Candidate Questionnaire

A guide for helping voters choose candidates that the dominant media will approve of.

Candidate questionnaire:

  1. Are you a racist?
  2. Are you a sexist?
  3. Are you a homophobe?
  4. Are you a xenophobe?
  5. Are you an Islamophobe?
  6. Are you anti-immigrant?
  7. Are you anti-semitic?
  8. Are you a misogynist?
  9. Are you a bigot?
  10. Are you white?
  11. Are you diverse?
  12. Are you multicultural?
  13. Are you a Christian?
  14. Do you own a gun?
  15. Is your gun an assault weapon?
  16. Have you ever shot a deer with an assault weapon?
  17.  Are you religious?
  18.  Are you bitter?
  19.  Do you cling to your gun?
  20.  Do you cling to your religion?
  21.  Have you ever refused to have an abortion?
  22.  Have you ever opposed another person having an abortion?
  23.  Are you a holocaust denier?
  24.  Are you a global warming denier?
  25.  Are you rich?
  26.  Do you pay your fair share of taxes?
  27.  Are you homeless?
  28.  Are you deplorable?
  29.  Have you ever been dehydrated?
  30.  Do you have Parkinson’s disease?
  31.  Do you eat meat?
  32.  Have you ever eaten whale meat?
  33.  Have you ever eaten a spotted owl?
  34.  Do you smoke tobacco?
  35.  Do you smoke marijuana?
  36.  Have you ever been harmed by second hand smoke?
  37.  Do you have a pre-existing condition not covered by health insurance?
  38.  Do you have AIDS?
  39.  Have you ever had unsafe sex?

If your answer to question 10 was “yes”, please answer the following additional questions:

W-1. Are you female?
W-2. Are you transgender?
W-3. Are you gay?
W-4 Are you a white supremacist?
W-5. Have you ever owned slaves?
W-6. Have any of your ancestors ever owned slaves?
W-7. Have you ever owned a Confederate flag?
W-8. Have you ever owned any personal property that displays an image of the Confederate flag?
W-9. Have you ever owned a house that contains racial covenants in the deed?
W-10. Have you ever patronized or pandered to a black person?
W-11. Have you ever described a black person as remarkably “clean”?
W-12. Have you ever described a black person as remarkably “articulate” or as having “no Negro dialect”?
W-13. Have you ever employed an illegal alien as domestic help?
W-14. Have you ever attended a sporting event for a team named for indigenous people?

If your answer to question 13 was “yes”, please answer the following additional questions;

C-1 Are you judgmental?
C-2 Do you hate gays?
C-3 Do you believe that God likes America better than He likes other countries?

Environmentalists and the “Affordable Housing” bond measure.

I’m not often in the political company of self-described “environmentalists”. I consider myself a “conservationist”.

It’s probably not something that most modern people have given much thought to, but “conservation” is really a logical corollary of capitalism. “Conservation” is a constraint on human behavior that humans impose on themselves.

“Environmentalism”, in contrast, is not about human thought or human responsibility. It is about human intrusion and human illegitimacy. Humans screw things up. Humans are incompatible with nature. Humans don’t belong. Humans should just go away.

So awful are humans in the eyes of radical ecologists that there is even a “voluntary” movement for human self-extinction.

Voluntary Human Extinction Movement

The basis of the angst for human existence lies largely in Malthusian fears of “overpopulation”, and the profligate, irresponsible consumption of earth’s resources by human beings. And the historic experience of human societies with overcrowding, disease, starvation — particularly in urban settings — have provided a rational basis for those fears.

Anthropologists have observed that in primitive times — before the mastery of herding and agriculture — the human population of the planet was perhaps 25 million people, limited by the MINIMUM food supply available to humans. As the food supplied varied between abundance and scarcity, the human population expanded and contracted. But the years of scarcity defined an overall limit to the “sustainable” human population of the planet.

The inventions and facilities of modernity — particularly herding and agriculture — have allowed human populations to exceed the natural limits of food supply, and supplies of other resources such as land and climate. But environmentalists ask if it is ultimately wise to create too much artificial expansion of human habitat which will at some point become “unsustainable”.

Modern principles of technology and of governance have allowed us to increase human populations beyond the numbers that would be naturally sustainable for any given location. But at some point, should those who care for the environment say: “Enough is enough! It’s not wise to fool Mother Nature”?

The fundamental question is: “We know how to support a larger population, at least temporarily, but SHOULD we support a larger population that is ultimately NOT sustainable in the long term”?

Measure A subsidizes housing for socially and economically fragile people and allows them to exist in an environmental niche where the forces of nature and availability of economic resources would NOT normally allow them to exist. The justification for this subsidy is NOT that it provides SUSTAINABLE living conditions for people. It is NOT that it is good for the environment. The justification is ONLY that it will skew election results in a direction desired by certain political actors over the short term, a direction that will extend and continue the subsidies for UNSUSTAINABLE living.

The justification is the essence of circular logic: the subsidies are justified because it will give people an incentive to vote for politicians who will continue the subsidies.

It CAN be argued that providing subsidized housing for a population that is incapable of obtaining of producing sufficient resources for its own sustenance is a BURDEN on the environment, because it leads to localized overpopulation, overcrowding, and over consumption of common resources like air, water, and waste disposal.

The continuing bay area housing shortage is a manifestation of UNSUSTAINABLE OVERCONSUMPTION of housing. The solution to the housing shortage is NOT to subsidize more UNSUSTAINABLE OVER CONSUMPTION, it is to STOP UNSUSTAINABLE OVERCONSUMPTION.

Those who were given EMPTY and DECEPTIVE promises for “affordable” housing by politicians should learn to DISTRUST the politicians who made the promises. And then thye should address their housing needs by seeking housing arrangements that are suitable to their needs and means and sustainable for the community and the environment.

Is “racist” a slur?

Jennifer Wadsworth, gatekeeper for the San Jose Inside blog, has approved the use of the term “racist” for civil discourse, citing that it is merely a “character/behavior assessment”. The full article and thread can be found here.

No, that’s not a violation because it’s not a slur. Calling someone a racist is a character/behavior assessment. Calling someone an offensive term by virtue of their identity, some unchangeable part of who they are? Now that would rise to the level of a slur and a violation of our comments policy.


Jennifer provides two tests for a slur: “Calling someone an offensive term . . .

  1. by virtue of their identity,
  2. some unchangeable part of who they are”

Regarding the first test, if a person’s “identity” is as a “non-racist”, then doesn’t calling them “racist” constitute a slur? Simple logic.

But the second test is problematic, not because of the explicit statement of the test, but because of the cunning duplicity of the attribute being tested: “racism”.

In the argot of progressives, “racism” is a “dog whistle”.

Dogwhistle politics is political messaging employing coded language that appears to mean one thing to the general population but has an additional, different or more specific resonance for a targeted subgroup.

“Racism” means one thing to the general population: “antipathy toward a person or a group of people because of their race.”

But “racism” has a crucially different meaning to “progressives” and their peers in the progressive subculture. Embedded in the progressive notion of “racism” is a qualifier of WHO can be a racist. Only people with “power” can be racist.  Blacks and minorities, do NOT have power.  Therefore, blacks and minorities cannot be “racist”.  In American society, ONLY whites have power, and therefore, ONLY WHITE PEOPLE CAN BE RACIST.

Progressives often liken “racism” to a disease, and the disease analogy is illustrative.

For example, it is universally recognized that breast cancer is a horrible disease and eradicating breast cancer is a desirable end.  But it is a fact that breast cancer is overwhelmingly a disease of women.  No one feels it necessary to deplore breast cancer in women.  It is sufficient to simply deplore breast cancer. It is understood, that it is a medical condition of women.

The  same is true of sickle cell anemia. It is not necessary to deplore “black” sickle cell anemia.  It is again understood, that it is a medical condition of blacks.

And, with exactly the same reasoning, progressives identify “racism” as a “disease” of white people.  It is not necessary for progressives to explicitly deplore “white racism”.  All racism IS “white racism”.

So Jennifer’s assertion that “racism” is a “character/behavior assessment” unconnected to “some unchangeable part of who [people] are” is sophistry.

For the general population, perhaps many people believe anyone can be a racist.

But for progressives, and more importantly, for the messages they promote to the general population, “racism” is a “character/behavior assessment” that IS connected to the “unchangeable part” of who white people are: their whiteness.

Here is a little test for Jennifer.  Go to the New York Times, CNN, or your favorite “mainstream” news source, and identify ten people whom the source identities as “racist”.  How many of those so identified are “white”? ALL?

For extra credit, find five NON-WHITE people in the mainstream media’s “news” reportage who are identified as “racist”? ANY? (Hint. “Bigot” doesn’t count. Progressives acknowledge that non-whites can be “bigots”, but not”racists”.)

“Racism” is a slur on white people.  Sophistic. Sneaky, Deceitful. Explicit, Malignant. Cunning. Passive aggressive. Premeditated.

An ugly, vicious, premeditated anti-white slur.




Good Muslims and Bad Muslims

Democrats are doing cartwheels over the HOME RUN speech of Khizr Khan at the DNC.

Muslim Soldier Back Story

The heroic and Muslim Mr. Khan is the father of a heroic and Muslim son, Humayun. who served in the U.S. Army, was killed in Iraq, and was awarded a Bronze Star. In his moment of fame before the DNC, the senior Mr. Khan pulled out a double deck of Democrat victim cards and flung them in Donald Trump’s face, to the celebratory glee of an entire convention hall full of people who hate the military, hate religious zealots, and hate people who subjugate women and throw gays off of tall buildings.

But those of us who know that any information acquired from the rostrum of the Democratic National Convention must be taken with a bit of measured scrutiny.

There are a few questions we might be interested in asking Mr. Khan at his press conference, if he had a press conference. Or, in the absence of a Khan press conference, a press conference for the Democratic Party presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, if SHE ever had a press conference.

Questions for Khizr Khan::

  • How did the United States government know that Khizr Khan was a good Muslim and not a bad Muslim when they first admitted him to the United States?
  • Does Khizr advocate the practice of Shariah Law in the United States?
  • When Humayun Khan served with the United States Army in Iraq, did he shoot other Muslims?
  • If so, were the Muslims that Humayan Khan shot in Iraq good Muslims or bad Muslims?
  • What do Muslims think of Muslims shooting other Muslims?
  • Would Khizr Khan agree with Donald Trump that we should know which Muslims are bad Muslims and not admit them to the United States?


Who knew?

There is no such word as “antecapitalism“.

Well, there is now.

antecapitalism: the survival ethos and economic practices of humans that existed before capitalism and that were oriented around communal foraging for and sharing of food.

The Left are “Ante-capitalists”. They are people as they existed BEFORE the invention of capitalism which was founded on herding and agriculture.

Before capitalism, humans lived in tribes, made a living by foraging as hunter-gatherers, and were ruled by a shaman, medicine man,  or witch doctor who talked to the “spirit world”, explained all unexplainable things, and made all important decisions for the tribe. The foragers shared the results of their foraging, and the shaman ensured “fairness”. In return, the tribe members offered unquestioning loyalty and obedience to the shaman.

It’s pretty much the way the Left works today.

They are “takers” and not “makers”. They make their living by taking from the environment, and never replacing what they take.

To the modern Left, the government is their tribal land, and the welfare system is where they forage. Capitalists are simply quarry, and political parties are hunting parties. Taxes are their clubs and spears for “taking” their game. Politicians and ethnic leaders are their shamans and tribe members follow them loyally and blindly as long as the hunt is successful.

In contrast, capitalism, as manifested by the practices of herding and agriculture, requires a future orientation, deferred consumption, “private property” (pastures and fields), and commitment to protect and defend herds and crops from predatory foragers. Capitalism creates “wealth” in the form of excess production, and replenishes what it consumes.

Word story

It is easy to forget that capitalism was coined not so long ago, in the mid-19th century, when the Industrial Revolution was in full swing, and individual entrepreneurs were creating new industries and amassing wealth. Terms for the other two major competing economic systems of the past two centuries— socialism and communism —were also coined around the same time.

capitalism:  an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

Presumably, the first herders and farmers didn’t know that they were practicing capitalism.  And similarly, the primitive antecapitalists didn’t realize that they were “antecapitalists” because capitalism hadn’t been invented yet.

So, this is definitely a retrospective view of economic history.  But, we’re smarter now.  And now we know.

SCC $950 Million Affordable Housing Bond – MY ballot argument

Measure XX Ballot Argument

Measure XX is simply a property tax increase.

Measure XX is the largest property tax increase since the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978.

Measure XX makes Santa Clara County the owner and landlord of hundreds of millions of dollars of housing units. It allows the county to provide thousands of housing units at below market rents subsidized by taxpayers.

Low Income Residents

The low income residents in the below market units will be economically trapped in their units forever, and unlikely to ever be able move to a market rate unit. A high density housing complex with a concentrated population of low income residents unable to move is a hopeless slum, and that will be the ultimate result of this measure.

This measure should be called “the hopeless slum” initiative.


This measure purports to offer housing assistance for veterans. The needs of veterans should be addressed by the government body who required their service and who they faithfully served, the United States Federal Government. The Veterans Administration MUST be held to account and provide the services that veterans have EARNED.

Mental health services, not mental health warehouses

This measure purports to offer assistance to the “homeless”. The main issue faced by the majority of homeless is mental illness, NOT a lack of housing. Warehousing homeless in “hopeless slums” is not treating them with dignity and offering them the help that they really need. The State of California shirked its responsibility by pushing the “homeless problem” onto local communities and scrimping on health services so it could shift money to special interests.

Measure XX is a scheme by politicians who failed to solve Santa Clara County’s urgent problems. They want tax payers to pay for their failures when they should be REQUIRING the State and Federal governments to solve problems which are THEIR responsibilities with the billions of dollars we already send them.

Democrat Crime Watch: Ray Nagan

Ex-New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin sentenced to 10 years

NEW ORLEANS — Former mayor Ray Nagin, the businessman-turned-politician who became the worldwide face of the city after Hurricane Katrina, was sentenced to 10 years in prison Wednesday.

Nagin, 58, was ordered to report to federal prison Sept. 8. Nagin, also ordered to pay restitution of $82,000, was found guilty Feb. 12 of fraud, bribery and related charges involving crimes that took place before and after Katrina devastated the city in August 2005.

Prosecutors immediately objected to the sentence, which falls well below typical guidelines that called for 15-20 years.

“What Ray Nagin did was sell his office over and over and over again,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew Coman said outside the courthouse. “The damage that Ray Nagin inflicted upon this community … is incalculable. We as a community need not and should not accept public corruption.”