Dear Mr Republican's Prediction: The women's rights protests will not succeed, at least not in the way that many of the protesters conceive of success.

This isn't a malicious statement; rather, it's an objective one that I believe is grounded in cold, hard reality. In my view, protests need to have several qualities in order to be successful:

(1) They need to be large.

(2) They need to be sustained over a long period of time.

(3) They need broad buy-in across geographic AND demographic groups.

(4) They need to coalesce around a clear leader--or small group of leaders--who can speak for their masses, especially with policymakers.

(5) They need to revolve around a problem whose nature is clear.

(6) They need to advocate for very clear policy solutions. This means literally laying out precisely which legal steps should be taken in order to remedy the problem(s), not just holding signs saying that this, that, or the other thing "is bad."

(7) They need to ensure that their method of protest doesn't push away some of the very groups that they need to win over. The leader mentioned in number 4 needs to be able to set the tone and style of protest for nearly everyone.

Unfortunately for these protesters, their nascent movement meets the first criterion but none of the rest of the criteria. (This has been the case for, as best as I can recall, ALL modern protest "movements.") Let's take them one at a time.

[1] This is the one criterion that the protests met: they were very large by almost any measure.

[2] So far, these protests just are not a long-term going concern. Perhaps that will change; some of the organizers are pushing to keep this movement from losing momentum. We shall see. Time will tell.

[3] Though the protests seemed to have broad geographic appeal (though more nearly-exclusively urban than some successful past movements), they didn't appear to have broad demographic appeal. From what I can tell, the composition of the protests was overwhelmingly female, disproportionately white, and almost exclusively more than just a little liberal. The support they have among those who didn't actually protest also seems to be largely female, white, and liberal. (Compare this to the civil rights movement, which, though frequently largely black on the actual streets, nevertheless drew substantial support across large swaths of the white community--as an example.) Furthermore, despite the largely female nature of the protests, I've actually been surprised at how divided females actually are: I cannot count the number I've seen, heard, and read criticizing the marches.

[4] There simply are no leaders of this movement. There are a lot of "speakers" and mouthpieces, but, much to the surprise of some of our "leaders," leadership involves more than a love for microphones. When I think of leaders who can corral a protest movement, I think of people like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

[5] The murkiness of the issues at the heart of this protest is probably among the gravest of the obstacles. Honestly, I'm having a very hard time ascertaining any truly "women's" issues that unite all of the protesters. It appears that if you ask 12 of them why they're protesting, you'll get 13 different answers, many of which don't appear to be unique to women. As far as I can tell, there are only two themes that unite the vast majority of the protesters: anti-Trump and pro-abortion. This is dangerous for a protest movement because one can logically ask whether this is a women's rights protest or an anti-Trump protest, a women's rights protest or a pro-abortion protest. Donald Trump isn't going anywhere for the time being and, in any event, has offended far more people than just women. He also doesn't seem to care about protests. Abortion is certainly partially a women's health issue, yes, but the later the pregnancy becomes, the more people--including many women--see it as not ONLY a women's health issue. For most Americans, it grows into an issue that is more than simply women's health. Many people, especially in later stages of pregnancy, see opposition to abortion not as taking away a woman's right but as providing a right to a baby. Scientifically, this position cannot be refuted. So on both themes, the practical relevance seems to me to be dubious.

[6] As far as I can tell, the protesters have offered no policy solutions at all. They've let us know what they like and what they don't like. They've let us know their perceptions. What should be done about it though? This is what protesters must clearly answer, and it hasn't happened.

[7] Protests leaders must be able to set the tone more effectively than they have to date. Peaceful, civil protests are one thing. Blocking interstates during rush hour, however, probably pushes more people away from your cause (especially those then stuck in even worse traffic) than it draws. Damaging a person's property wins the sympathy of but a few. Protesting against men per se is a sure way to cause most men to lose interest. Exposing the parts of her body that the protester claims to be trying to protect seems more suited to late night talk show fodder. Overtly offensive and/or vulgar signs have precisely the opposite of the "unity" impact that is so badly needed. Vilifying as sexist those who simply do not share one's perspective--even if the disagreement is grounded in objective facts--leaves a bad taste in many people's mouths. I could go on and on, but I've made my point. To be sure, I am NOT accusing all, or even most, of the protesters of doing these things. Only a small number did. Even so, those are the small number that dominate headlines, which is precisely why the protests' leadership must be able to set the tone of the movement.

Guns have only two enemies; Rust and Liberals. Liberal Tears Gun Oil protects against both.
**NOW BACON SCENTED**

Yes, I am aware that enormous movements that don't meet all of these criteria have brought about change, but it's usually not the change that many of the protesters wanted. The "Arab Spring" is an excellent example of this. Those protests were huge, but that's all that they were. As a result, they ended up with change, though not the change many had envisioned. Saudis simply were given a bit more welfare. Bahrainis came under far more repression by security services. Egypt is now ruled by a de facto military dictatorship, while Libya now has no government at all. Syria descended into a civil war that rages still today and whose fighting has killed or displaced millions of people. This, if anything, is what happens when a movement involves only large numbers and nothing more.

For now, we need to focus on unity. What it all boils down to is that we need to worry about one demographic above all others: Americans. The constant focus on one demographic group or another--especially during times of heightened tension, discontent, and uncertainty--serves only to drive more wedges. Right now, we need to focus on our country. That's the number one priority, and that's one category that includes us all. Speak in terms of what you feel is good or bad for the United States.

Only weeks after leaving office on January 20, 2017, former President Barack Obama discovers a leak under his sink, so he calls Troy the Plumber to come out and fix it.

Troy drives to President Obama's new house, which is located in a very exclusive, gated community near Chicago where all the residents have a net income of way more than $250,000 per year.

Troy arrives and takes his tools into the house. He is led to the guest bathroom that contains the leaky pipe under the sink. Troy assesses the problem and tells President Obama that it's an easy repair that will take less than 10 minutes. President Obama asks Troy how much it will cost. Troy checks his rate chart and says, "$9,500."

"What?! $9,500?!" Obama asks, stunned, "But you said it's an easy repair. Michelle will whip me if I pay a plumber that much!"

Troy says, "Yes, but what I do is charge those who make more than $250,000 per year a much higher amount so I can fix the plumbing of poorer people for free. This has always been my philosophy. As a matter of fact, I lobbied the Democrat Congress, who passed this philosophy into law. Now all plumbers must do business this way. It's known as the 'Affordable Plumbing Act of 2014'. I'm surprised you haven't heard of it."

In spite of that, Obama tells Troy there's no way he's paying that much for a small plumbing repair, so Troy leaves. Obama spends the next hour flipping through the phone book calling for another plumber, but he finds that all other plumbing businesses in the area have gone out of business. Not wanting to pay Troy's price, Obama does nothing and the leak goes un-repaired for several more days. A week later the leak is so bad President Obama has had to put a bucket under the sink. Michelle is not happy as she has Oprah and guests arriving the next morning. The bucket fills up quickly and has to be emptied every hour, and there's a risk the room will flood, so Obama calls Troy and pleads with him to return.

Troy goes back to President Obama's house, looks at the leaky pipe, checks his new rate chart and says, "Let's see, this will now cost you $21,000."

President Obama quickly fires back, "What? A few days ago you told me it would cost $9,500!"

Troy explains, "Well, because of the 'Affordable Plumbing Act,' a lot of wealthier people are learning how to maintain and take care of their own plumbing, so there are fewer payers in the plumbing exchanges. As a result, the price I have to charge wealthy people like you keeps rising. Not only that, but for some reason the demand for plumbing work by those who get it for free has skyrocketed! There's a long waiting list of those who need repairs, but the amount we get doesn't cover our costs, especially paperwork and record-keeping. This unfortunately has put a lot of my fellow plumbers out of business, they're not being replaced, and nobody is going into the plumbing business because they know they can't make any money at it. I'm hurting too, all thanks to greedy rich people like you who won't pay their 'fair share'. On the other hand, why didn't you buy plumbing insurance last December? If you had bought plumbing insurance available under the 'Affordable Plumbing Act,' all this would have been covered by your policy."

"You mean I wouldn't have to pay anything to have you fix my plumbing problem?" asks Obama.

"Well, not exactly," replies Troy. "You would have had to buy the insurance before the deadline, which has passed now. And, because you're rich, you would have had to pay $34,000 in premiums, which would have given you a 'silver' plan, and then, since this would have been your first repair, you would have to pay up to the $21,000 deductible, and anything over that would have a $7,500 co-pay, and then there's the mandatory maintenance program, which is covered up to 17.5%, so there are some costs involved. Nothing is for free."

"WHAT?!" exclaims Obama. "Why so much for a puny sink leak?!"

With a bland look, Troy replies, "Well, paperwork, mostly, like I said. And the internal cost of the program itself. You don't think a program of this complexity and scope can run itself, do you? Besides, there are millions of folks with lower incomes than you, even many in the 'middle class', who qualify for subsidies that people like you must support. That's why they call it the 'Affordable Plumbing Act'! Only people who don't make much money can afford it. If you want affordable plumbing, you'll have to give away most of what you have accumulated and cut your's and Michelle's income by about 90%. Then you can qualify to GET your 'Fair Share' instead of GIVING it."

"But who would pass a crazy act like the 'Affordable Plumbing Act'?!" exclaims the exasperated Obama.

After a sigh, Troy replies, "Congress... because they didn't read it."

This will help you understand Obamacare.

On my Twitter feed the other day, someone posted a photo of a page in a textbook he was forced to use in college.

"If you are a libertarian or an anarchist who believes states are a threat to freedom, you should consider moving to Somalia." That's the first sentence on the page.

Subtle.

(The offending book, if you're curious, is The Good Society: An Introduction to Comparative Politics, by Alan Draper and Ansil Ramsay.)

Here we have an academic textbook literally urging libertarians to move to Somalia if they hate states so much -- in other words, it's written at the level of "You like carrots? Why don't you marry one" from third grade. Seriously, this is exactly the same dumb-guy argument I might encounter on Twitter.

"Without a state," we read, Somalia under statelessness descended into a Hobbesian "state of nature where life is nasty, brutish, and short."

Then, after two whole paragraphs on the situation in Somalia, we get study questions. If you look really, really closely, you may detect a very slight bias in these questions.

VERY SLIGHT, I tell you.

"1. Which is preferable, bad government or no government?"
"2. Why hasn't Somalia without a state become the paradise that libertarians anticipate?"

Now for one thing, was there ever a libertarian who predicted that a stateless Somalia -- or a stateless anywhere else -- would be a "paradise"?

More importantly, if we're going to get a picture that's worth anything of life in Somalia without the state, the correct comparison to make is not between Somalia and the United States (the comparison most writers like this are implicitly making), but between Somalia and comparable African countries.

And on that front, Somalia during its stateless period comes out pretty darn well. In most metrics of living standards it held steady or improved.

In the Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization in 2008, Professor Benjamin Powell and his colleagues wrote:

"This paper’s main contribution to the literature has been to compare Somalia’s living standards to those of 41 other sub-Saharan African countries both before and after the collapse of the national government. We find that Somalia’s living standards have generally improved and that they compare relatively favorably with many existing African states. Importantly, we find that Somali living standards have often improved, not just in absolute terms, but also relative to other African countries since the collapse of the Somali central government."

Economist Peter Leeson, in Anarchy Unbound (Cambridge University Press), reports similar findings -- yes, Somalia ranked low in some categories during the stateless period, but that's where it ranked before statelessness, too, and if anything it made progress in those categories (life expectancy is up, for instance, and infant mortality is down).

Does our textbook cite any of this? The question answers itself. The only person quoted in the book is a New York Times reporter.

I think I'll take Ben Powell and Pete Leeson.

Of course, smashing p.c. textbook propaganda is what we specialize in at my Liberty Classroom.

Prepare yourself for some truth bombs:

http://www.LibertyClassroom.com

Tom Woods

Do you feel that #GoldenShowersGate and the prevailing journalism surrounding President-elect Donald Trump is an embarrassment to our country and a reflection of journalistic standards? 

Even those of us who didn't vote for Trump find the mainstream media's constant slandering of the President-elect to be insulting.   There's enough factual reporting that is deserved, why constantly reduce your journalistic credibility to spew lies and defamation?

The supposed and unsubstantiated  secret document leaked to Buzzfeed reads that he “defiled the bed where they had slept by employing a number of prostitutes to perform a ‘golden showers? (urination) show in front of him.”

False reporting from CNN and Buzzfeed today is not what we want from our media and there's a few things you can do to prevent more of it.  Talk to their advertisers about it.

Other journalists were approached with the story but didn't publish as it was impossible to verify.

Emailing advertising departments is fine.  Calling is better.  Snail mail is even better.  But, more likely, you're lazy.  That's fine, just screenshot an ad while on CNN or Buzzfeed's website, then tweet it at the advertiser with #BoycottCNN or #BoycottBuzzfeed .

But since you're being lazy, screenshot/tweet A LOT.  Tag @libertylolblog if you're so inclined.

Complaint Letter Template:

• Open with "Dear <name, last name>," or "Dear <Mr./Ms. last name>," optionally followed by their position and company name. If no such information is available, open with "To Whom it may concern,".

 

• Apologize if the email has been sent to the wrong address, and ask to have it redirected to the right one if so.

 

• Note that you have some serious concerns about the site(s) they’re advertising on.

 

• State how you ran into the article(s) in question, how you felt when you read them, and how they insult, attack, and/or offend you, given your background, tastes, and values.
  

 

• Illustrate your point with some quotes. Don't overemote. Be polite but firm about your protest.
  

• Talk about the advertiser's products and services, mentioning any purchases you made from them in the past and/or planned purchases for the near future. Mention what you like about their products and services.
  

• State that they would benefit from distancing themselves from news outlets creating negative associations with their products and services.
  

• It's up to you whether you want to give an ultimatum of ending your commercial relationship with the advertiser. Not saying so is OK as long as you've said the above. In fact, admitting that you like their products and services too much to give them up can be sincere and disarming, as long as you warn them that other consumers may feel otherwise.
  

• End with your name, pseudonym, or sign-off.

To Whom it May Concern,

Hello, I have a concern about your advertisements with Buzzfeed.  As linked here, Ken Bensinger, Miriam Elder and Mark Schoofs  wrote These Reports Allege Trump Has Deep Ties To Russia (https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/these-reports-allege-trump-has-deep-ties-to-russia?utm_term=.lszlzA2zZ#.jaNBDN1DL).  Massive internet pushback has seen the original, irresponsible article highly updated to contain a much more cautious, responsible tone.  Prior to the update, CNN further exacerbated the issue by claiming IT HAD the sex tape in question that Russia was using to bribe the President-Elect. I found this journalism to be insulting as a consumer and as a US citizen.

I see that your company cares about Buzzworthy news and important issues of the day and that's apparent by your advertisements on BuzzFeed.  This news article and many others on BuzzFeed detract from legitimate concerns I have for our President Elect.  There is plenty of worrying issues with our President Elect unfortunately, The Boy Who Cried Wolf - effect is occurring when news agencies use their online platform to bully those that have differing political views.   It's hard to discern the difference between slander and legitimate news.

As a result of this, there has been a consumer boycott of BuzzFeed and their advertisers, organized by the citizens who demand unbiased news reporting.

I truly value your company as proven by my purchases in your online store (my username is the same as this email account).  Unfortunately, if it comes down to purchasing your competitor's equivalent and your own product, I would find your continued support and advertising on BuzzFeed to be a disqualifying tiebreaker.

I hope you will discuss this issue and future issues of bias with your advertising partner, BuzzFeed.

Thank you for your time,
Liberty Lover

Advertisers change daily.  The below list has likely changed as well.  Find an advertiser that you know you've supported in the past so you can prove you're a non-repeatable customer.

CNN Headline News Advertisers

HEC Paris MBA Program http://www.mba.hec.edu/mba/site/the_mba_that_builds_character.2.html
Phone Number - France numbers only listed on web site

JK Harris and Company http://www.jkharris.com/?ml_source=networkcable
Phone Number - 800-556-9795

AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals http://www.astrazeneca-us.com/
Phone - 800-236-9933

E-Trade https://us.etrade.com/e/t/home
Phone - 800-387-2331

Monex Precious Metals http://monex.com/
Phone - 800-444-8317

Sprint / Nextel http://www.sprint.com/index.html?brand=Nextel
Sprint customers – call 1-888-211-4727 Nextel customers – call 1-800-639-6111

Select Quote http://www.selectquote.com/home2/homepage.html
Phone 800-777-8300

Wells Fargo https://www.wellsfargo.com/
Phone 800-869-3557

AARP http://www.aarp.org/
Phone - 888-687-2277

Philips / Norelco http://www.usa.philips.com/index.page Phone - (212) 850-5000 Scott M. Weisenhoff CEO Philips Electronics North America email [email protected] http://www.subaru.com/tools/contactus/index.jsp
Phone - 1-800-782-2783

Geico http://www.geico.com/about/contactus/
Phone - 800-861-8380

Boston Market http://www.bostonmarket.com/contacts
Phone - 800-365-7000

Overstock.com https://help.overstock.com/cgi-bin/overstock.cfg/php/enduser/contact_page.php?searchtype=HP_Header&keywords=contact
Phone 800-843-2446

Liberty Medical http://www.libertymedical.com/diabetes/contact-us/default.aspx?sem-lander-3
Phone 800-970-4831

Live Well Financial http://www.livewellfinancial.com/?gclid=CLTTo4eC5JYCFRlRagodaiF_Ow
Phone – 800-917-1170

American Coalition for Clean Coal http://www.americaspower.org/Contact-Us
Phone – 877-358-6699

University of Phoenix http://yourphoenixdegree.com/010/ Partnership for Prescription Assistance https://www.pparx.org/Intro.php
Phone - 888-477-2669

Ehealth Insurance Services http://www.ehealthinsurance.com/
Phone – 800-977-8860

Dodge http://www.dodge.com/webselfservice/dodge/index.jsp?screenName=recall
Phone - 1-800-853-1403

Hyundai http://www.hyundaiusa.com/global/contactus/main.aspx
Phone – 800-633-5151

Jos A Banks Clothiers http://www.josbank.com/customer_service_main.tem
Phone – 800-999-7472 or 800-285-2265

Career Builder.com http://www.careerbuilder.com/share/aboutus/pr_main.aspx
Toll Free: (800) 638-4212

Zurich Financial Services http://www.zurich.com/main/services/contact/generalcontact.htm
Swiss Phone numbers only

Johnson and Johnson https://secure-www.jnj.com/wps/wcm/jsp/contactUs.jsp
Phone – 732-524-0400

US Home Auction http://www.ushomeauction.com/
Phone – 800-793-6107

Cisco http://www.cisco.com/web/siteassets/contacts/index.html
Phone – 800-553-6387 or 408-526-4000

Exxon Mobil http://www.exxonmobil.com/SiteFlow/SuppInfo/Contacts/SF_CT_BusHeadquarters.asp
Phone – 972-444-1000

Jitterbug http://www.jitterbug.com/ContactUs/
Phone – 800-918-8543
-----Source http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2128336/posts

Virgin Mobile

Mini

Taco Bell

Nestea

Old El Paso

Holiday Inn

Wahlburgers

Lenovo

Famous Footwear

Cricket

Ford

KitKat

PepsiMax

Temple University

Google Play

Hidden Valley

GE

Following the GamerGate controversy in 2014, many gamers used this similar tactic to great success after many SJW publications falsely claimed sexism, racism and bullying occurred where it did not.  Here are a few examples of those letters that you can/should craft your letter from.

This is the Social Justice Warrior strategy that has been found to be effective.  Specifically, OPERATION DISRESPECTFUL NOD was successful in the loss of 6-digit advertising income to Gawker during GamerGate.  Their strategy wasas follows:

Step 1: Consult Gamergate’s compiled list ofmedia organizations and reporters that have somehow wronged the movement. Once you have chosen the organization you would like to target, head over to the list of companies that advertise with that Web site and select one of them.
Step 2: Consider the instance of “media malpractice” you plan to complain about. Other members of the movement have helpfully gathered examples already, as part of “Operation Dig Dig Dig”: You might like to try the fact, for instance, that a gaming site reported on the harassment of game developer Zoe Quinn without acknowledging the remote possibility that Quinn may have made the whole thing up. Or you might flag the egregious “conflict of interest” between Quinn and the volunteer moderator of Reddit’s gaming forum: said moderator is a friend of a co-worker of Quinn.
Step 3: Choose an article on your targeted site to complain about or allege offense to. (It does not have to be related to the conflict of interest in step 2.) If no articles seem sufficiently offensive, comb through reporters’ tweets for more material.
Step 4: Plug all of your choices into one of the many form e-mails that leaders of Disrespectful Nod have helpfully written already. Most of them go something like this:
Step 5: Keep it up, even when you get no response, and be — to quote the operation’s guide! — “an annoying little s—.” A representative for a high-profile communications company that advertises on Polygon confirmed that he’d received “dozens” of e-mails from Gamergate supporters over a period of several weeks.

I just want to make it clear that this post has nothing to do with Chip and Joanna Gaines, so if you do not like them, then there's no need to say that here.

That would be missing the point, so just ignore the subject names, if you must. They simply happen to be the writers of a statement that I find very refreshing, considering the anger and vitriol that are roiling our country right now.

Look at what they say about differences of opinion and how to handle them. Look at what they say about how to treat people who disagree with us. That, to me, is a very relevant consideration today.

If I post something about Obama, liberals frequently comment on my posts to insult conservatives. If I post something about Trump, conservatives--yes, we conservatives are every bit as bad--usually respond by denigrating and insulting the other side. So read this short statement of theirs, and while you do, consider whether this is how you treat people who disagree with you.

Do you stick to the facts, or do you simply look for information that supports your position? Are you willing to give the other side the benefit of the doubt? Do you treat both sides equally? If you're liberal, do you treat conservatives respectfully? Do you amicably agree to disagree? If you're conservative, do you treat liberals respectfully? Do you amicably agree to disagree?

I know that many of you are inclined to respond to this by comparing Trump and Obama or by simply saying that one side or the other is worse. Is that truly your standard--simply to not be as bad as someone else? If you respond this way, then that's what you're saying. Set a higher standard for yourself, for your parties, and for your leadership than that.

If you're a Christian or simply someone who believes in the merit of the Golden Rule, then before you respond telling me about the lies of the other side or how terrible you think the other side or another candidate is, why don't you first consider whether that is treating the other side as you yourself prefer to be treated? Why don't you first consider whether that qualifies as "turning the other cheek"?

Perhaps you're right: perhaps the other side doesn't treat your side fairly. So what. Why can't that change start with you? It is, after all, the height of hypocrisy to demand that the other side change its ways while you yourself are unwilling to take the first step.

Stop criticizing the merit of the other side. Instead, set an example yourself. Stop seeing your fellow Americans as the enemy simply because some of them disagree with your policy preferences.

Americans are on the same team, and sometimes teammates don't agree. That doesn't make them enemies though. If you want enemies, then look outside our nation's borders, and I assure you that you'll find plenty of enemies arrayed against your team. Like it or don't, but we are all in this together.

"Even more damaging are comments that impugn the tens of thousands of Americans who are at work every day of the year, many in great physical danger, to protect us and to provide our national leadership — regardless of political party — with the best information possible," Schiff said Saturday.

"Perhaps, once he has taken office, Mr. Trump will go to the CIA and look at the rows of memorial stars in the lobby — each representing a fallen officer — and reflect on his disparagement of the intelligence community's work," he said.

I'm no Democrat--not by a long shot--but the Democrat who made that statement is exactly right. His words do not apply only to Donald Trump; they apply equally to those of you I've heard trashing the CIA and the broader intelligence community and even personally insulting those who work in that capacity.

Many of you who say these things are quick to realize the sacrifice made on your behalf by those who are buried at Arlington National Cemetery, yet you fail to realize that the same sacrifice has been made on your behalf by many in the intelligence community.

Their sacrifices may not be memorialized in Arlington, but they have their own solemn memorial in the stars on lobby wall in the CIA's headquarters. They are there without names and without recognition.

Never forget the good work that our intelligence officials do protecting you and this country--even when you insult them and portray them as the true threat. It takes a true hero to work long hours for too little pay in order to defend people who do not appreciate it and who have no idea of the sacrifice involved.

You'd do well to remember that these people are your fellow Americans. They are largely good, patriotic people with families they wish they could see whenever they wanted. They aren't playing politics; they're playing a game of life or death because they believe in this country and in your cause.

Some in the Intelligence field also believe in the principles that we espouse here: Peace, Tolerance, Free Markets, Individualism and Limited Government.