeanne Ives and a nearby black minister introduced Cruz. The talk show host talked about conservatism and Cruz's consistency as compared to Trump; Ives talked about her military sons and her trusting Cruz on being Commander of Chief (she, like her son Nick, is a West Point grad); the minister also talked about conservatism and religious life. 
• Before Cruz took the stage, the minister led the audience in saying the Pledge of Allegiance and a prayer. A lot of "Amen!"s were shouted when he asked the audience to pray.
• About halfway through Cruz's rally an animal rights activist interrupted. She and her partner in crime were escorted out.
• There was a huge "Trusted" backdrop in the other half of the banquet hall. People where getting their picture taken there afterwards.
• My placard was "stolen" underneath my seat. In quotes because I sorta let them have it - without my permission. The story goes as this: A group of ladies were searching for a placard for another, who was sitting right next to me, who asked where they got theirs. "Oh, there's one underneath that seat." That seat was mine. The entire rally she was waving it. Whatever. It's not like Cruz will get the (R) nomination let alone win Illinois since it'll be Trump for both. I remember getting a Romney placard and we all how 2012 turned out so I was a little hesitant to even actually want one. I gotta learn my lesson.
• I'll mention my peers again, though on a more superficial level. I will admit the females I saw were rather attractive. In fact, (R) women tend to be more attractive than (D) women for whatever reason, or at least the conservative side of campus liberalism and onward. *See: Emily Jashinky, Tomi Lahren, Katie Pavlich. 
 

The entire speech is below.

Onto my Sanders rally held at a suburban high school on the southwest side of Chicago. Summit is a low-middle community.

•  School buses transported people from the Toyota Park stadium to the school since there was limited parking due to the community being located in a rather blue-collar, old semi-urban area.
• During the bus ride a high school student, who later waited in line in front of me, could not believe that his friend of going to the Trump rally at UIC Pavilion. As he said, "He was drawing a stars and stripes on the poster. Then drew an eagle ... I said 'Why? Why support this man?' I couldn't believe it." 
• A fellow bus passenger was talking with a the mentioned student's group of friends, who noted that most of Trump supporters were white versus the ethnic diversity of Sanders supporters. She then proceeded to say that she was part Native American. The woman was white. Elizabeth Warren 2.0?
• Said woman encouraged the teenagers to go on youtube and compare Trump and Hitler speeches. "This is what his supporters are pushing," she proclaimed.
• It was cold, but not too cold outside. I waited for about an 1.5 hours to get into the high school. 
• The buses dropped off its passengers on the corner of Archer & 63rd St. From there we slowly crept forward with Sanders campaign volunteers telling us that no guns, knifes, or any weapons were allowed and to keep our cellphones on (to not be mistaken for a bomb). I said to mom who came with me "It seems like we're entering a CPS," with a chuckle. If Chicago decided to actually incorporate Summit then Argo High School would be a CPS (if you walk one block east towards Harlem Ave. you're in Chicago proper).
• There was a women was with a "Vegan Vote for Sanders" sign. 
• A few teenagers from DuPage County traveled to hear Sanders.
• Many of those who waited in line were youth; mainly 25 and under. I am not sure if many were Argo High School students.
• The people waiting were more ethnically diverse.
• A handful of people smoking. Many were dressed in a very "grunge, alternative" look. 
• The kids in front were rather peppy, excited about the possibility of Sanders becoming the DNC nomination if not POTUS.
• There was a Sanders bus (official) driving down 63rd getting the line cheering every now and then. A lot of honking by cars that passed.
• An anti-Monsanto chalk sign was present. The "Vegans Vote for Sanders" woman took a picture of it. 
• A lot of talk of Trump while waiting by the people behind me. There was no talk about Sanders facing Clinton. 
• When word got out that the Trump rally was cancelled the woman behind me, a UIC alumnus, gleefully expressed her feelings. "Yes! Yes! Get out of Chicago! We don't want you here! Welcome to Chicago and go back to NYC!" Since the story was breaking news to us, we did not know if there was violence - whether it was on Trump supporters or on the protesters. The UIC alumnus said, "Look how peaceful we are here!" (Note: it was the protesters that caused the cancellation and who were rowdy).
• Across the street of the high school there was a VFW where one man was standing holding a 3 Percenter Flag in silence. One crowd member thought aloud that he might be a Trump supporter. There were some vets in line waiting wearing NRA hats so who knows.
• Security was divided into two lines: bags & no bags. This was causing the line and making it look like there were more people than there were in reality.  Once we filed into our own security lines the process was painless.
• The inside track & field house was humid since everyone was conglomerated in one place with very little ventilation of cool air. There was one young woman who had to sit down because of overheating - the firefighters that were on scene assisted her.
• When compared to the people who introduced Cruz (more local), Sanders had more political prominent backers. Jesse Jackson's son and Jesús "Chuy" García - the sole rival for Mayor Rahm Emmanuel in last years mayoral race. 
• Sanders appeals to a much broader audience. Blacks, Hispanics, dope heads, naive college & high school kids, and Muslims. This comes to no surprise because of Sanders' promises e.g. free college & healthcare, "I like everyone," his dislike for billionaires (not just corporate billionaires). He's the new Obama for The Left. Hillary Clinton has become passe. 
• When Sanders mentioned war, Bush and Cheney, a couple of people in the crowd yelled "War criminals!"
• When speaking about "family values," and when he said "family values" he said it in a very mocking way, he mentioned how he supports single motherhood and a woman's "right" to choose, same-sex adoption and how people who didn't support same-sex unions weren't for "family values."
• Sanders made it clear that he'll use executive orders in order to get what he wants if Congress doesn't approve.
• Marijuana was brought up. Sanders said he would take MJ off the FDA paper as an illegal drug - the people really cheered. He said that he would let states decide to whether or not to make it legal. There was little cheer. 
• It comes to little surprise on why Argo High School was chosen: the surrounding community is a gold mine for (D)s and for politicians like Sanders. Near by Bridgeview has one of the largest Muslim communities. Southwest Chicago is home to mostly Hispanics, union workers and families that traditional voted (D). Since it has a large contingency of non-whites Sanders can pull in a lot of votes.

Sanders' full speech is below.

I have realized that Cruz and Sanders on the opposite side of the political spectrum, both in philosophy, upbringing and who supports them in terms of ethnic background.

Today in the newspaper it was said that Hillary Clinton was visiting the West Side of Chicago, speaking to union workers and visiting the Roseland community, a predominately black Chicago neighborhood for last minute votes. Inner city voter outreach is a  huge advantage to the (D)s. I do not remember Romney visiting places like Roseland on his Midwest campaign tour, and nowhere on Cruz's event page does it have inner city visits. Of course this is all a strategic plan: Get the votes where you know you can appeal.; every campaign is on a budget. The (D)s can travel almost anywhere. The (R)s are practically regulated to the suburbs and the farmland in most blue states.

*I'm fully aware that the listed women are all white, so for some ethnic diversity I will include Mia Love and Michelle Malkin, both who I think are pretty, not to mention older than those I originally listed and married as well. 

Some PUA douche seemed to have hacked my account.

There's some annoying rant about women and sheeple overlapping parts of this page. I plan to get rid of it by this weekend.

As it reads (or as what my cursor can copy & paste) -

It’s The Story of Civilization, Sulla is someone I would put into the bad guy category. The Senate deserved worse than simply loosing power. (I see you have a related post that argues for Sulla’s virtue, but I am not going to study it. Things to do with my life in my present that I can actually influence.) Typically, it takes a virtuous strongman, a seeming impossibility but as you recount there are Roman exemplars, to found something civilized. Except for the First Bank of the United States, childless and probably impotent George Washington was largely that. Good men who are not vicious about defending their sovereignty are not good on this earth (and elsewhere is a fairy tale). After the way the Roman unwashed betrayed the Gracchi, if we believe Aristotle that the policy of government matters and not the form, then it must be that no general population within the Roman Empire deserved or could support civilization. No sense in making a purse from a sow’s ear. Waste of one’s life to try. 

And so it is today. Reform without a change in population membership is doomed to fail. No population of moochers will allow reform against their hopes of mooching. We get the government we deserve. WNs are correct as far as focusing on the we as the critical political input. Hitler was not all wrong because half of national socialism is correct enough, though I would prefer a federation with a loose cultural (and democratically violent) sense of nationhood like Sumer, Hellas, late Holy Roman Empire that birthed institutional Germany, the early Dutch Republic (in this case I know only to a degree), the early United States (in this case I know only to a degree). 

At this point in our time the fruitful question is not what is the correct color commentary on the political circus but what to do for personal power (call it empowerment if it makes you feel better) in certain decline. I never wanted control over others, just over myself. Turns out husbandry of sheeple is a prerequisite to that. He who controls human stupidity controls the world. That is our struggle. Evolution dies not need your permission or moral authority. Universal morality is bullshit. 

If the first Octavius-esque figure is an evil destroyer of Club Beltway, that is a good I will celebrate privately. Regardless, the question facing each of us is how to thrive in a Principate. That is what we are now socially. If you (any dear reader) understand female nature and it’s employment by the Frankfurt School, if you understand the theocratic imperatives of the Jewish nation against the rest of humanity lumped together as ‘Gentiles’ (and I note the other two Abrahamic religions are offshoots with similar globalist utility), as members of a single ‘nation’ because non-Jewish distinctions matter not, then maybe it will dawn on whomsoever you are that players win in decline. Sheeple define the game for the rest of our lives and beyond. Can’t change the game without winning it. What his preeminent flip-over will do or can do for ‘the people’, who knows? Civilization happens not because there is no concentration of power but because that concentration of power is used at a higher order of cooperation (and ‘love’) for even more absolute power of humanity. Down with sheeple. Down with accumulations of relative power at the expense of absolute power. Aspire for power and the practical love to wield it wisely but constructively. If you want a virtuous strongman done right, do it yourself. PUA is the way. Be strong in your social life. 

Until you understand that women are simple, you will never understand humans and therefore politics. I challenge the intellects at this blog to stop doing passive commentary that won’t make a tinker’s damn and start some sort of subculture or subculture philosophy that can win. Maybe that is best done offline. Your time and vitality are not renewable. Make it count. I visit for lack of better options. Decline makes losers. There is no intelligent life in my real life. That of course is a fundamental that I am addressing the best I can. At least when someone else states the intellectual obvious (e.g. OP) it somehow help me be less insane or more sane in a world of primitives, same thing except for the metadata of one’s identity. Now back to my fight for my power among the vermin. It has nothing to do with politics as defined for the foolish consumer. I have no representative fighting for me. Charm is mightier than the sword. Knowing that, you do what?

Ask a socially progressive secularist about social conservatives.

 You'll get a person who gives a caricature and spews out pure hatred.

The real hate and contempt is towards social conservatives, not the LGBT, women, Muslims or blacks.

When said his views were bigoted he replied -

LOL atheists.

Me: Hmmm. I think your materialist view on the universe is misguided. I suggest reading some Ed Feser.
Atheist: Feser is as full of crap as William Craig is. The cosmological argument is almost as bad as the complexity argument, so stop wasting my time with your philosophical bullshit books.
Me: I never mentioned Craig and I doubt you actually read any of Feser's articles let alone read any of his books.
Atheist II: Christianity is a bunch of fairy tales. I'm 16, I've come to realize this so why not you?
Me: I doubt you're 16. Might as well say you're a zygote who's about to be aborted. Adios!