Milo Named LGBTQ Person of the Year: It’s Fabulous!

Milo Yiannopoulos was named LGBTQ Nation’s ‘Person of the Year’ on Thursday garnering over 80,000 votes (nearly 70 percent) in the online poll.

Milo’s victory comes one week after his upcoming Simon & Schuster autobiography, Dangerous, rocketed to the top spot on Amazon’s Best Seller list, causing consternation and garment-wrenching across the Liberal universe. The Chicago Review of Books has since stated it refuses to cover any of the publisher’s books in 2017 and Sarah Silverman (who is being ridiculous) and Judd Apatow have called for the publisher to squelch the project.

The self-proclaimed “Dangerous Faggot” started his infamous pillaging of all things politically correct during Gamergate as Tech Editor for Breitbart and went on to lead triggerings across college campuses in 2015 and 2016.

He garnered national attention in July of last year when Twitter permanently banned the provocateur after an online feud with Ghostbusters actress Leslie Jones. Twitter explained that Milo was banned for what it called “targeted harassment.” Many criticized Twitter’s double-standard as Milo never directed any of his followers to attack Jones and Jones herself committed what many perceived as targeted harassment during previous tweets days before Milo’s ban.

Milo Yiannopoulos named LGBTQ Nation's Person of the Year

An ardent supporter of president-elect Donald Trump (Milo affectionately calls him “Daddy”), Milo is frequently criticized by many Leftist groups and labeled inaccurately by mainstream media outlets as an “alt-right white nationalist.” LGBTQ Nation even retracted a statement in the article announcing the result after previously referring to Milo as a member of the alt-right movement.

Milo, born in Greece and raised near Kent, England, refers to himself as a cultural Libertarian and has given voice to many conservative and Libertarian members of the LGBT community who are frequently ostracized as traitors to the gay cause.

Though the poll is by no means scientific or a reflection of LGBTQ Nation’s views on Milo (they went out of their way to explain that anyone could vote and view the result as a reflection of Milo’s popularity with his own fan base), Milo’s victory gives hope to those in the LGBT community who have grown weary of being associated with Leftist and Liberal policies and groups.

Milo’s unrepentant style and unapologetic language is everything that we in the gay community have prided for generations: refusing to conform, bucking the status quo, being queer without reservation and flinging our fabulousness in your face whether you like it or not.

The overwhelming support of Milo in this poll continues to show his support from those within and outside the LGBT community.

Milo reflects the idea that many of us hope to bring forward in 2017 and beyond: We’re here, we’re queer, we love liberty, and you can get over it!


7 New Year’s Resolutions For Liberals

2016 is coming to a close. According to MTV, there are numerous aspects of life that I and you at home need to work on (if you’re a white guy). The video titled 2017 New Year’s Resolutions for White People was the Christmas gift everyone received but no one asked for, kind of like the knitted socks Aunt Nancy got you. In the name of equality here are 7 New Year’s Resolutions for the Left:

1. Stop banning conservative speakers on college campuses

Milo Yiannopoulos banned from college campuses

The favorite pastime of the Left was out in full force in 2016. There was a grand total of 42 disinvites to conservative speakers like Milo and Ben Shapiro from Liberal colleges. One College Republican chapter was suspended for a year for just TALKING about inviting Milo. The social justice warriors should just stay in their safe spaces if they feel that threatened by a gay conservative.

P.S. There are no safe spaces in real life …. get our shirt that says so here.

Continue reading 7 New Year’s Resolutions For Liberals

Hey Liberals, Stop Using ‘Racism’ as a Cop-out

Someone has to say it.

Racism exists. It displays lack of character, lack of intelligence, and lack of self-control. It is entirely perverse and an incorrect way of thinking.

But it is not the root or cause of all crime.

In this year’s election cycle, President-elect Trump displayed, quite possibly, the most depleted tact ever experienced by a presidential candidate. He displayed obscenity and simply could not shut his mouth when it would have been smart, according to conventional wisdom. Some of his most quotables, while maybe not blatantly racist, have racial undertones that to me destroyed much of his credibility as a politician, or his attempt to be a politician.

All of this, in years past, might have disqualified Trump from the highest office in the land (my history teacher would argue this position is filled by a moderate on the Supreme Court, yet I digress). But it did not.

This is not necessarily because the majority of Americans actually agree with what some saw as borderline discriminatory statements on minorities or his (I won’t sugar-coat this one) disgusting comments on women, but because the states who decided the election also decided that what some saw as ‘racism’ and what saw some as honesty was not a deal breaker.

If I am being honest, it should not be.

This concept is difficult for Millennials to grasp, but we cannot allow our hatred of one injustice to always outweigh our hatred for another.

The largest and most prevalent issue with this line of logic is how it encourages a lack of critical thinking. When racism is used as a cop out for causes to real issues, it allows us to imply that racism is the end-all be-all of injustice, when racism is only one small facet of the world’s evil. We can talk all day about whether or not the War on Terror was a smart move, but if the only argument against it is that it provided an opportunity for America to enact her racial vengeance on the world, we are lacking an understanding of foreign policy. And domestic policy. And every policy. As the Left says, it is 2016. It is time to move beyond the racial tensions of the previous centuries and stop making every policy issue into one of skin color.

Take, for example, immigration, and the thought of closed borders suddenly becomes a race issue. It is degrading to one with a stance for tighter border security, as if they are so blinded by their own racial prejudices that they cannot possibly be against a swirling influx of immigrants for any other reason than their skin color. Never mind the crime that, regardless of what we want to think, is brought by illegal immigrants (hence the term, illegal- the Left struggles to grasp that one, too). It simply becomes about race, and not about the threat to America’s homeland security and budget when we host an approximate 11.5 million people who are not registered and paying into the system we established.

As it turns out, America had more beef with Hillary’s alleged crimes of obstructing justice with her emails (and obstructing just about everything else) than we had with Trump’s ‘racism’ and obscene comments about women. Neither one of these, however, needs to be worse than the other.

When we have two choices whose character is less than spectacular, who have both made poor judgement calls, we can stop looking at their character. They are tied somewhere near -14 on the Rate My Character Scale. What we can look at is policy, and stop using racial division as a chance to duck out of the critical thinking the political arena requires.

Dear Milliennials, It’s Time to Grow Up!

Donald J. Trump is a candidate like no other. He is not a Barry Goldwater, a Richard Nixon, and certainly not a Ronald Reagan. He is not a “traditional conservative” who won this election in a “traditional” way. Certainly, Mr. Trump is a traditional conservative; he is intelligent, savvy, and tenacious in his beliefs. However, his strong-willed, plain-speaking, flamboyant style strengthened his appeal to many unlikely voters. So, what does that make Donald Trump? It makes him just that — Donald Trump. After what has been a extremely colorful campaign, Mr. Trump will now assume the highest office in the land.

So how exactly did this happen? After all, no one thought that Donald J. Trump would become the 45th President of the United States, especially you, the “disgruntled millennial.”

First and foremost, it is important to realize that Trump not only used the Democratic playbook against them, he threw the entire book at them and hit them in the face. He played dirty, used condescending language, and told the people what they wanted to hear — the truth. As Democrats do, Trump gave these people terrific lip-service, but it was truthful lip-service about the state of the country, and the future of our world. Too bad if that offended you and hurt your feelings. I am afraid that you are outnumbered by blue-collar Americans who only proclaim to be intellectuals of common sense.

Like Democrats, Trump was greedy, but he was greedy in a good way. He wanted to steal every state he could from the Democrats as evidenced by his vigorous campaigning in states such as Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. Indeed, he did; he pulled out “YUGE” wins in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Ohio. Like a horse chasing a carrot in front of its face, the Democratic party abandoned these blue-collar workers because of money and power. Well, I guess the blue-collar workers just abandoned you as well.

And, for all the millennials who say Trump is stupid and uncreative, this is for you! He used Hillary Clinton’s greatest ally against her — the American, leftist media. Trump made the friend of his enemy his friend. And just to show you the sheer stupidity of the American media, the same media that you watch, the more they harped about him and about how he would make such a terrible President, the more media attention and coverage he got. After all, any press is good press, right?

It is, and Mr. Trump exploited it beautifully. Now that a month has passed since the election, it is time that you move on. Grow up! Newsflash: the real world is not your aspiration of fairies, cupcakes, rainbows, and unicorns. Unfortunately, we don’t live in Utopia. In the real world, you will not always get your way; there will be people that you disagree with, and you must get over it. And there will be people that you do not want to work with, but you will have to. Mr. Trump is one of those people because this is the real world.

What scares me is this:


Liberal millennials have crawled into a corner by the fireplace with their blankie, cup of hot chocolate, and coloring book (aka safe spaces). My generation is supposed to be leading the world in the coming years and this is how they are acting!? It is an embarrassment, not only to my generation, but also to our constitutional republic! My oh my, you sure are “adulting” quite well. You might as well stay there because you are obviously not ready to enter the real world.

Political Polarization Poisons Politics

Before we board this roller coaster of emotions…

Six months ago a President-elect Trump was an impossibility to many of us on the right. He was and is such a laughably-bad candidate, how could he win? (Yes, I know Hillary is awful too, but she at least is better at hiding it.) Now, six months later, that previous impossibility has become a reality; and I can safely say political polarization only has gotten worse. The left attacks everything Donald Trump does, while the right defends everything he does. There is no other way to explain a poll showing Republican support for Putin shifting dramatically in the last several months.

Seriously? Have we entered an alternate dimension where up is down and bread is good for you?

I made a blog post back in June when a President Trump was simply an impossibility. At the time, I felt very strongly that both sides of the political spectrum had become so polarized that candidates like Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton became possible. How else do you explain two candidates by both major parties who were so disliked by the other side that each side attacked those of us in the middle who refused to vote for either? (I.e.: Not voting for *insert candidate you like* is a vote for *insert candidate you don’t like*.)

I think that blog post is highly relevant today, even after the election, as we enter a new era of politics. For better or worse, this election did not end on election night when Donald Trump was declared president-elect. So sit back, relax, and grab some popcorn or candy (I personally like cookie dough when I go to the movies) and enjoy. If you come away from this article learning anything, please at least meditate on your own views and where they fall in this whole mad, mad, mad, mad world. (Or at least watch the movie I just linked to.)

Continue reading Political Polarization Poisons Politics

Congressional Term Limits Aren’t the Way to Make Washington Work Again

A few weeks ago, another contributor for this Think Right Politics wrote an article entitled “It’s Time to Implement Term Limits to Drain the Swamp”. As can be assumed from the title, this article focuses on the reason why we should impose term limits on our politicians. However, I would like to offer up a differing viewpoint on this issue.

Congressional term limits are not the key to making Washington work again, more bipartisanship is. Politicians are democratically elected. If a constituency doesn’t want a certain person to hold public office any longer, they can vote them out. Nothing requires the people to vote for a politician. If the elected official isn’t doing a good job of reflecting the opinions and concerns of the people they represent, then they won’t remain in office much longer. It’s true that incumbents generally win and it’s hard to challenge someone who’s already in office. This can potentially hinder outsiders from running against those already in office. However, incumbents can be defeated if they haven’t represented the people well. This happened in Wisconsin during the 2010 senatorial race between Russ Feingold, the Democratic incumbent, and Ron Johnson, the Republican challenger. Russ Feingold wasn’t performing as he had promised. As a result, the outsider, Ron Johnson was elected. This is a perfect example of democracy doing its job. We need to be able to trust the democratic process in electing the best representative for the people. The thing that creates career politicians isn’t the public official, it’s the people. If a constituency keeps voting for a person that isn’t reflecting their best interests, then the populace needs to become better informed. It’s not up to government to fix these issues.

Imposing term limits would result in politicians being less accountable to the people they represent. During their last term, they wouldn’t have to be representative of their constituency. There would be no ramifications for them if they weren’t. Some argue that when politicians are so focused on winning the next election, they don’t create real change for fear of not being reelected. Most of their energy goes towards to their campaigns instead of policy. Elections also becomes a large expenditure for candidates. However, Congressional term limits are not the solution. To fix that problem, it’s better to look at the duration of terms served by representatives. Those in the US House, only serve two year terms. If this were increased to four years, campaigns wouldn’t be so integral to being in Congress. Having elections, like we do, causes politicians to be accountable. In a representative’s last term, there could be years of them not serving their community. Without fear of not being reelected, there’s nothing to keep public officials from pursuing policy that only reflects their personal interests.

To truly have a representative democracy, any American citizen not convicted of a felony should be able to run for public office, even if they already held it. Barring people from candidacy isn’t something that reflects America. In the corporate world, people aren’t fired from their job because they’ve been in the position for too long. They’re fired for performing below standards. People aren’t barred from applying to the same job multiple times. Why should Congress be any different? Politicians are rewarded for performing well by being reelected and punished by losing in the next election.

Those that have served longer will also have more knowledge that will enable them to represent their constituency better. When newly elected officials first enter congress, they have a lot to learn. The veterans are the ones in leadership positions because they’ve proven themselves. Freshman senators and representatives have little to no experience representing a constituency in Congress. It takes a while to learn the ins and outs of working in Congress. In every other aspect of life, those that have served longer and have more experience are rewarded. They’re more respected and in positions of power. Those in Congress shouldn’t be any different. Those who have proven themselves effective and have served longer shouldn’t be punished for that. Granted, not everyone who has served a long time has proven themselves. People don’t deserve positions of leadership just because they have served longer. However, if the congressman or woman in question has proven themselves, they should be rewarded instead of chastised. The knowledge of a veteran should be praised.

It can take a while to truly make a difference. Elected officials should be given as many opportunities the people are willing to give them to be effective. “Draining the Swamp” is not the answer to fixing Washington, working together is.

Trump’s Interventionism Is Bad for the Economy

President-Elect Trump announced that Carrier, a subsidiary of the United Technologies Corporation, has decided to keep operations running in Indiana, rather than letting approximately 1000 jobs be outsourced, presumably to Mexico. From all appearances, it seems the Trump administration effectively blackmailed United Technologies, holding government contracts and tax breaks over Carrier’s parent corporation to force compliance. Republicans across the nation are still celebrating Trump’s 180 on decades of traditional, GOP free market rhetoric. For years, most Republicans have argued against government interventionism, criticizing subsidies, bailouts, and economic extortion in the name of laissez-faire economics. Now that the GOP controls the White House and Congress, the developing Trump administration seems to be reversing its party’s tradition.

President-Elect Trump announces that Carrier will keep nearly 1000 manufacturing jobs in Indiana rather than relocating them.

This comes as no surprise, as the majority of Trump’s fiscal policy has been centered around a “trade war” with Mexico and China. Before election day, and unfortunately afterward, Trump has been a proponent of an absurdly high tariff on imported goods, one that would start at 35%. Even going back to February, when Carrier announced the close of two Indiana factories, Trump threatened to “tax the hell” out of companies that outsource jobs abroad before selling the foreign (and cheaper) goods back in America.

What does come as a surprise is the virtually unanimous support from the rest of the GOP. Even conservative powerhouses, including Sen. Ted Cruz and Gov. Mike Pence, have come out in support of the Carrier deal, exemplifying the radical departure from GOP tradition since election day and establishing a hopefully short-lived practice of bowing down to Trump. Trump is not even president yet, and he has already removed a central tenet of conservatism from the GOP’s agenda.

This tenet, one that emphasizes the morality and success of a free market, is being replaced by interventionism, something both Hillary Clinton and John Maynard Keynes would support. In fact, Obama did the exact same thing throughout his two terms. He bailed out the auto industry, “saving” over 1000 times as many jobs as the Carrier deal did; propped up Solyndra, the tax-sucking abomination that would make Milton Friedman roll in his grave; and forced healthcare providers and their clients into government-mandated insurance contracts via the Affordable Care Act. Since the Carrier announcement, Trump has not backed down, and he took to twitter to continue his misguided tirade.

Aside from the moral issues with Trump’s actions, in which government action inherently violates the rights of a business, Keynesian economics have been shown to fail repeatedly (*cough* Smoot-Hawley Tariff *cough*). Despite what Trump says, his fiscal policy so far is not making America “open for business.” For one, the Carrier deal, as mentioned above, is minuscule in its scope, and it will not function as a long term solution to job loss in the manufacturing sector. Automation and competition will force domestic manufacturers to lay off workers, downsize, shut down, or raise prices; which, ironically, happened before the Carrier deal was even announced. About a week before the deal was made public, Carrier announced it would raise prices on conditioning units by as much as 5%. Now, no one can prove that this increase is a result of the impending Carrier deal – even Carrier denied the theory – but when a RINO (Republican in name only) interventionist wins the presidency, mere months after swearing to “tax the hell” out of companies like Carrier, it hardly looks coincidental.

On a broader level, Trump’s preliminary fiscal policy will have negative economic implications. Shielding domestic companies from competition abroad breeds inefficiency and price hikes,as well as higher labor costs, submission to restrictive American regulations, and forgone savings all at the expense of consumers and the companies themselves. Carrier itself was slated to save $65 million  a year by relocating, but that figure is a thing of the past.

At this point, the best we can hope for is Trump’s Republican congress to shoot down any such policies, but, so far, the prospects are grim.