Getting Grabby

People talk about how Donald Trump talked with Billy Bush, but guess what - both men and women sometimes talk that way. Here's the wife of Duran Duran frontman Simon Le Bon:



That is all.

5% "Increase" in Median Household Income Pure Illlusion:

Interesting take on supposedly good news.

Note: direct link has been blocked by Twitter.

That is all.

How to Use Twitter to Argue for a Cause

When trying to use Twitter to argue a position, one needs to consider what the goals are. Generally, there are at least 4 things Twitter is useful for:

(1) Disseminating information to people who support your position. Linking to articles, blogposts, etc., that provide support for a position allows people to improve their arguments, as well as provides them with things they can link to to support their position in the future. Finally, it helps to keep their moral high and to prevent discouragement.

(2) Providing support to your side in an argument. Joining in a conversation and supporting the people arguing for your side can help their morale and can give alternate perspectives for the other side. In addition, if you can provide links to articles, etc., supporting your side, you help to provide support for the facts of your argument (as well as helping the other people on your side in the future).

(3) Directly appealing to those on the opponents' side. Basically, trying to convince an opponent to consider your side. This requires being polite, and when possible appealing to your opponents' concerns that would ten to support your side rather than belittling the ones they disagree with. For example, when arguing with a liberal pointing out that the Koch brothers are supporters of mass immigration, and that it lowers wages, makes more sense than accusing them of wanting to commit white genocide.

(4) Discrediting your opponents. Generally, exposing the flaws of a someone's arguments (politely) to someone who supports them might make them less likely to trust that person (or at least their judgment) in the future. This is particularly important when arguing with someone who has some level of influence, as reducing their influence on others might make them change their attitude, or at least could reduce the damage they can do.

A good way to use Twitter, I would argue, would be to find conversations on a topic. Find ones where there is at least one person on your side. If you have an effective rebuttal to the person who is not on your side, reply to that person, and include at least one or two people on your side in the mentions. (The longer your reply, the fewer people you can use, obviously). One trick you can use to allow longer responses is to make a longer tweet, with your links in it, not responding to anyone, and then in your response, link to that tweet rather than stating your arguments in the response. The goal is to get other people who support you to retweet your position, or to further respond, backing up their arguments.

You can also include at least one other person in the tweet who disagrees with you, in hopes that one of your opponents may be provided with a reason to question the other. But do not include too many (having 2 opponents mentioned in one tweet is probably a good limit), because if a large number of them block you, you could get suspended. (This also means that you should only join one or two arguments at a time, so that you do not risk getting too many consecutive blocks). Also try to avoid arguing with someone who appears to be irrational or block-happy. You can also always click on your opponent's names later to see if they have blocked you. If you were able to join an argument without getting blocks (especially important; has the opponent tweeted since you joined the argument - i.e. have they been on Twitter and had a chance to block you but did not?) you can probably join another.

In between this, you can of course use Twitter to publicize links, or to post helpful things to people on your own side - for example, post an article supporting a position they have taken, or suggest a better way to phrase something. And of course, keep retweeting good tweets, etc. The point is, make your arguments only 10%-30% of your Twitter posting, so you don't seem to be always spoiling for a fight. I don't know for certain that this helps prevent suspensions, but I have not been suspended for more than 2 years using this strategy, so it seems to work fairly well.

Happy tweeting!

That is all.

NumbersUSA: Vote for Immigration Questions for the Next Presidential Debate

I don't know how effective it will be, but the "Open Debate Coalition" is holding voting on questions for the next debate, and NumbersUSA is asking people to go to the site and vote.

Here are the questions from a search for "immigration" in order of most votes.

Please vote for questions that are designed to make a pro-borders response look good. Do NOT vote for questions designed to make immigration control look bad. For example, "If you deport my parents, what happens to me?" is obviously designed to make immigration control look mean. Don't vote for that one, vote for one like the one that says: "How does encouraging unskilled immigration actually benefit minority Americans?" or "Do you support open borders?"

You can vote only once for a question, but can vote for as many question as you would like.

That is all.

Norman Podhoretz Endorses Trump

Norman Podhoretz recently said he is voting for Trump because he is better for Israel.

However, his son John Podhoretz has not endorsed Trump.

A scene at the Podhoretz household (note that little Johnny hates Russia so much that he has developed an aversion to theanimal associated with them; he has even ripped an arm off of his teddy bear):



That is all.

Immigration: SVU: A Nation of Immigrants

A new meme for our time.

Here's the big print version:

That is all.

Would White Identity Politics Attract More Minorities than Cucking?

One of the concerns people keep having about the GOP pulling into white identity politics is that it will drive away minority voters and make it even harder for the GOP to win elections.

Why? Why would white identity politics drive Asians out of the GOP when black identity politics isn't driving them out of the Democratic Party? How come the embrace of LGBT doesn't drive Muslims out of the Democratic Party or vice versa? If identity politics are so anathema to groups outside of the identity, how come the Democrats can form a coalition of mutually hating identity groupS? If you can have a coalition of the fringes against the middle, why can't you have a coalition of the middle and middle-friendly minorities against the fringe?

One reason why Asians have left the GOP is that by eschewing identity politics, the GOP offers nothing for any group which wishes to engage in identity politics. If whites won't stand up for their own interests, why would they stand up for those of an ally?

There is a lot of talk about Jewish ethnocentrism being a driving factor in the war on whites, but according to a Gallup poll, the most ethnocentric Jews, the Orthodox, favor Trump 3 to 1. People who are ethnocentric respect other people who are ethnocentric; as long as they define themselves by their love of their own rather than by hatred of those not their own. Talking a similar language allows you to understand each other. Talking universalism when everyone else is tribal just tells them "I don't want your respect. Go ahead and take advantage of me."

The key point: you cannot form coalitions with other interest groups until you have an interest group of your own. Cucking is not going to attract more minorities. A recognition of one's own interests matched with benevolence toward those who will make common cause with you very well might.

That is all.

Trump and Deportations

A few points on the best way to respond to questions about "deporting 11 million" that Trump flubbed so badly recently:

First, never indicate that anyone will definitely be legalized. It disheartens supporters and allows the enemy to start tearing at the weakness.

Second, always shift the discussion to the non-sympathetic cases - not just the criminals, but those who are on welfare or otherwise are a detriment to our society. Do not get suckered into talking about people whom your emotions will tell you we have to let stay, but about those whom most people will demand be deported. However, never imply that you are limiting deportations only to the cases that you mention.

Third, emphasize the logic of attrition through enforcement - point out that seriously enforcing employment laws will cause many illegal aliens to leave; seriously enforcing welfare restrictions will do the same. Even deportations will have a multiplier effect, because once we are serious about deportations, a significant number will leave on their own. Emphasizing this will blunt the impact of the "you can't round up 11 million people" line. But do not hint at it - specifically note that enforcing the laws will cause many to leave without being deported.

Fourth, emphasize the deportation of recent visa overstayers - make the point that a large portion of illegal aliens did not come here illegally, but rather stayed here illegally. Talk about deporting those people, and associate the idea of a deportation force with a group of people who coordinate such removals.

Fifth, shift the discussion about the sympathetic cases to the future. "Listen, perhaps there are some cases of people who are beneficial to the country and who have been here a long time, and we can work with those people - but before we do any of that, we need to get a handle on the people who are not beneficial to this country - and there are a lot more of those than the media would have you believe. Before we determine what to do with these sympathetic cases, we must first remove the non-sympathetic ones - violent criminals first, but then lesser criminals, people who are receiving government benefits - the idea that the vast majority of illegal aliens are good guys and we only need to remove a few bad apples - there are lots of bad apples. But we'll get rid of them first; then we can see whether or not anyone who is left gets to stay."

That is all.

Trump Should Say Immigration is About Americans & Mexicans versus Carlos Slim

The best way for Trump to gain Latino votes, and to alter the impression that people have of him that he is mean to immigrants is for him to reframe the issue so that he will pursue policies that will help the illegal aliens to do better in their home countries.

He can reframe the issue as working class Americans and Mexicans versus rich plutocrats on both sides of the border who use immigration policy for exploitation. Carlos Slim is the obvious biggest target by far. Essentially, Trump can say that in addition to protecting our border, he will push for anti-monopoly reforms in Mexico to end the economy-sapping telecom gouging by Carlos Slim, and to increase penalties on employers who knowingly hire illegals.

By far, the most important element is the first - he ought to declare that in any renegotiation of NAFTA, he will insist that Mexico pass certain reforms. In general, trade deals will be used as a bargaining chip with any country sending us large numbers of immigrants. The primary focus of the speech should be on he fact that he is not looking to help U.S. workers by hurting non-U.S. workers, but to help them by stopping the massive profiteering of corrupt plutocrats. His reforms would make both average Americans and average Mexicans richer - it's the corrupt plutocrats who would lose out.

Also, it would make it easier to talk about being humane to illegal aliens - he could simply say something like "by the time my policies are done, life will be so good in their home countries they will beg to be deported!" The key is to make it seem that America First will benefit everyone else as well, so it will be harder to portray as selfish.

As a bonus, he could continually lambaste the New York Times as nothing more than a puppet of Carlos Slim, and every bad article about him he could respond with "of course, the N.Y. Times hates me, it's owned by a bad guy I am trying to stop from exploiting his people." Also, he should start calling it the Carlos Slim Times.

That is all.

What's Good for (Which) Jews?

It strikes me that a lot of people seem to say "all Jews care mostly (or entirely) about 'is it good for the Jews.'" The implication being that Jews are irrevocably the enemies of white Gentiles, and that all Jews share the same goals and ideas as the Jewish elites. Therefore, my thesis of JewE (elites), JewB (blue-pilled), and JewR (red-pilled) is wrong.

In fact, I would argue that even from a standpoint of "is it good for the Jews" the JewE/B/R thesis is quite apt.

That is because there are at least two definitions of what "good for the Jews" means.

Elite Jews for the most part view the issue as "what helps the most powerful Jews become more powerful;" i.e. what puts the most Jews in the Fortune 500, puts the most in the Supreme Court, etc.

Most rank-and-file Jews define "good for the Jews" as "makes the most broad-based prosperity and safety for the Jewish people." That is, reduces the risk of antisemitic incidents (by any group) and makes the general safety of communities where Jews are likely to be as safe as possible (having violent criminals roam around or other things that reduces the safety of the general community is no better for Jews in that community than for anyone else).

The difference between red-pill Jews and blue-pill Jews to the extent that ethnocentric concerns drive them is that the red-pillers understand that the goals of the elites do not necessarily translate to the goals of the rank-and-file and that the blue-pillers assume that they do. That is, blue-pillers assume that more power to the most powerful Jews will automatically trickle down to the Jewish masses. Red-pillers see that their elite's goals often involve sacrificing their lessers to enhance their position vis a vis other elites.

It occurs to me that you can see this same pattern with the elites of many ethnicities - blacks come to mind. White Gentiles less so in some ways and more in others, because of the fact that their elite don't really pretend to care about whites in general, so blue-pillness among white Gentiles is less about faith the racial solidarity of the elites with the people and more about a desire to be polite.

That is all.

Upside Down World

This latest episode of Non sequitur by Wiley Miller at first glance appears to be reasonable. It's making fun of a ridiculous policy that does not seem to make sense at all.

That is, until you consider that it is in response to the ridiculous idea that a guy with a penis and testicles is a woman if he - oops, "she" - feels like one.

That Wiley Miller sees nothing ridiculous about a "woman" with a penis and testicles speaks volumes about the sickness of our society.

That is all.

On (((Jews))) - (E(Jews)E), (B(Jews)B), and (R(Jews)R)

Being somewhat connected with alt-right (don't know if I am alt-right, neoreactionary, etc. or what. Don't really care which label fits me), it has come to my attention that there is a lot of discussion about the role that Jews play in the current anti-white (anti-white Gentile, anyway) fever.

Thinking about things, I have come to a conclusion.

I think that most Jews who take an interest in internal European and America politics can be divided into one of three camps:

The Jewish establishment. JewE, if you will. These are the people who lead the big, well-funded groups, as well as those who actively agree with them. These largely do to one extent or another fit the stereotype of the guy who wants to tear down white Gentile/Christian culture wherever it exists, and do see racial minorities and third-worlders as weapons to be used against white Gentiles. Examples would be Abe Foxman, Barbara Lerner Spectre, and Chuck Schumer. Other examples would be Paul Singer and Sheldon Adelson, but Adelson's recent willingness to support Trump has opened the possibility that he might be willing to prioritize other things over inundating the U.S. with human flotsam and jetsam.

Blue-pill Jews. Basically, these are rank-and-file Jews who more or less follow JewE, but largely out of inertia, out of an assumption that they are looking out for their best interests, or other mundane reasons. There is no active hatred of Christians or white Gentiles, although there may be a back-of-the mind fear that drives them to the establishment for protection. I don't know if I have that many examples, because by definition I am mostly talking about people who are not setting agendas but following others.

Red-pill Jews. These are Jews who realize that Western culture is a good thing, and to the extent they are ethnocentric, as good for the Jews, and either see Jewish culture (and Israel) as part of the west or as symbiotic with the west. They see Islam as the great threat, and see white Gentiles as being, on the whole, friends or potential friends. I would include bloggers Nicholas Stix, The Mad Jewess, Mickey Kaus, and Ilana Mercer among this number.

I think that with the increasing Muslim population, Europe's Jews are increasingly getting red-pilled.

In many ways, American Jews are sort of like the GOP in 2004 - rot at the establishment top, lots of people following "their team," and only a few really caring about the problems that they are heading into.

So, if you want to use the ((())) symbols around Jewish people, may I suggest (E()E) for Establishment types (I sort of like the name "JewE"), (B()B) for blue-pill types (largely the only (B()B) types that would be prominent enough to mention would be "man on the street" interviewees or maybe someone who once wrote a letter to the editor), and (R()R) for red-pill types.

That is all.

The Best Quote from "A Few Good Men"

Capt. West: Commander Galloway, why don't you get yourself a cup of coffee.
Galloway: Thank you, sir, I'm fine.
Capt. West: Commander, I'd like you to leave the room so we can talk about you behind your back.
Galloway: Certainly, sir.

That is all.

Recall Grover Norquist

Dear readers:

I should have dealt with this earlier, but, if you are a fully paid Life Member of the NRA or have been a member for 5 straight years, you can vote for their board of directors and should have received a ballot in the MArch 2016 magazine.

In the ballot is a recall measure for Grover Norquist, due to his alleged connections to groups that are tied to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Regardless of the veracity of these charges, Norquist is a known proponent of amnesty (see him promote the "Gang of Eight" bill here), which would destroy our gun rights by changing the electorate.

I remember calling the NRA and urging them to take a stand on the Gang of Eight bill. They declined, unlike Gun Owners of America (guess which one will and which one will not be getting my donations in the future). Maybe Norquist is part of the reason why they don't see immigration as affecting gun rights?

Anyway, I encourage you to mail in a "Yes" vote to recall Norquist. Remember, it has to be received by (not maild by, received by) Saturday, May 1.

That is all.

The Point of "Cuckservative"

Someone on Twitter asked me what the point of name-calling, e.g. "cuckservative" is. Won't the term simply alienate people instead of change their minds?

I think this misses a vital point. While there are people who are mistaken on the amnesty question and on racial questions in general (that is, they think that aping the liberals is going to help the Republicans win, or believe that the liberal paradigm for race relations, e.g. "denouncing white privilege" is correct, there are many who are simply cowards who would sell anything out not to be called racist, or who are taking positions to please donors and who do not actually take their positions based on well-considered morality.

The point in such cases is two-fold; first, to counter the idea that hating your own people in the name of "equality" is a good thing. For someone to celebrate the idea that their ethnic group is going to become a minority in a country they created is insane. It is not something that anyone has done throughout history or that it is assumed to be normal that someone does. When someone says that it is racist to be against an immigration policy specifically because it will make whites a minority in the United States, the best response is to point out how ludicrous it is to call someone a name for wanting to keep the majority population of America what it has always been (more or less, obviously we are not going to revert to the WASPiness of the 18th and 19th centuries). The point is to have a counter-insult to racist.

The point also is to point out that many of these "conservatives" are determined to pander to those who hate them. They will reach across the aisle to Democrats who are not willing to reach back in return (note how all the Democrats in lockstep refused to defund Obama's executive amnesty), and are constantly trying to find ways to reach out to minority communities that have no interest in voting for anyone who does not support a generous welfare state and affirmative action, and more-or-less become a Democrat, while ignoring reaching out to their mostly white base. In other words, the term refers largely to "conservatives": who are desperate for approval by liberals and who will concede whatever they need to in order to get approval.

Note how in 2012 the Romney campaign was more interested in reaching out to blacks and Latinos than in trying to reach out to the disaffected Paul voters who were concerned about interventionist foreign policy.

"Cuck" is an appropriate term, because it suggests a hatred or indifference to one's own blood, and to one's own friends, while supporting those who have no interest in being friends. The point of the term, when used amongst allies, is to remind one's self of what the problem with the traitors within are. When used at others as an insult, the goal is to make "cuckish" behavior as unacceptable as "racism." Maybe we will alienate people, and maybe people will embrace the term. But long-term, the effect will be the same as the term "racist." People will try to deny that they are "cucks" as as people realize that they cannot escape disapproval by conceding to liberals.

The idea, in short, is to reverse the dominant paradigm of political discourse, which always favors liberals.

The fact of the matter is, the current immigration debate reflects an America that is being cuckolded; its people are being replaced by foreigners, whose children we are told we must support. As a Steve Sailer commenter pointed out in 2014, we lack a vocabulary to describe this, and so we are defenseless to stop it. The term "cuckold" isn't even in popular circulation to describe literal individual cuckolding, and we are supposed to think it fine to force a man to pay child support for the product of a wife's infidelity, with absolutely no negative consequences for the faithless wife. Terms such as "cuckservative" are a way of regaining that vocabulary, and of trying to reframe the debate on terms that are (a) favorable to conservatives, and (b) reflect the unstated realities of our current situation.

That is all.

Trump on Immigration in 2013

Some helpful links that Ann Coulter re-tweeted from Trump:

Tweet
Tweet
Tweet
Tweet
Tweet
Tweet
Tweet
Tweet
Tweet
Tweet
Tweet
Tweet
Tweet
Tweet
Tweet
Tweet
Tweet
Tweet

Terrorism is Only Secondarily a Foreign-Policy Issue

Articles like this one by the Christian Science Monitor usually involve the Conventional Wisdom types expressing surprise that after the Paris attacks, in a time of crisis, people are still flocking to Trump and not to the "moire serious" candidates such as Jeb or Marco (to be fair, Ted Cruz is also sometimes mentioned).

Whiole Greg Sargent does not express any surprise over it, he also to some extent misdiagnoses the problem as being entirely due to Trump's "strong man" image; that is, people care less about policy than about the fact he makes a big noise about it.

There is a more important point, though, that I think most people are not getting. Most pundits, and many politicians, insist on seeing the Paris attacks and terrorism in general as primarily an issue of foreign policy; we are being attacked by a foreign power and need to retaliate; we need to conquer the foreign power that is attacking us.

In reality, the problem is the enemy within; many western countries have large, unassimilated, and unassimilating Muslim populations. When we are told that most of the Paris attacks were carried out by French and Belgian nationals, the media try to distinguish them from immigrants in order to make us believe that the problem is our own people; in reality, what it proves is that the enemy has infiltrated us. But there is an importance to the distinction; it's not that immigrants are not dangerous; it is that the problem with Muslim immigrants is not merely one of whether individuals have terrorist ties, it is whether or not people of Muslim background are likely to become, in essence, fifth columnists in the future. In other words, there is an explicitly racial/cultural/religious angle to the political question of immigration, and more importantly, IT IS PERFECTLY REASONABLE FOR THERE TO BE A RACIAL/CULTURAL/RELIGIOUS ANGLE.

What we are getting from the "serious people" is that the primary solution here is to destroy ISIS and other radicals at the source and to remove their threat. While definitely this is a part of the war on terror, it is unclear whether this will accomplish anything as long as we are letting millions of Muslims into the West, many of whom share, if not the exact ideology of ISIS, ideologies of conquest that are just as deadly to western civilization.

And the problem here is that among the most ardent hawks are also those who most want vastly increase immigration (e.g. Marco Rubio, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Kelly Ayotte, Bob Corker, George W. Bush, Jeb Bush). The fact of the matter is, the most effective way "not to fight the terrorists here" is NOT TO BRING THEM HERE, and "fighting them over there" is a secondary tactic.

After 9/11, we were assured by all of the usual suspects that illegal aliens were "willing workers" and that we should distinguish between desperately needed low-pay farmworkers and people with bombs strapped to them or some such. The point being that controlling our borders was not a good way to keep terrorists out, so instead of course we ought to focus on fighting wars in the Middle East. Many came to feel that these wars at least in part served as a distraction to stop the public from demanding actual homeland security policies that dealt with the immigration angle. Being asked to have security guards look at you naked is not too high a price to pay for security, but not letting American corporations get foreign labor for a dollar less an hour is off the table.

What we are getting from Trump is someone who is talking about protecting the homeland first and foremost. He was talking about immigration before any of the other candidates made it a big deal. People sense that he is interested in avoiding Islamic terrorism via immigration policy to a greater extent than any other candidate, and therefore they flock to him, not to "serious" candidates like Rubio, whose Gang of Eight bill would have vastly increased immigration, including giving administrations far more leeway in granting refugee and asylum claims. Almost certainly the Gang of Eight bill would have brought more Muslims into the United States. So no one trusts Rubio. Similarly, Bush's love of immigrants over and above American citizens makes people distrust him on this issue.

In other words, Trump is dealing with the issue that most Americans think is most behind the terrorist attacks. Being a "serious candidate" means dealing primarily with an issue that most Americans think is at best a back-up to the primary issue and at worst a distraction. Hence Trump's success.

That is all.

Fighting Foreign Worker Expansion

The Obama Administration is proposing new regulations that could turn the F-1 Optional Training Program into backdoor H1B visas, allowing companies to undercut American workers. Comments can be submitted until November 18. The Stop Overreach website has a streamlined process for making comments. I would suggest emailing copies of your comments to you Senators and Congressman, and ask them to use their influence to turn the regulatory agency's ear. Here (in bold) is a sample of my email to Senator King including the original comment:

I recently submitted the following comment (tracking no. 1jz-8m8d-3dz9) to regulations.gov regarding ICEB-2015-0002-0011, Improving and Expanding Training Opportunities for F-1 Nonimmigrant Students With STEM Degrees and CapGap Relief for All Eligible F-1 Students. I am opposed to expanding this program, which is being used as a backdoor H1B visa to allow companies to undercut America workers' wages. I ask that you use your influence as a Senator to help make certain that the regulatory agencies address my concerns. Thank you for your time.

[My Real Name]

Text of comment:

The Optional Practical Training program allows U.S. employers to hire foreign students for up to 1 year or up to 29 months in certain fields of study. The program was meant to provide foreign students with on-the-job training that would benefit them when they return to their home countries. Because of that, these students were exempted from paying payroll tax or being paid the prevailing wage. Instead, this proposed rule, which will extend the program for STEM students to 36 months, would create a bridge to a longer-term work visa and eventual green card. Given the prevailing wage exemption and the payroll tax exemption, this gives companies a direct incentive to hire foreign workers over U.S. workers. Not only does this hurt hard-working Americans, this is a direct violation of the foreign student's pledge when they received their student visa to leave the country upon graduation.

It's hard enough already for American workers, especially recent U.S. graduates, to find work, and this rule would make it even more difficult by adding unnecessary job competition to the mix. We have already heard about Disney using H1B visas to fire American workers in order to use foreign workers whom they can pay less. We should not be creating more ways for companies to undercut Americans.

I am sending a copy of this to my Representative (Chellie Pingree, ME-01) and to my Senators (Angus King and Susan Collins, ME). I believe that Congress ought to be consulted on a policy change such as this, and moreover that programs like this ought to require Congressional authorization, which was never obtained in the first place.

That is all.

Congressman a Democrat? How You Can Still Fight Against Ryan Becoming Speaker

Mickey Kaus is telling folks to inundate their Congressman with calls telling them they do not want Paul Ryan for Speaker.

It's a good strategy, and if it doesn't keep Ryan from the Speakership, it might at least get him to reduce his demands.

But what if your Congressman is a Democrat, and you don't see the point in calling politicians you are not constituents of?

Money is the best way I think to show your opinion. Give to them campaigns of Congressmen who have come out against Ryan. Although VDARE has expressed concerns that Webster may be wobbly on amnesty, at this point a vote for Webster is a vote against Ryan, so an endorsement of Webster is considered a good thing. Then post to their Facebook and Twitter feeds that you agave and why (and if there is a comment section on their "Donate" page, comment there as well).

People so far to give to:

Louie Gohmert (explains lack of support for Ryan)
Steve King (Endorsed Webster)
Ted Yoho (Ditto)
Walter Jones (backs Webster, and has blasted Ryan)
Thomas Massie (Massie Won't Back Ryan for Speaker)
Daniel Webster the guy running against Ryan.

There are others, but these are the ones I have noted and donated to so far. You can make your own list or donate to anyone against Ryan who is not on the list. As more opponents come out, I will try to add to the list, although I may not be able to donate personally to any more than these 6.

If you give, make certain to state on Facebook or Twitter that you gave and why (their pages ought to be accessible on their websites). This will send a message to other House members that you intend to help people who are against Ryan, which is as much influence as you probably can have outside your own district. It also might send the wobbly ones a message that you might help a primary challenger if they vote for Ryan.

That is all.

One Reason Why Trump's Kelly Comments Did Not Hurt Him

Because most people are less concerned with the blood coming out of Megyn Kelly's whatever than they are with the blood that came out of Kate Steinle's bullet wound.

That is all.