Free Markets, Free People


White women can’t be feminists because … white supremacy

The new “war on women” is gearing up … and it’s going to be very entertaining.  Why?  Because it will all on the left as they try to redefine feminism without white women:

University of California, Los Angeles students were treated to a dinner dialogue this month on the topic of “white feminism” and its relation to white supremacy.

The “White Feminism” dinner dialogue was hosted by the campus Intergroup Relations Program, an administrative center that seeks to educate the UCLA community on issues of “social identity, interpersonal, and intergroup relations/conflict, prejudice reduction, and social justice.”

Celia Cody-Carrese, an Intergroup Relations Center intern who helped put on the event, told The Daily Bruin that organizers chose white feminism as their topic because they think feminism has traditional ties with white supremacy, noting that the term “feminism” is most frequently applied to white women, while the concerns of black women are generally treated as a separate, racial issue.

Mitali Gupta, a UCLA Senior who attended the event, told Campus Reform that feminism’s link to white supremacy was indeed discussed during the meeting, adding that she agrees that such a connection exists.

One of the things we’ve seen any number of times is the left go after its own.  Feminism is now in the process of being hi-jacked.  It seems, given this bit of information, that there’s a new purity test for being a “real” feminist and white women aren’t acceptable because of  … white supremacy or something.    Not to worry … just watch, more redefining will take place in the future where, oh I don’t know, lesbians can’t be feminists because they don’t really think like “real” women or something.  Except lesbians of color – they’ll make at least a temporary exception for them.

Is this OPEC’s last gasp?  We sure hope so:

The oil price rally sparked by an OPEC-Russia deal to cut output is likely to be short-lived, say traders in Asia, because the agreement may only draw more supplies from storage tanks and more crude shipments from the United States.

And even without increased supplies from elsewhere, if the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and Russia do reduce production by 1.5 million barrels per day (bpd) as pledged, the cuts would not be deep enough to shrink a glut that began to build in mid-2014, traders said.

The cut by OPEC will be largely offset by increases in U.S. production where the rig count has already increased,” said India Oil Corp’s Director of Finance A K Sharma.

Damn that capitalism.  Drat that free enterprise.  Screw those entrepreneurs.  Oh and curse that word, “fracking”!

I love this.  And it was accomplished by private firms on private or state leased land with no, and I want to emphasize the word “no”, help from the feds – well, except trying to slow it or stop it.  Result?  The looming death of a price fixing cartel.  Competition – a wonderful thing.

The Windy City – suffering under blue governance for decades and with strict anti-gun laws passes the 700 homicide milestone for the year with a month to go.  In this case, the “McDonald Effect” is at work:

In a year of relentless violence, Chicago has hit another gruesome milestone, exceeding 700 homicides on Wednesday for the first time in nearly two decades, according to official Police Department records.

The 700-mark was hit when a 25-year-old man was fatally shot about 6:20 a.m. at 93rd Street and Cottage Grove Avenue in the Burnside neighborhood, said Frank Giancamilli, a police spokesman. Then at about 8 p.m., a 24-year-old man was shot and killed at 6800 block of South Cornell Avenue in the South Shore neighborhood, he said.

And speaking of records:

Nearly 4,050 people have been shot, a 50 percent jump from 2,699 victims a year earlier, according to the department statistics. Shooting incidents rose by comparable figures, to 3,315, up 49 percent from 2,224 a year earlier.

One has to wonder how Mayor Rahm Emanuel is going to keep from letting this disaster go to waste.

Meanwhile, in Democrat-land,  Nancy Pelosi survived an attempt on her leadership position in the House (I’ve come to agree with Billy that this is perhaps a gift to the GOP) and apparently the party has decided the answer to their stunning loss on election day is to become even more extreme by putting Keith Ellison in the DNC chair. And Ellison’s past – ignore it (that’s the “Clinton effect”). Well, a lot of them … but not all:

And [Ellison’s] past statements about Israel and his writings backing such provocative figures as Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan have become a ripe target for those who would like to block his path to the chairmanship.

“The United States foreign policy in the Middle East is governed by what is good or bad through a country of seven million people,” Mr. Ellison said at a 2010 fundraiser, the audio of which was published online this week by the Investigative Project on Terrorism, a website that largely carries conservative commentary. “A region of 350 million all turns on a country of seven million. Does that make sense? Is that logic? Right?”

Marcel Groen, the Pennsylvania Democratic Party chairman who is the son of Holocaust survivors, said he found those kind of remarks troubling. “Mainly for me, his view of the Israel-Palestinian issues, I want some clarity,” Mr. Groen said.

“Troubling”.  Want “clarity”.  Why in the world would anyone believe that some statement from Ellison designed to smooth ruffled feathers would be anything but disingenuous rhetoric to attain a position of power.  Tiger. Stripes.  Etc.  Ellison is no friend of Israel or Jews – and, given his past statements and support of the Nation of Islam, you can take that to the bank.

Ah, life in America … always an adventure.



Why Trump would be a disaster

I was going to append “as a candidate”, then “as President”, etc.  But I realized that “as a candidate” he’d never reach the presidency .  His mouth would never give him the opportunity.  And should he somehow (hey, Obama did it) reach the presidency, it would be an unmitigated disaster.  The fact that in some polls he is running a “strong second” among GOP supporters says more about the rest of the GOP presidential field than it does about the validity of a Trump candidacy.

Why would he be a disaster?  Because, for the most part, he’s an ignorant loudmouth who doesn’t think his way through anything. He blurts half formed ideas.  Here’s an example where he is talking about OPEC:

Trump: Look at what’s going on with your gasoline prices. They’re going to go to $5, $6, $7 and we don’t have anybody in Washington that calls OPEC and says, "Fellas, it’s time.  It’s over.  You’re not going to do it anymore."  I don’t know if you saw yesterday, Saudi Arabia came out and said very strongly there’s plenty of oil.  "We’re going to cut back."  You know what cutting back means?  They’re going to drive up the price even further.

Stephanopoulos: So, what would you do to back up that threat?

Trump: Oh, it’s so easy George.  It’s so easy.  It’s all about the messenger.  They wouldn’t even be there if it wasn’t for us.  If it weren’t for us, they wouldn’t be there.  These 12 guys sit around a table and they say, "Let’s just screw the United States."  And frankly, the rest of the world.

Stephanopoulos: And so finish this sentence.  "If you don’t produce more oil…"

Trump: Look. I’m going to look ‘em in the eye and say, "Fellas, you’ve had your fun.  Your fun is over."

Wow.  That’ll have ‘em shivering in their boots.  Of course the fact that we import the vast majority of our oil and still haven’t taken the steps necessary to exploit our own resources is the real reason we’re in that shape and at the mercy of cartels like OPEC.  But he doesn’t address that.  Instead his idea is to be confrontational and threatening.

I think everyone who reads this blog realizes that there’s plenty of oil and natural gas out there to keep using it as fuel for the foreseeable future.  It’s about where it is, not how much there is anymore.   And as long as the majority of that oil remains in the control of the OPEC cartel, we can “look ‘em in the eye” till doomsday and it won’t accomplish a thing.   Not unless we’re willing to do the unthinkable and take over their oil fields.

Oh?  Well that would be perfectly fine with President Trump:

Trump: George, let me explain something to you.  We go into Iraq.  We have spent thus far, $1.5 trillion.  We could have rebuilt half of the United States.  $1.5 trillion.  And we’re going to then leave.  So, in the old days, you know when you had a war, to the victor belong the spoils.  You go in.  You win the war and you take it.

Stephanopoulos: It would take hundreds of thousands of troops to secure the oil fields.

Trump: Excuse me.  No, it wouldn’t at all.

Stephanopoulos: So, we steal an oil field?

Trump: Excuse me.  You’re not stealing.  Excuse me.  You’re not stealing anything.  You’re taking– we’re reimbursing ourselves– at least, at a minimum, and I say more.  We’re taking back $1.5 trillion to reimburse ourselves.

We’re going to reimburse ourselves for doing something we chose to do?   Hey, would the same thing apply to Libya?  And how do we “reimburse” ourselves for Afghanistan – get in the opium trade?

This guy is entertaining as hell, and we all may appreciate and enjoy his willingness to say things out loud a lot of us think about certain issues and situations (like turning to the Ron Paul supporters at CPAC and saying, “you know your guy can’t win).    But he’s serious about this nonsense above and you have to understand that and understand what that means.  He’s as naïve about foreign affairs as is the present occupant in the White House.  The problem with Trump is he’s not only naïve, he’s confrontational by nature.   He’s the other side of the same coin as Obama when it comes to foreign affairs and we would find ourselves neck deep in conflict if the guy ever got within sniffing range of the Oval office.