Chicago Hate: Crime, Racial Prejudice, and the Media.

Breaking last night, was the story of four Chicago residents that had been arrested for kidnapping another Chicago-area man with mental disabilities. They forced this man to drink from the toilet, bound him, beat and kicked him, cut the clothes from his body, and assaulted him with a knife, drawing blood. And since our society has undergone a shame-ectomy, all of this was done live on Facebook. In viewing the video, it becomes clear by the choice of insults used by the perpetrators that this crime was racially and politically motivated. The victim has been reported recovering in a hospital, and the perpetrators have been charged with committing hate-crimes as well as other charges. “Tragic,” you might say. “I hope they receive the fullest punishment that the law can provide.” Correct. They should. However, there is a component to this story that has some in the main stream media a bit perplexed on how to handle it. The peculiar part of this story is that the perpetrators were black and their victim was white, and they carried out their attacks saying, “F**k Donald Trump. F**k white people.”

Since hate-crime legislation started being enacted, it has not been unknown to find examples of criminal behavior that meet the definition of a hate-crime and yet are perpetrated on whites. A simple search on YouTube will yield numerous videos of white people being attacked by groups of non-whites, beating them, and hurling racial epithets at them. For instance, also in Chicago, in a recent post-election attack, a middle-aged white man was pulled from his car and beaten for stated racial and political motives. However, it’s not often you hear of hate-crimes charges being filed in such cases where the victim is white. Until recently, the reason for the charges in the Chicago case hadn’t even been fully specified. Earlier reports indicated that the Chicago Police incredulously maintained that the attack wasn’t racially motivated, but because of the victim’s mentally disability. This, even though the perpetrators were shown cutting at this man and saying, “F**k white people,” on the aforementioned video. That evidence would seem pretty cut and dry, to most people. It’s not like they said, “F**k the disabled,” is it? However, according to this afternoon’s CPD press conference on this case, they made clear that the racial component of this crime received equal consideration in the decision to file hate-crime charges. I’m glad they were clear on this point. It would be a horrible message to send that the crime in this was in selecting a victim from the protected list, “but feel free to target competent whites!”

The way the media has been reporting this story has been has a bit of a mixed bag. Some articles and TV stories have reported this on the merits, while others have not. Few want to justify it, though some have. Some have even gone the extra step of blaming Donald Trump in some capacity. Particularly egregious was the way CNN’s Don Lemon approached it. While one of his panel called the attack “evil,” Lemon himself refused to categorize it as such, saying, “I don’t think it’s evil. I don’t think it’s evil. I think these are young people, and I think they have bad home training.” Certainly Mr. Lemon is entitled to his strange opinion. However, if this act didn’t make his cut, one should wonder at what Lemon’s definition of evil is.

Don Lemon is just one example of the gentle consideration that media gives when dealing with crimes perpetrated by non-whites. For instance, the media has a reputation for often omitting the ethnicity of the perpetrator in reporting crimes committed by minorities, while at the same time rarely flinching from exposing the background of a white assailant. As to why they do it is speculative, but I’d wager it probably comes from a mixture of varied left-wing opinions, such as reporters generally have penchant for. These beliefs could include the unique culpability of whites for historic injustices (including racial disparities in U.S. prisons), the patronizing belief that racial minorities should be coddled and held to low expectations for civilized behavior because of historic injustice and cultural relativism, and the belief that whites will retaliate against innocent minorities if they report the racial make-up of said perpetrators. If this is what they believe, the sensible thing would be to just omit the ethnicity of all suspects, but that’s not always the case. It is curious, however, how fears of racial prejudice lead to actual racial prejudice.

The Chicago attack and like attacks should give us pause before we continue business as usual, employing the same failed solutions championed by our politically correct culture. If the goal is to reduce or eliminate racial prejudice, then perhaps we should de-emphasize race. No one should be automatically considered in the victim class or the oppressor class. We all should be on the protected list, or none of us should be. One thing we might consider is dropping this whole ridiculous notion of hate crimes. Those kidnappers from Chicago committed crimes against a weaker guy, and that’s all that should matter. I don’t care if they hated this man personally or if they just hated whatever group they saw him representing; such as white, disabled, or a Trump supporter. I only care that they committed a crime. If the races were reversed, to me it would matter just as much. This should be the case with the law, the media, and society. It isn’t, though. Justice, far from being blind, seeks to favor ideological bias over the evidence or law. It’s time we start insisting that our society stop showing any favoritism on a racial basis. At some point, people must be responsible for their own actions, alone. Pretending otherwise leads to crimes like what happened to this man in Chicago. If we keep trying to play this game of favorites, we aren’t going to have a society much longer. For if we can’t agree that such actions are “evil,” what can we agree on?


– Ryan Thorson


Rogue One: A Fan-Film Story

Now that the political season is over, I thought I’d concentrate a little more on the cultural side of things. That’s right, I have a few more belated movie reviews to throw your way. And so that I don’t sound like I’m way behind the curve, I thought I’d begin with a review last month’s anticipated offering from Lucasfilm/Disney, Rogue One: a Star Wars Story. If you haven’t seen this film by now, any reasonable expectation of not having anything ruined for you should be gone. So, read on at your own risk.

26200797002_95a305038a_bRogue One is the story of how the Rebel Alliance acquired the legendary Death Star plans, the McGuffin of the first Star Wars. The film focuses on the character of Jyn Erso, the daughter of Galen Erso, one of the Death Star’s less than willing progenitors. As the film progresses, Jyn transitions from a child fugitive of the Galactic Empire, to pawn of the Rebellion in an assassination attempt on her father, and from there to the leader of a suicidal effort to recover the Death Star plans from an Imperial data center. The data, once recovered, should reveal the Battle Station’s weakness, purposely manufactured into it by Galen, and provide the Rebels with one shot at destroying this ultimate weapon that before it destroys them.

The film is technically amazing, as one should expect from such an expensive big-studio space opera. I disagree with those who felt that the first half of the film was slow, finding the pacing pretty spot-on. The musical score was adequate, having a good enough balance between original material and reprises from John Williams. And while many of the characters seemed to be underdeveloped in the motivation department, there were many good performances, and the whole effect was satisfying. It will doubtless make a lot of money. However, I am a Star Wars fan, and as such am probably a little more gracious then I would be if Rogue One were a stand-alone film wholly unconnected to the power of nostalgia-vision.

To me, Rogue One felt like the greatest fan-made Star Wars movie ever filmed: a product created out of love for an existing property, but not necessarily an example of great story-telling. Beyond the inescapable problem that the film focuses on the quest to steal the plans to destroy the Death Star, rather than the quest to destroy the Death Star itself, the other obvious flaw is that the film is not very accessible to the casual viewer at times. Although this may not matter if you can get the gist of who these characters are and what they’re doing via context clues, at other times an audience may be a bit lost due to their probable lack of more esoteric Star Wars knowledge, info beyond knowing who Vader is. Think the original theatrical cut of Dune, and how it was received, and you’ll see what I mean. The way Rogue One dished out copious amounts of SW references and cameos had even me blushing at times! The combined effect of returning prequel actors, re-cast original trilogy characters, re-purposed SW footage, expensive CGI re-creations of long-dead thespians, or even walk-ons by new actors in familiar costumes somewhat took the film off the focus of advancing the plot and brought it into the dark valley of “wouldn’t it be cool if…?!” Don’t get me wrong, for the ten-year-old boy in me loved all of them! The Darth Vader scenes alone were worth the price of admission! Even the return of Grand Moff Tarkin as a functional character in the story (not that you forgot for a second you were looking at CGI) was very enjoyable. However, often the homecoming of all these characters, props, and vehicles to the Star Wars universe felt a bit too saturated, and was at best only partially useful in organically advancing the story.

Even though this film errs on the side of self-referencing sentimentality, there are still things to be grateful for. For instance, Rogue One doesn’t hit you over the head with some ham-fisted political message! Sure, it panders a bit in the ethnic diversity area, but who cares? Someone must play the characters, and it’s not as if having a multi-ethnic cast of new main characters in the Star Wars universe affects the story in any adverse way. Criticism aside, Star Wars has always featured some ethnic diversity (to earthly eyes), and so this film is not inconsistent nor distracting. After all, ethnicity among the human characters in Star Wars has no meaning; it’s alien/human relations that get attention. Free from an in-cam shot of a flashing arrow neon sign declaring “DIVERSITY,” people are free to draw as much or as little meaning from this as they please, like all good Sci-Fi.

Additionally, I’m quite happy that the final cut was spared the over the top “I rebel” line given by Jyn Erso in the film’s trailer. At the time, it looked like we were in for yet another cinematic example of the ascendancy of teenage-girl models as some kind of new super-human, effortlessly sliding into their roles without the need to gain new skills (or a man to help them) and accomplishing their tasks with ease!  Lately, this has been the approach of Hollywood to women in fantasy films, making every would-be damsel in distress into a sword-wielding fighter with an attitude! That’s fine for the first 50 films, but after that, it starts to lose its novelty. Although, if you listened to the film-makers, you’d think they were the first one to try it! Applicability is one thing, propaganda is another. I don’t mind having a strong female leader in a film, even for pandering, but if it does so at the expense of the story telling, then no thanks. The problem with superwomen is the same as with supermen: invulnerability means no compelling story. No character is interesting without a struggle. However, Rogue One seems to narrowly escape this fate. Aside from incredulity of rough-and-tumble rebels choosing to disobey the Alliance and follow Jyn on a heist mission after her short yet less-than inspiring speech, I found that the presentation of the female protagonist wasn’t half as bad as it could have been. Although she could have been better developed, Jyn had weaknesses as well as strengths and made for a fairly good character.

Rogue One provides plenty of fun and excitement, in addition to a lengthy walk down memory lane. Even though my review may seem a bit brutal towards Rogue One’s nostalgia-goggles, I’m mostly satisfied with this newest offering, an experiment as Disney figures out how it will handle the Star Wars property. I for one would prefer that Disney go on making nostalgia films based on Star Wars (I can at least appreciate that) than either trying something new that destroys what the public already likes about this property or taking it into the realm of political advocacy. Once you start down that “dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny” as it has with other revived and ruined beloved properties. Three out of five.


-Ryan Thorson




New President, Same Problems, Same Bad Solutions.

Well, it’s official. Donald Trump will be the next President of the United States. The electoral votes have been certified and the 2016 election is over. So what does this mean? Well, apart from the fact that there’ll be fewer political ads, not much.

For those (both hopeful and lamenting) expecting that Trump will usher in the Fourth Reich, you will be disappointed/relieved. For those hoping for substantive change in the way of reducing the power of the federal government over the lives ordinary citizens, for a new age of fiscal and personal responsibility, and for a renaissance of the Constitution and the ascendency of individual liberty over group entitlements, you also will quickly be disabused of such ridiculous notions.

The ensconced brokers of power are all still there, playing the same game, taking and giving nothing back. Zilch will be done about the problem of government, it’s just that the infernal machine will get a new pair of hands, pulling the levers that control our lives. Donald will do his deals with the ruling class, but don’t be surprised if you won’t be favorably included in them. The age of Trump will be not unlike the age of Obama. We will have a President who respects the application of power, not necessarily the traditions of the country nor the limitations of law. The President wants what he wants, and he’ll get it legally, if he can, but he’ll get it.

High on the Trump agenda will be some kind of a infrastructure bill, spending a lot of money that we don’t have, and doing as little good as when Obama tried it. Also, the Trump daughter’s pet entitlement program will be passed, another permanent leech on an already desiccated budget. And lest we forget, Trump will get his tariffs, which are the political equivalent of threatening to slit your own throat if your opponent doesn’t play fair. How would you like to pay four times the price you currently pay for your iPhone? Who wouldn’t?

In the end, the federal government will expand its power, balloon its debt, adversely affect commerce, and hope that the generation that pays the piper for all this can handle it while also funding our retirements. At $200 trillion in unfunded mandates and counting, I wish the little tykes luck!

Very little of any substance will change under this new regime. The car is still careening towards the cliff, only this time it’s the Democrat’s turn to feel bad about it. 2016 is the year the right officially un-friended the truth in exchange for the same feels-driven politics we used to criticize the left for. I imagine, the results will be just as spectacular.

If you are looking for real solutions to any of these existential national problems, you won’t find them in a President nor anywhere in DC. Too many voters and even leaders are too unprincipled and too uneducated about the issues to change any of this. And of those left who know better, they are more desirous of being a part of power than making tough choices that could save the US for future generations. The solution will have to come from the sovereign states.

For the people of Texas, we had better decide quickly whether it’s better to be a sad witness to a enormous car-crash or a passenger in that careening car. That cliff is getting closer each day, the steering is locked, and the breaks don’t work. Texas has everything it needs to be a successful independent nation including the legal right. Now it remains to be seen if we have the will and courage to act. We don’t have much time left to vacillate on this. Either we crash and burn or we tuck and roll.

-Ryan Thorson

One More Lecture From Monsignor Obama: Trumpies and Russians and Hackers, OH MY!

Today, we received another preachy press conference (thank heaven there’s not many more of these!) from outgoing POTUS Barack Obama. His focus was, of course, the current assement that Russian hacking was intended to influence the election in favor of Donald Trump.

The Russian hacking situation is bad, and everyone should be concerned, but besides saying “Knock it off!” what did Obama do about it? Last time I checked, Obama’s still President, but his standard operating procedure seems to be talk as if somebody else is. While speaking on what few positive accomplishments happened during his administration as if he personally took charge of every aspect, he likewise seemed to act like none of the negative aspects were ever his fault; he found out about every disaster first through the news and he condemns each scandal from his administration like he’s a critical outside voice standing in judgement rather than the guy running the show! The positive side of this is that his retirement should be an easy rhetorical adjustment.

He’s right that the hacking situation is disturbing, but the hack of a political party is not the same as a hack of the government nor the same as an attempt to stuff ballots. Also, in addition to Obama not taking decisive action when the hacking occurred and culprit identified, he wasn’t so “prime-directive” when he sent money and personnel to try to unseat Israeli PM Netanyahu, nor when he attempted to influence the Brexit with threats against trade relations, nor other attempts to influence elections in Canada & South America.  Additionally, and more to the point, Obama didn’t seem in the slightest concerned with the millions in foreign donations that found their way into HRC’s war chest in an attempt to influence both candidate and election!

Although I’m not too hopeful for anything substantially good out of the Trump administration, I am very much looking forward to the end of the sanctimonious Obama administration. He talked a good game, but in the end, he diminished the USA, drove up the debt and unemployment, drove people further apart, a left a world on fire. I don’t have the stomach to hear him any longer. I can’t wait till these hypocrites are gone, and we have, at least, fresher and newer hypocrites!

– Ryan Thorson

Romney Apology to Trump, If I Were Writing it!

(Photo: Mitt_Romney_by_Gage_Skidmore_6)

Rumors of a Romney apology to Trump, the price of his being put forward as the nominee for Secretary of State, circulate in the ether of the internet. What he’ll actually say, if anything, is a matter of conjecture. Romney made a lot of scathing accusations of Trump! How do you take back those statements made with such seeming earnestness and still hold any credibility? Well, this is my approach. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the Romney apology that should be. Enjoy!


Ladies and gentlemen of the press. Thank you for your kind attention today. As you know, over the last several days, there has been a lot of speculation about the possibility of me filling the Secretary of State slot in a new Trump administration. Certainly, it is well known that I have been meeting with Mr. Trump lately, and this possibility has been discussed. However, the President elect has requested that before a formal offer of the Secretary position can be made, I must first issue an apology for my criticism of Mr. Trump during the campaign. After giving this a fair amount of consideration, I have the following Statement.


In the fog of the 2016 campaign, I made several critical remarks of Donald Trump. I said that he wasn’t a conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan.1 I also said that that his business successes were exaggerated, his policy prescriptions were flimsy, his foreign policy ideas were ridiculous and discriminatory.1 Should he become President, I said, his economic policies would lead to recession. Additionally, I claimed that dishonesty was his hallmark, and that bullying, greed, braggadocio, misogyny, and third-grade theatrics marked his personal character.1 I said all things, and many others still, but I think you get the picture.


Anyway, since the election, I’ve had time to reconsider these beliefs and observations on Donald Trump, some of which were made over the course of years. I’ve been paying close attention to Donald, and how he has performed since his victory over Hillary Clinton, and I have come to an inescapable conclusion: my critique of Donald, given during the campaign, was essentially correct. As of this moment, there exists little new information that compels me to change my mind or revise my conclusions. Donald Trump remains essentially the same morally bereft con-man, now, that he was before the election. Donald has demonstrated this in many ways. For instance, consider Donald’s failure to deliver on his promise to set himself apart from his business dealings should he win the Presidency. To date, Donald has not sold his businesses, put them a blind trust, or turned over his companies to his children, with Donald staying out of company affairs and they staying out of state affairs. No. He continues to operate both the affairs of state and business, intermixing them along with his family. In fact, in countries where he holds interest, like Argentina, he seems to have used his inevitable office to benefit himself and his businesses, receiving the permits that had hitherto been stalled. The timing and the appearances of this point to impropriety. If true, this would be a gross dereliction of the grave responsibilities of the great office that Donald will soon occupy. Donald knows better.


Adding to the warning signs that Donald will be nothing more than a politician after the most cynical tradition is his rapid retreat from some of his more important campaign promises. Donald promised to tell his Attorney General to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate possible crimes committed by Secretary Clinton, but has since backed away from this promise on more than one occasion. Certainly, an argument could be made about preserving the independence of the AG by not demanding an independent prosecutorial appointment, but that is not the argument being made by Trump and his surrogates. Instead, they echo the need to move on, to not hurt her, or more ridiculously, to “help her heal.” What about justice, Mr. Trump? Doesn’t that bear consideration? If Secretary Clinton committed crimes (as it appears she has) shouldn’t she get her day in court as any less politically connected American citizen most certainly would? And if not, what signal would that send to the would-be corrupt and powerful? More importantly, what does the decision to allow Hillary Clinton to escape justice portend for how the Trump administration will conduct its business? The answer to that likely will fill the country with doubt and apprehension, not hope for the country’s stability. They might ask themselves, “What separates our country from so many Banana Republics, run merely on the whim of a strong man?” What, indeed?


And what about Obamacare? Donald promised to repeal this very unpopular, failing, and oppressive law. However, it seems that after one meeting with the current President and his no-doubt highly flattering reception of Trump, Donald is willing to retain some of the more expensive and crippling parts of that law. This is disturbing, not only for how easily pliable Donald seems to be under the influence of a complimenting tongue, but also how it calls into question Donald’s convictions. I give credit to all involved for being compassionate towards those with pre-existing conditions, and certainly this is an issue that needs to be dealt with, but using the power of government to force insurers to accept them is not only improper, it will result in the government having greater involvement in the healthcare industry (which historically has been a net negative), including employing greater public funds from an already bankrupt government. Donald needs to keep his promise of a full repeal of Obamacare, and also develop free market solutions to solve this and other healthcare issues, and not just offer big government by Trump rather than Obama as a solution. As President, he’s supposed to be the people’s servant and act in their best interests, and not do merely what is politically expedient. It’s not about him. He can’t treat the U.S. as if it were merely one of his casinos, one that he can cast aside in the event it goes belly-up, safe in the knowledge that he’ll be protected while his investors have to pay the piper.


I could go on. Trump’s issues are not confined only to the one’s that I’ve mentioned. That is not to say that none of Donald’s solutions have been completely lacking in merit, but he’s shown little that he has the knowledge of nor any interest in dealing with the important and even existential issues that the U.S. faces, such as the $30 trillion dollars in debt that looms on the horizon like a hurricane. Should things not dramatically change in this area, meaning the dramatic reduction of federal expenditures (something Donald is loath to do), the U.S. faces an economic calamity possibly worse than any that world has yet born witness to.


I really wish that I was wrong about these things, or that Trump had, in some significant way, reformed. Unfortunately, the only thing that has changed since the primary is that this severely morally-compromised man now has real power. This does not please me. I take no joy in saying these things nor pleasure in my predictions being proved right. I care about my country, and this country needs a wise and capable President, now more than ever. I will remain ever wishful that Donald has an epiphany motivating him to rise to the requirements of his august office, but this is not the lesson of history. As Edward Johnson of the old Massachusetts Bay Colony once observed, “Governments, like clocks, go from the motion men give them; and as governments are made and moved by men, so by them they are ruined too. Wherefore governments rather depend upon men than men upon governments. Let men be good and the government cannot be bad…But if men be bad, let the government be never so good, they will endeavor to warp and spoil it to their turn…[T]hough good laws do well, good men do better; for good laws may want good men and be abolished or invaded by ill men; but good men will never want good laws nor suffer ill ones.”2


It has been suggested that Donald’s consideration of me for Secretary of State has always been a charade, and that Donald never really intended to nominate me for the position. Instead, what he wanted was to humble me for my previous comments, to get me to apologize and then give the position to a less independent person. Putting in Donald’s terms, he wanted to get me on my knees, as, during the election, he once bragged he could do if he so chose. Well Donald, I’m not in the habit of apologizing for telling the truth. Furthermore, I have no interest in serving in an administration where, because of Trump’s Machiavellian machinations, the status quo is such that honesty is always in doubt, where conservative solutions are often seen as means to pacify the base instead of being the determined plans of the President, and where it seems corruption is firmly ensconced even before the oath of office is administered.


Like many Republicans, I support my party for its ideals and values. I don’t support it because I like the color red. Likewise, I opposed Hillary and the Democrats based on principle, not party loyalty. If, under Donald’s leadership, my party comes to represent the antithesis of the time-honored and time-tested values of inclusion, limited government, and individual liberty, principles that have served it and the country well, then the party will no longer have me as an advocate. If recent reports are true, that Trump advisers are circulating in Congress the idea that this is no longer the party of Reagan, then I’d say that the GOP is already on that lamentable track. Under Trump, the only real principle is personal loyalty to Donald himself, not loyalty to the country, the Constitution, conservative principles, or even decency. My serving as Secretary of State would do little to changed that, and so I would rather not have history attach my good name to that of Trump. Those that have condescended to associating with Donald, good and principled people, instead of positively affecting Donald have only found themselves ethically or ideologically tainted. I will not join them. I’ve tried too hard to be an honorable person to throw that away for anyone. My public service was motivated through an interest of being some use to our beloved country, for the good. I am not so interested in power that I would principally change who am in order to gain it. Therefore, as if it’s not clear by this point, I am not interested in being Trump’s Secretary of State nor serving in a Trump administration in any capacity. I will not apologize. It is up to President Trump to prove me wrong, to prove to me and the rest of the country that he is more than just the lesser evil of a deeply divide election. Should he do this, proven though sustained ethical and wise leadership, then, I will happily apologize. To that end, I wish Mr. Trump success, and to America, I bid good luck!



Ryan Thorson




Well, that was a surprise, wasn’t it? It seems that the polling for the 2016 Presidential election was a tiny bit off, with many news outlets giving Hillary Clinton a near 100% chance of winning! I’ll admit, I was surprised as anyone. I assumed that the information, which had been until this point had been largely accurate, was correct… It wasn’t. Whether the reason for this was faulty or deceptive polling methods or the emergence of the mythic “hidden Trump voter,” ALMOST EVERYBODY WAS WRONG! And to the horror of many, Donald Trump is the President Elect of the United States of America.

Those that follow my blog know that I considered myself a part of #NeverTrump, and the reasons for this are easily understood: Trump is a pathological liar (even for a politician) and he doesn’t seem to have any apparant moral scruples or transcendent philosophy that guides him. I’ve called him a “paleofascist” because he has an almost total ignorance when it comes to the Constitution or limited government, and his governing philosophy can be best summed up in “I want things done! You, go do them!” I believed that because of Trump’s lack of moral character and less-sophisticated take on government he would turn off enough conservatives and conservative leaning independents. This would (I suspected) depress the GOP turnout enough that Hillary, who is also morally bankrupt and a fascist ideologue (different from Trump’s an instinctual fascism), would be a shoo-in by Democrats, who aren’t as concerned about personal moral issues and limited government. This turned out to be incorrect. Trump ended up defeating Hillary in a historic upset that was probably caused by some combination of depressed voter turnout for the Democrats, Bernie supporters rejecting Clinton and instead voting for Johnson or Stein in key areas, Hillary’s criminality in government outweighing Trump’s own foibles among Republicans, and white voters sending a message that they are so sick of central casting in the media and the White House making them perpetually the villain of History, culpable and punishable. To many voters, Trump was tool, a conveyance for then to give the whole politically correct establishment the finger for telling them they must be eternally deferential because of the color of their skin and religion.

People all over the world, as well as in the U.S. reacted in many ways to the news that Trump would become the 45th President. In Russia, there was a sigh of relief as the prospect of war with the U.S. seemed small under a President vocal about wanting to avoid antagonizing them. Countries, like the Philippines, who have had their issues with the current administration, were congratulatory towards Trump. In the American media, there was weeping and gnashing of teeth. I reacted to the news of a new Mr. President pretty much as I predicted I would: Shock and disbelief… but then something else. It didn’t take me long for me to savor the fact that Hillary Clinton, perhaps the most corrupt woman of my lifetime, on the eve of her realizing her life’s ambition, would have all her dreams of avarice snatched from her grasping wrinkled digits and crushed, and in the most dramatic and humiliating or ways: bested by a two-bit con man. This was supposed to be her moment! All the laws she broke, all the corruption, they were all necessary and justified sacrifices leading to the end-goal of power! And she who holds the brass-ring has all her sins washed clean! However, she failed. She does not go directly to heaven! Instead, she must wonder (with the rest of us) will President Trump make good on his promise to go after her, Elliot Ness like, with all the powers of the Justice Department? This has all the makings of a great tragedy! If she wasn’t so thoroughly wicked (not to mention unlikely to pay for her crimes under a likely magnanimous Trump), I might just feel sorry for her! Yet, after all this schadenfreude, one must return to the reality that now Donald Trump will be the President, and that proposition is not nearly as enjoyable.

Now, I’ve said a lot of mean things about Trump, and I want to be clear… I take none of them back. What I’ve said about Trump was true before the election and still is. Trump’s character does not improve for having won. Donald does not magically become a moral person or devoté of conservatism for having slain the dragon. I wish it were so, and I would love to be shown that Trump is that rare historical exception. One could hope that Trump could be so awe-struck by the reality that he will now sit among such august peers as George Washington that he would be changed for the better, but how realistic is that? As Ben Shapiro observed, power tends not to make an awful person good. If Trump wants to reform himself, that’s on him to show us. What’s undeniable is that Trump now has power. Setting aside the debate on how much credit Trump personally deserves for his own victory, the reality is that he is the recipient of the spoils of his circumstance. He has beaten the odds, survived his own party’s attempts to abandon and remove him, and Trump probably feels empowered to any application of authority that he wishes. The monster sparked to life through a perfect storm of progressive overreach, congressional inaction, and media corruption is now loose. Trumpenstein is unbound!

If you’ve seen the old Universal Frankenstein films, you know that there always attempts to control the monster. However, those attempt always end badly. Those that believe that they will likewise be able to harness Trump toward conservative action may be just a bit naive! In the coming months, you will find various groups trying to control Trump, for better or worse, but I would submit to you that Trump will only let himself be led into areas that he wants to go. Conservative voters and evangelicals that largely gave Trump his victory will be disappointed as Trump breaks promise after promise to them. Trump’s not a conservative, and you should have known better. Your reward is not being under 13220858_1770521176524460_552307388196780575_nHillary, but that maybe it. Obama will try to control him, to get Trump to salvage Obamacare. This Trump will do, but only because his instincts tend towards big government. He may not keep it all, but he’s already indicating he will break his campaign promise of a complete repeal of the ACA. Congressional leaders will try to control him, but I think they’ll find very quickly it is they that will be controlled by him. Trump became President with only wavering support from Congress, and so Trump holds the cards. Hillary Clinton will try to control him, to avoid prosecution. If she’s nice to him, Trump will most likely break his promise to appoint a special prosecutor to look into Hillary’s illegal activity, just as I predicted he would. Trump’s only dilemma seems to be how to make his voters accept that he will not give them what he promised, such as his signature policy idea: the wall. This will not be difficult with his hard-core supporters (as evidenced by his campaign pivots). They will go where they’re led, but it will be more difficult with those that only reluctantly voted for him and still hope for conservative ends. Other than that issue, Trump will feel free to do as he pleases. He has no equals and will be controlled by nobody unless they have leverage over him or are willing to stroke his ego. No chains will hold him. No means of dispatching him has yet been devised. The media, lock-step detractors of Trump, has been largely rendered impotent. For months, they’ve railed against him while mostly ignoring Clinton’s obvious felonious actions. The result was that they’re ignored by the public, and this scathing rebuke has even led some media outlets to cry, “Mea culpa,” on their bias. The villagers, horrified that democracy can result in their ideas being rejected, have emerged from their parent’s basements with pitchfork and torch, marching in a futile attempt to bring down the monster! But even they, in their whinny and violent indignation, can do nothing to stop him. Trumpenstein stands atop a burning windmill, inviolate and invincible.

Anyway, as we go into this new age of Trump, let me end this piece with a kindly word of warning to our President-to-be and perhaps just a shred of hope for those of us who had hoped for a principled reformer as our President. Trump’s win had much less to do with the people’s love of him than it did with the people’s frustration at an intractable and corrupt political system that continually operates outside of its legal mandate, steals the freedom of its citizens, and continually lives outside its means. I realize that it is not humanly possible for Trump to keep all his often-contradictory promises, but he does have a chance here to do something great and prove to the country that he is not merely the lesser evil. First, he should Recognize that he has few friends to be made on the left. The riots and the safety pin campaign should have convinced him of that. However, he has yet possible allies on the right, and If he has the guts to restore the constitutional balance of limited powers, deal with the existential threat of U.S. debt and deficit spending, and resuscitate the idea of personal Liberty and responsibility, then he could not only eliminate any future conservative primary opponents but possibly go down in the annals of Americana as the President who gave the U.S. back her true self. Instead of being vindictive, using the powers usurped by Obama, perverting conservatism, and making palatable the idea of tyranny he could recognize the wisdom of our founding fathers and preserve it for future generations. If not, then Trump will be (as I suspect) essentially the same as the many more mundane Presidents and politicians that proceeded him: just a new pair of hands on the infernal machine. I hold a slim hope that Trump can show us and the world that he can be more than is, but even slim hope is better than none. He may be a monster, but who’s to say that a monster can’t be good? In fact, to reform this government, it may take a monster and their monstrous determination to see it through. So, on behalf of all Americans of good-will and on behalf of justice and Liberty, Mr. Trump, please, be our monster.


– Ryan Thorson

Texit? Meet The Folks Making The Push For The Second Biggest State In The US To Secede

Here’s an article by the Daily Caller about the Texas Nationalist Movement featuring me and some of the other good folks at TNM!

Texit? Meet The Folks Making The Push For The Second Biggest State In The US To Secede