I do acknowledge that, in an adrenalin-fueled moment, SOME women can do amazing feats of strength. See this link – the daughter involved is described in the news as ‘skinny’, but she is not. She’s a basketball player, taller than the average women, and clearly NOT an ectomorph.
The Hollywood Reporter is THRILLED that the new Terminator movie is filled with femmes, and describes them as ‘muscular’.
Decide for yourself. I can’t see the muscles, just women who are more slender than the norm for women their age.
If faced with fighting slightly above average men – say, 220 # men in reasonably decent shape – even with guns/ammo, those women are toast.
Sure, they might be able to get off some shots early. For argument’s sake, let’s assume that 1/2 of them reach their target.
If the men have ANY experience with weapons, it won’t take long for the women to fold. Even with modern weapons, it takes some arm strength to lift them up and hold them steady for an extended time period.
The guns are METAL – and HEAVY. To use them for anything more than a short session takes a fair amount of strength in the arms. It’s one of those things that limits women’s utility in combat.
They also can’t carry as much ammo and other equipment as the men.
Sure, they can defend a position, if necessary.
For a while.
Over time, the equalizing effect of guns diminishes, and it becomes a matter of endurance. As fighters get tired, their muscle strength diminishes – yes, even the guys. Women don’t have the strength to lose.
Women in combat have some serious deficiencies.
On the other hand, women have some advantages, too, particularly in shooting rifles.
A sensible combat scenario would put women where they excel – as a backup defense, as snipers, and as support specialists.
Not as an all-female team who plans to ‘kick ass’.
There was a time when media was not so openly partisan. There was a time when journalists prided themselves on objective reporting of the news. I know that many, even in that time, were – behind-the-scenes – passively or actively pulling for one side or the other.
However, there was a spectrum of opinion/loyalties that was broader; that breadth helped keep open propagandizing somewhat in check.
Not so today. The reduced budgets, coupled with lazy “professionals” who won’t bestir themselves to go out into the field and investigate for themselves, have led to today’s “news”, where foreign advocates for one side sell their staged photos, along with the “official” story, to bureaus that peddle their work as unbiased fact.
The propaganda that is talked about HERE is just one more example of why most of us have turned to alternative media sources. They may also have bias, but it is openly admitted.
On one hand, student debt is only a problem for the people who signed for the loans. That’s the Tough Love approach – make those that benefited from it responsible for repayment.
On the other hand, permanently saddling people with responsibility for a debt that was incurred when they were barely legal adults, doesn’t seem quite fair. And, that debt, which many took on to prepare for careers, is – unlike someone who blew through $50,000 on women, alcohol, and fast cars – not dischargeable in bankruptcy. That kid is stuck with that debt for LIFE.
And, for his/her parents, AFTER that student’s death, if they co-signed the loan.
Say what you will, no other debt (other than IRS unpaid taxes) is lifelong. It does have the same lifelong obligation as slavery did. We stopped that whole debt imprisonment (well, except for men who got behind on their child support, and those that owed the court money for fines, and…where was I going with this?).
I’m linking here to a possible solution that falls between the complete forgiveness option (good luck with getting that, no matter HOW Leftist the Congress becomes), and telling the debtors, “tough luck, you were an idiot to trust us” (Animal House lovers will get that reference.
Anyway, it’s a starting point. The longer we put this off, the more the unwary former students will think that Bernie and his Dem bros are making sense.
We need to put this generation on the road to home, family, and a fair shot at life.
A friend of mine formerly known as Glomar Responder (Mr. X) on Twitter sent over this screed as a guest post. It’s an interesting commentary on the bifurcation we’re seeing in libertarianism. I’ve spoken on this matter before, as my natural inclination is toward smaller government and so I have historically been rather sympathetic toward libertarianism. But there are problems in libertarianism that continually get overlooked, and an increasing number of “left-libertarians” making their political debut. There are open-borders libertarians who do not realize they are slitting their own throats by encouraging, or at least allowing, the mass importation of people who work counter to their goals. It’s clear there is something going on, and Glomar explores the idea below.
Met with a high school friend last night, talked a bit about how libertarianism became a leftist shit show so quickly after the so-called “libertarian moment” where it looked like the Rand Pauls and Ted Cruzes were the new hotness in politics.
And she has a theory.
Libertarianism isn’t one movement, it’s two.
The popular political branch that actually got people elected and polls well in the southeast is based in the classical Anglo-Saxon system, as carried on especially by the British Isles border peoples. It basically stopped evolving at Locke.
And when founded in the US, it was REACTIONARY. It was a restoration of the rights of Englishmen and the small, local systems that the border Welsh, Scots, and Irish were used to.
So you have volunteer fire departments based on the militia system. You have Sheriffs with real law enforcement power, instead of a constabulary. You have common law rather than large bodies of code.
And then there’s intellectual libertarianism, which continued to evolve, especially in France, Germany, and Spain.
And Proudhon and Stirner had a huge influence on them.
So you get your John Henry Mackays, linking libertarian political thought with sexual promiscuity and outright pederasty.
Something that would have gotten you lynched by the “libertarians” of e.g. Kentucky.
So, unfortunately, “intellectual” libertarians run the movement, such as it is. Politicians and elites are far more likely to gravitate towards intellectual movements based in French and German philosophy than they are to say “hey, maybe those rednecks and hillbillies have preserved a great system, and we should adopt it.”
So you get think tanks, and a few college professors, pushing “respectable” libertarian thought that is atheist (due to both French revolution era and German influences), sexually promiscuous and experimental, and radically atomized individualist (because Stirner).
And the people it attracts in the academy and in young political life are the white upper middle class degenerates, because it gives them permission to be freaks, without giving them the obligations to the worker from classical communism, the obligations to the progressive stack from Frankfurt branches, or the obligations to God from social conservativism.
“Dude, weed” is actually their ideal sales pitch to the classical Anglo-Saxon borderer libertarians.
Because the Stirnerites think they should be able to have their hedonistic experiences as they choose, and the hillbillies think “you think Washington can tell me what crops I can grow? Fuck you, buddy.”
It’s a solid point of agreement between the two. As is shrinking government intervention in their lives generally.
But the hillbillies, their basic stance is “leave me the fuck alone, I can get by just fine with my family, neighbors, and church.”
And the intellectuals are much more “leave me the fuck alone, the child consented and anyway I’m raising average wages worldwide by making cheap crap in China without any trade barriers.”
You’ve got a bunch of government minimalists and localists on the one hand, who have a very long history of voluntary participation and civic duty.
They don’t like a distant crown passing edicts on them, but they’re cool with showing up at the fire hall when the chief tells them to.
And then you’ve got a bunch of people who want to be left alone because they’ve bought into the atomized individualism that lets them live without obligation. They can fuck who they want, exploit who they want, and act like general eternal teenagers.
“Fuck you, dad,” the political movement. So abortion is cool, because “the child is trespassing on my body.”
And voluntary hierarchy? REEEEEEEEEEEE!
The former is attractive or at least understandable to many normie Americans, because it’s just a more radical version of the system they were born and raised in.
They can see the Jefferson in it.
The latter is repulsive to most of them.
It rejects many of their fundamental institutions. Of course we serve in the military (militia tradition, remember).
Of course we have laws regulating marriage (still religious, never adopted the atheism of the Continental libertarian/anarchists).
And a few decades of middle and lower class guys going to college and reading e.g. Rand has kinda mashed the two together in many places.
But there’s still a fundamental divide, and it’s becoming more apparent as the “I don’t owe you or your culture shit” libertarians side with the left.
Child drag queens don’t bother them.
Why would they? So long as I don’t make you do it, I don’t owe you shit.
Immigration? Borders are just imaginary lines, statist, stop making my lawn mowing more expensive.
No, I don’t owe my neighbor’s kids shit. They should lower their price and compete with the Guatemalan lawn crews and their riding mowers.
They have to speak Spanish at school? Oh well, we don’t have an official language.
That lawn crew will eventually vote away my buttsex? Well, I’ll be dead.
Libertarian VOTERS didn’t change.
They’re still just classical Anglos (or at least spiritual anglos).
But the money and the “movement,” organized libertarianism, doesn’t represent them, it was always fundamentally different.
Anyway, long story short she’s convinced her formerly very active libertarian husband to disassociate from movement libertarianism because Darth Fonzie is cringe and gross, and Latin American socialists don’t vote with her very, very white daughter’s freedom and interests in mind.
…should go to reducing the US public debt. I’m serious – that’s money that RAISED the debt, so ALL money saved from stopping illegal aliens from committing fraud should go to debt reduction.
Here’s how it could work:
Take the amount of their yearly fraud, multiply by at least 5 years or the time they got away with it – whichever is greater. Take that amount from the budget of that agency that was lax about following the rules. If the agency has to reduce services, or even let some employees go, well, that’s just the price that their facilitation of crimes costs.
THEY choose to do allow the crime. THEY should suffer the consequences.
Of course, any fines go straight to debt reduction, not to the agency.
There is also MORE money that should be forfeit, and applied to public debt reduction:
The FOIA records produced by SSA as a result of IRLI’s lawsuit have shown that, from 2012 to 2016, there were 39 million instances where names and Social Security numbers on W-2 tax forms did not match the corresponding Social Security records. Additionally, over $409 billion was added to the Earnings Suspense File (ESF), which holds uncredited wages that can’t be correctly matched to SSA’s database. From 1937 to 2005, $519 billion was reported to be sitting in the ESF. In tax year 2016, that number rose to over $1.5 trillion.
Let me be clear – the agencies that facilitated this FRAUD on the American public should NOT be able to profit from their CRIMES. That money should NOT be given to the agency, but to reducing the debt we owe.
I’ve written about asset forfeiture before. In my home state, it’s a major problem in some counties.
This is a practice that needs to be eliminated, or at least heavily restricted to property belonging to CONVICTED felons. We could do a lot to reduce prosecutorial abuses by stopping them from profiting from the practice.
A not-mentioned, but likely tactic that the Left will try to use against Trump is to seize his assets, under the pretense that they were part of a crime. Note that the state NEVER HAS TO PROVE THAT A CRIME WAS COMMITTED. All that is needed is an indictment.
Who would benefit from that asset forfeiture? NY state and city would.
I urge everyone to go to the link below – it will astound and infuriate you to realize the abuse of this law to enrich the law enforcement arm of the state.
Read about Joe Biden’s connection to the legislation.