Tuesday, August 21, 2018

Who Really Killed Liberalism?

Posted by Daniel Greenfield 2 Comments Monday, August 20, 2018 @ Sultan Knish Blog

Think pieces mourning the fall of multiculturalism drift through the fetid pool of the media and its smaller foreign policy pond is afloat with almost as many pieces mourning the multinational order.

In these revisionist histories, the resurgence of racial tribalism among Trump voters in the heartland and explosions of anti-immigrant sentiment in Europe (aided by the ubiquitous vast Russian conspiracy) did in the great multinational and multicultural projects. Brexit and Trump killed the liberal order. Wealthy right-wingers and the Russians had secretly financed a campaign to undermine human progress.


Trump and Brexit were responses to the collapse of liberalism. The collapse was accelerated when supposedly liberal political movements on both sides of the ocean endorsed two tribalisms. On the European side of the ocean, the EU tossed aside its post-national pose to back Muslim tribalism and its mass migration at the expense of the nation-state. On the American side, the Democrats abandoned even the pretense of believing in equality to fully embrace the pettiness of tribal identity politics.

The authorities were no longer creating a newly equal order, but recreating an old tribal one in which some people were more equal than others. And once that became obvious, their old working-class white constituencies backed Trump in the US and backed Brexit in the UK. Their votes didn’t break a liberal order. Instead, the votes reflected a recognition that liberalism no longer existed; only tribalism did.

The left resents these defections by the white working class, but it was the left that truly defected. The old lefty romance with the working class has left behind only a handful of artifacts, like mementos from an old relationship, a fondness for expensive prole wear, folk music, stories about old coal miners (not the current despised polluters), and occasional forays into trying to live on a few dollars a day. But even two generations ago, the left was trading its working-class costumes for ethnic togs and jewelry.

These days the left romanticizes race the way that it once did class. But class can be shifted, race can’t. It was one thing to demonize capitalists and another to demonize entire races. Class war could be rationalized as an effort to make society fairer by sharing the wealth, but race can’t be shared. No Communist revolution can redistribute skin color or any other fixed attribute of human biology. Tolerance and equality were liberal answers to racism, but they could never be lefty answers.

Instead of redistributing wealth, the left began redistributing racial power. It inveighed against the boogeyman of racial tribalism even as it was busy creating it. To a leftist, racism against white and black people, the national aspirations of a Briton or a Pakistani, a Frenchman or an Algerian, can’t be equated. The moral authority of the oppressor can’t be compared with the moral authority of the oppressed. But what people increasingly saw was the rebirth of racial tribalism and national chauvinism at the hands of the very people who had supposedly been fighting to tear down tribalism and chauvinism.

The white working class found itself on the wrong side of a class and race war. And it fought back.

The badges of mourning for the old liberal order are being flaunted as a talking point by the chattering classes. But these hollow exercises of grief are disingenuous coming as they do from the actual killers.

Race relations in the United States collapsed under Obama. The collapse wasn’t the result of a backlash against Obama’s race. If that were the case, he would never have won two presidential elections. It resulted from policies that he implemented whose purpose was to cause racial division. Unlike liberals, leftists had never believed in the races getting along. They profited from conflict, not coexistence.

Lefties had no problem with racial divisiveness until it began costing them elections. And then they belatedly realized that identity politics and tribal bloc voting were tools that could work both ways.

The European Union had been an old lefty project past its prime. The idea of France, Germany, the UK, and Poland all belonging to the same union had impressed a generation that had seen world wars. A younger left saw the EU as a gang of nation states. A generation of mass migration from the Muslim world would have removed the EU from the pages of history far more thoroughly than Brexit.

The EU had always been meant to be an intermittent step to something bigger and global. Like the UK and the Netherlands, the day would come when the EU would be sucked into the international order. Its bureaucrats would lose their authority to a world bureaucratic authority operating above their heads.

The real objection to Brexit wasn’t that it fatally crippled the EU, but that the blow moves European countries toward the nation-state instead of away from it, to the national instead of the transnational. Even the tensions that led to Brexit were meant to grease the wheels rolling the EU into a more global order. The left isn’t objecting to the exploitation of those tensions, but to who actually exploited them.

The EU was always meant to die. And racial tribalism was meant to define American politics. If the media honestly want to look for the killers, it can always look to the left. It was the left that reduced American and European politics to exercises in vicious tribalism. It was the left that undermined the liberal order, tossed out liberal solutions and now pretends to cry for the liberalism that it killed.

Trump rose from the ashes of a fire that Obama set. The GOP had failed because it was too busy fighting the last war against liberal opponents who still believed in maintaining the order. It didn’t understand that Obama was qualitatively different than Carter or Clinton. He wasn’t just working within the system to transform it, but to destroy it, pitting its elements against each other to break them down.

The only response to a radical willing to burn everything down was an equal willingness to burn.

That is what Trump and Brexit both have in common. They’re creatively destructive responses to the destruction of the liberal order by revolutionary radicals.

When European leaders opened their gates to mass migration from the Muslim world, they made it clear that the European Union was over. The only question was whether Britain would escape its collapse or go down with it. When Obama opened America’s borders, the same message was sent. That’s why building a wall has become has become the definitive symbol of the Trump revival.

Media pundits paint Brexit and Trump’s wall as isolationist responses. But the part that they leave out is that they are isolationist responses to a leftist catastrophe whose purpose is destroying nations. There’s a big difference between closing your door when your neighbor needs help and when your neighbor is shooting at you. The media portrays Trump and Brexit as the former when it’s really the latter.

The left made multiculturalism and the multinational order unviable as a power play. But the play went awry. Instead of the left’s plans moving forward, they’ve been set back. And instead of taking responsibility, the left is blaming everyone else for its own crimes against liberalism.

Trump didn’t break the old order. The left did.

Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.

Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading.

Who's the Cleanest of Them All

Stephen Moore  Aug 21, 2018

Take a wild guess what country is reducing its greenhouse gas emissions the most? Canada? Britain? France? India? Germany? Japan? No, no, no, no, no and no.

The answer to that question is the U.S. of A. Wow! How can that be? This must be a misprint. Fake news. America never ratified the Kyoto Treaty some two decades ago. We never enacted a carbon tax. We don't have a cap-and-trade carbon emission program. That environmental villain Donald Trump pulled America out of the Paris climate accord that was signed by almost the entire rest of the civilized world.

Yet the latest world climate report from the BP Statistical Review of World Energy finds that in 2017, America reduced its carbon emissions by 0.5 percent, the most of all major countries. That's especially impressive given that our economy grew by nearly 3 percent -- so we had more growth and less pollution -- the best of all worlds. The major reason for the reduced pollution levels is the shale oil and gas revolution that is transitioning the world to cheap and clean natural gas for electric power generation.

Meanwhile, as our emissions fell, the pollution levels rose internationally and by a larger amount than in previous years. So much for the rest of the world going green.........So there you have it. The countries in the Paris climate accord have broken almost every promise they've made and the nation (the U.S.) that hasn't signed the treaty is doing more than any other nation to reduce global warming............To Read More....

John Oliver Exposes Himself, CNN Uses Us To Debunk EWG, Newsweek And More Media Last Week

By Hank Campbell — August 20, 2018 @ American Council on Science and Health

1. If you don't have HBO, and if you have HBO but you don't watch John Oliver's "Last Week Tonight", and if you do ordinarily watch but missed the August 13th episode...well, you didn't miss much.

We're a science non-profit with $2 billion in activists lined up against us, we have had world-class hit pieces done against science at their bequest, in places like "60 Minutes" and "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart." John Oliver instead exposed himself as being a pretender in the science community, siding readily with trade group hacks out to undermine American expertise. By comparison, rather than being a humorous or at least sharp take, his attack was instead flaccid. It wasn't funny, it meandered all over the place, and it wasn't accurate enough to be interesting. Even the graphics were middle school; does Oliver hate clean dishes? Healthy teeth? Does he endorse cigarettes? Why was that generic stuff in there next to our logo?

Comedy works when you take reality and twist it out of phase a little. You make the believable a little ridiculous. If you just make up nonsense it is shrill conspiracy theory. Which is what he came across like to the science community. The only people defending him were the usual political suspects; partisan english majors who are tangentially in science journalism because they weren't skilled enough writers to make it in politics, like deniers for hire Charles Seife, Liza Gross and predictable other fellow travelers. What little credibility those types who wait around the activism community hoping for financial scraps had left was shattered when they sided with a group that collaborates with the anti-farming and the anti-vaccine movements, ans are entirely funded by corporations they happen to like.

Hey, even Elvis had bad albums and Oliver usually does better. If he needs some help in the writing room, I offered to pitch in. He would have to settle for me, because if we let Josh Bloom write their science humor, the Internet would collapse.

If you want to let him know what you think of his undermining science for activists opposed to it, on Twitter you can write him and tell him you don't like that he is using anti-science groups to undermine nonprofits. On Facebook, you can comment here. Or you can contact the producer, Charles Wilson, charles.wilson@lastweektonight.com or at (212) 975-8186

2. On a better science note, the lawyers at Environmental Working Group were hoping to capitalize on a California jury believing a weed killer could somehow cause human cancer, so they got a lab to "detect" glyphosate and rushed out a "report" saying cereal was unsafe. One media outlet, CNN, was wise enough to have their B.S. detector go off and spoke with our Dr. Alex Berezow, who assured them it was still safe to eat breakfast. The fact is that when their lawyers were disappointed the glyphosate levels were 1% of the safe level determined by EPA (the level you could eat every day for life and not be harmed) they fabricated a new safe level that was scientifically meaningless. But conveniently below the level they detected.

It's corporate media, CNN still had to chase pageviews by screaming about kids and chemicals in the headline, but they were the only mainstream outlet that looked pass the shameless lawsuit bait, so kudos to them. And it got coverage in lots of places because they sided with science over chemophobia.

You will note that down at the bottom we got an example of why scientists and doctors lose every day to activists - a guy who notes he is an epidemiologist and not a toxicologist knows the study is nonsense but won't say it is nonsense, because he demurs he is an epidemiologist and not a toxicologist. Even though an epidemiologist realizes 100 is more 100 times more than 1. On the side of the bad people, their epidemiologists have no problem at all babbling about endocrine disruption if their chemical fundraiser of the week won't cause harm at real-world levels.

Other places our sane commentary was syndicated:
3. In Canada Free Press, longtime journalist Jack Dini takes down Greenpeace, WWF, World Wildlife Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Working Group, Sierra Club, and Nature Conservancy, exposing their hypocrisy and of course their love of their own corporate money. As long as it gets branded for something meaningless like "sustainability."

4. Newsweek covered the news that Nebraska was forced to use fentanyl to execute a death row criminal - because drug companies don't want the bad press of having their products used that way in a Twitter world. Dr. Josh Bloom spoke with their journalist about why they did so, and why it was ironic that government wants to put fentanyl dealers on death row - when flawed government policies are what caused a lot of legitimate pain patients to be forced to deal with criminals who end up killing people. Now dealers can be executed with the products they sell, and pain patients just suffer.

5. Dr. Alex Berezow was on two radio programs last week. His recurring segment called Real Science With Dr. B. (starting at 19:06) and with David Boze filling in for John Carlson on his show.

Trump’s Character and Trump’s Presidency

A question for Never Trumpers.

August 21, 2018 David Horowitz 25

A few days ago, I had a dust-up on Twitter with National Review’s Jonah Goldberg. Our conflict was about Trump’s fitness to be president, a subject that has been broached millions of times on social media by other internet partisans. Twitchy posted the exchange and promoted it this way: “It’s On! Jonah Goldberg, David Horowitz Duke It Out Over Trump’s Character.” The donnybrook led to 500,000 impressions on my Twitter feed, including legions of anti-Trump zealots eager to demonstrate how creative they could be in devising insults to throw at me for defending Trump:
beyond dumb, in need of psychiatric help, and probably receiving payments through offshore bank accounts.
As it happens, I’ve known Jonah for more than 20 years, admired his wit and insights, promoted his books, and put him on my platforms. I was distressed when he joined the NeverTrump chorus, but never wrote a critical word about him—hoping, I guess, that as Trump systematically undid the damage that the Obama regime had inflicted on the country, Jonah would return to his senses.

Other NeverTrump conservatives, on the other hand, just jumped to the other side. Bill Kristol even went so far as to collude with the Brennan-instigated witch-hunt by spreading talking points from the Steele dossier. It was easy to write these renegades off, though still wondering how they rationalized the betrayal of their lifetime principles, or were able to deny that they were doing so..........To Read More.....

What to Expect if Democrats Win the Midterms

August 21, 2018 By Robert Oscar Lopez

Would conservatives achieve an easy victory against the left if it came down to civil war? The question seems less absurd by the day as tensions increase between the right and left. Many conservative writers seem to think the left would fold quickly and the right would triumph.

One has good reason to doubt that. Consider basic issues like political bias in universities, or religious integrity. After decades of exposés and outcries from conservatives over liberal tyranny, universities are as biased as they ever were. Past cases of anti-conservative persecution (including mine) remain unaddressed.

Meanwhile, in the world of Masterpiece Cakeshop, conservatives celebrate a largely toothless victory at the Supreme Court over a wedding cake for two men. While a small fortune went to defending a Colorado pastry chef who wouldn't make a cake for a ceremony approximating a wedding, a dozen states have banned "conversion therapy" in terms so broad that many church ministries will be outlawed.

The LGBT movement is no longer worried about taking over state legislatures to stop religious liberty laws. Soon they won't have to do that. They are gaining in power at the denominational governance level of Christian churches and changing doctrine so religious liberty will not even be an issue. The religious position itself will be so thoroughly corrupted that no Christians will have "deeply felt" convictions against homosexuality. ......We may fantasize that conservatives constitute a massive invincible army against the left. None of this will help us if nobody is willing to show up for the fight.   The midterm elections this fall could easily hand the Democrats a commanding lead in both the Senate and the House.............. To Read More.....

Deep State preparing to throw Brennan under the bus?

By Richard Jack Rail August 21, 2018

James Clapper, former DNI, avers that former CIA head mobster director John Brennan's language against President Trump has become a problem. "John and his rhetoric have become ... an issue in and of itself. [He] is subtle like a freight train," Clapper said.

This likely signals that the Deep State has decided that Brennan's big mouth is more liability than asset. To avoid tipping their hand, they aren't going to throw him under the bus; rather, they will let him choke on his own tongue.........half the country expects the Deep State, eventually, to openly take over the legitimate government of the United States and establish martial law, masking the intent of permanent dictatorship behind storms of words on the mainstream media.  This, many believe, was Obama's original plan until he thought he could pass the baton to Hillary and let her weather the storm of opprobrium.  Hillary was fine with this as long as she finally got to be boss.............Read More.........

Newsroom commando Ralph Peters cashiers self

By Russ Vaughn August 21, 2018

Cashiering is a historical military ritual in which an officer who has betrayed his oath or failed in his duty is required to stand before the assembled troops and have all symbols of rank and service stripped from his uniform, to demonstrate most forcefully the disgrace he has brought upon himself and possibly them. His cap is knocked off and crushed underfoot; epaulettes or shoulder boards are ripped from his tunic; brass buttons are cut away; all medals, awards, and symbols of rank and past service are torn off and dropped in the dirt; and finally, his formal sword is broken over the knee of a fellow officer, with the two pieces scornfully cast at the disgraced officer's feet. It is a rite of personal and professional degradation, purposely intended to convey as much contempt and evoke as much shame as possible, to deter other officers from bringing such dishonor upon themselves and their services.

This weekend, retired lieutenant colonel Ralph Peters went on CNN's dubiously titled Reliable Sources and, in the presence of the show's serially unreliable host, Brian Stelter, and all those unfortunate souls in airport waiting areas across the nation being force-fed this liberal Sunday-morning drivel, cashiered himself. It appears that fulminating Trump Derangement Syndrome brought this former Fox News military analyst to perform this sad ceremony.

To his credit, he did a bang-up job of it.

First, Peters said: ..........To Read More...........

Explaining the Left: Part II

Dennis Prager  Aug 21, 2018

The governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo, did Americans a favor last week. He provided that which is most indispensable to understanding anything: clarity.

"America ... was never that great," he announced.

In one sentence, the governor revealed the left's true view of America.  This is rare -- because leftists are masters at hiding what they really believe.

For example, the left's low regard for nonwhites is well-hidden under a mountain of "anti-racist" rhetoric. But people who consistently advocate lowering standards for blacks obviously do not think highly of blacks, and people who believe in separate black dorms and separate black graduation ceremonies obviously believe in a pillar of racism: racial segregation.........To Read More....

The disconnect between predictions of a ‘bee-apocalypse’ and rising bee populations

| August 20, 2018

Media stories around bee-apocalypse and imminent collapse of the human food system require a dose of reality.

There are more managed bee hives globally, and more bees, than there have ever been in the past. And although there are many statements around the fact that every third mouthful has a contribution by bees, the staples of life (corn, wheat, rice, potatoes and cassava) do not rely on bees for pollination. The first three are seeds from wind-pollinated plants and the second two are starch-filled tubers.
The bee-apocalypse stories started in the mid-2000s when bee deaths began occurring in large numbers. Colony Collapse Disorder …. was rife in the northern hemisphere. Whole hives died over winter and predictions were dire..............Read full, original article: Jacqueline Rowarth: Enough of the bee-apocalypse stories

‘Children killer’ glyphosate found in Cheerios? Experts dismantle Environmental Working Group’s glyphosate study

| | August 17, 2018

“If you or your children are eating Cheerios right now, there’s a good chance that they’re accompanied by a potentially harmful weed killer called Roundup,” Fortune told its readers on August 16. Newsweek headlined its article, “Dangerous Weed Killer Ingredient Found in Cheerios, Quaker Oats and Other Breakfast Cereals.”

These were two of literally hundreds of news outlets that botched coverage of what scientists say is a dubious study of breakfast cereals and granola bars by virulently anti-GMO Environmental Working Group, a Washington DC-based public health advocacy group........To Read More....

Feel the Bern: Venezuela - Businesses to Close Following 60-Fold Minimum Wage Increase

by BEN KEW 20 Aug 2018

Venezuela is set to face further economic turmoil after socialist dictator Nicolás Maduro announced economic reforms that include lopping five zeroes off the value of the Bolivar currency and increasing the country’s minimum wage by 3,500 percent this weekend.

Under the new measures, Maduro has created what is known as the “sovereign bolívar,” a parallel currency to the main bolívar, that slashes five zeroes off the country’s currency. The official exchange rate for the bolívar will rise from about 285,000 per dollar to 6 million per U.S. dollar, roughly in line with its true market value, while the government has also raised the monthly minimum wage by 3,500 percent to the equivalent of $30 a month. Prior to this change, hyperinflation drove people’s wage packets down to as little as one dollar a month.

In his announcement on Friday night, Maduro said that the government would cover minimum wage increases for businesses for up to 90 days as they adjust to inflation...........To Read More....

Study: More "Ecosexual" Professors Are Having Sex with Trees

by TOM CICCOTTA 20 Aug 2018

A recently published academic article examines “exosexuals’ encounters with the natural environment.” In a new academic piece published in the journal Feminist Theory, Professor Lauran Whitworth of St. Mary’s College of Maryland defines the increasingly popular term “ecosexual.”
“1. A person that finds nature sensual, sexy. 2. A new sexual identity. 3: Person who takes the Earth as their lover,” she wrote. In another paragraph, Whitworth explains that while some environmentalists encourage the use of environmentally-friendly sex products such as fair trade condoms and chemical-free lubricants, “ecosexuals” take it a step further by encouraging sex with “nature itself.”
Whitworth includes a description of one “ecosexual” individual’s first sexual encounter with a redwood tree at Yosemite National Park. ..........To Read More.....

Jade Thompson: Marietta teacher tells her union ‘¡No más!’

Monday, August 20, 2018

Quote of the Day

You know why you got Trump? Because Donald Trump, with all his quirks, is exponentially more competent, capable, and trustworthy when it comes to running this country for the benefit of Normal Americans than the sorry collection of Ivy League-credentialed dimwits, progressive poohbahs, and Fredocon enablers that masquerades as America’s elite. - Kurt Schlichter

Leftists Own the UK's Grooming Gang Crisis and Tommy Robinson's Prison Torture

It takes a village to destroy a child. The Left built that village.

August 20, 2018 Danusha V. Goska

Her broad, sunny smile fairly bursts through the photograph. Her joy is so bright you almost squint.  She is a child, innocent of life.

Charlene Downes was 14 in 2003. She's been missing ever since. During a trial, jurors heard a tape in which a suspect stated that he chopped up her body and cooked it into kebabs. The case was tossed out because of problems with the gathering of evidence. Charlene's sister, Emma, was later tried for "racially aggravated assault." Emma slapped the face of the murder suspect's brother. Emma was convicted for her crime.

Lucy Lowe's smile is not as explosive as Charlene's. Her blonde brows are shallow crescents; her nose is a pretty little button. Lucy has that loving look that suggests that she will hit her stride as a kind, middle-aged matron. In fact, Lucy gave birth at 14. The child's baby daddy, Azhar Ali Mehmood, pimped Lucy and other underage girls. By 16, Lucy was pregnant with their second child. Mehmood then murdered Lucy, her mother, and her sister by setting fire to the family home. Mehmood is now in jail. Even so, Lucy's father received an anonymous threat warning him not to discuss grooming gangs............To Read More......

The Capital of British Pakistan Goes to War with the British Parliament

August 20, 2018 Daniel Greenfield 17

Muslim terrorists attacking the British Parliament in cars has become an annual tradition.

Khalid Masood did it last year, running over pedestrians before slamming into the railing of Westminster Palace,  and then going on a brief stabbing spree that ended when he was shot dead by an armed police officer, who unlike the unarmed police officer he stabbed to death, had a gun because he was protecting a government official. 2017’s parliamentary attack ended with 5 dead and dozens injured.

This year, Salih Khater decided to have a go at parliament even though it was out for the summer recess.  He smashed his car into a barrier near Westminster Palace after running over a number of pedestrians. The Sudanese refugee was much less successful at it, wounding only 3 people and killing no one.

Both Muslim terrorists not only carried out attacks against the same location, they had been living at addresses 10 minutes apart. Sater, 2018’s parliamentary terrorist, had been living above the Bunna internet café in South Birmingham. Masood, 2017’s parliamentary terrorist, had made his home over the Shiraz Persian restaurant, owned by a devout Muslim, also in Birmingham........To Read More....

Pulling Their Clearances Is Only the Start – It’s Time to Stamp out Elite Privilege

Kurt Schlichter Aug 20, 2018

Help, I’m being oppressed! My freedom of speech was been utterly stripped from me because when I retired from the Army those fascist monsters took away my TOP SECRET security clearance. See, a security clearance is a special privilege I should be entitled to exploit for as long as I want to because… well, shut up peasant, that’s why. I learned this in my Con Law class, right after we studied the Constitution’s text enumerating the rights to abortion, wedding cake baking servitude, and to be called by the bizarre pronoun of your – I mean “xir” – choice.

Oh wait, all of that – except the giving up my clearance part – is utter nonsense.

But John Brennan, that hack, and his elite pals are supposed to get the special privilege of keeping it. Why? As a professional courtesy. See, security clearances are things you pass out as favors or rewards, I guess, at least among the elite. Courtesy among them, nothing for you, though. You aren’t special. You’re just some guy serving his country and not turning it into a profit center on the outside. Like a sucker.........Now, we’re also told that these special somebodies need to keep their clearances in case someone actually in the government who is actually doing a government job (instead of raking in bucks as a “consultant” or pundit) wants to ask their sage advice. How would that go with John Brennan?

If we had a real media and not the world’s most pompous Democrat transcription service, the CIA’s blown Chinese spy ring disaster would be front page news but hey, Omarosa! In any case, the only consulting anyone should do with the members of this class of unmitigated failures whose incompetence brought us 9/11, Iraq, Libya, ISIS, and a future where we would all be wise to learn Mandarin, is to ask their opinion and then do the opposite – Costanza style..............To Read More.....

First They Came for Alex Jones

By Jack Cashill August 20, 2018

This past week, the nation’s newspapers took collective umbrage at being called “the enemy of the people” by President Trump. “That is what Nazis called Jews,” gasped the editors of the Kansas City Star. “A form even appeared in Nazi Germany, when Jewish people were called an ‘enemy of the state,’” fretted the editors of the Topeka Capital-Journal.  

These being the only two editorials I read, I have to imagine that many more of the roughly 400 protesting newsrooms engaged in some variation on the reductio ad Hitlerum theme. Even if all 400 did, no halfway sentient adult can take this self-indulgence seriously.

Here is why.

Since President Trump’s election, every major magazine, every major social media outlet, every major newspaper, just about all of Hollywood and Broadway, and every major TV network save for Fox News have conspired to destroy the president.   During this time, these “journalists” have treated their audiences to an endless stream of anti-Trump propaganda only marginally rooted in the truth, and not a one of them has seen a pink slip, let alone a gas chamber................Read more

Remember how Brazil, Ecuador and Peru condemned Arizona over illegal immigration in 2010?

Clapper: Brennan's rhetoric is becoming an issue

By Megan Keller -

Sen. John Kennedy: John Brennan Is ‘a Butthead’ Who Gave Intel Community ‘a Bad Name’ 

A double ban gets a double reversal

Interior Department reverses activist-initiated Obama-era ban on farming activities in refuges
Paul Driessen
I don’t pull my punches over destructive, inhumane or just plain lunatic policies demanded by extreme environmentalists. I criticize them, as well as friends and “good guys,” when I think they got it wrong on energy or environmental issues. I also offer praise when it is deserved.
When Department of the Interior (DOI) Secretary Ryan Zinke – whom I admire greatly – let a last-minute Obama endangered species designation for the “Rusty Patched Bumblebee” (RPB) take effect in March 2017, I faulted the decision (here and here). Now I want to praise his recent decision to reopen certain wildlife refuges to modern farming practices.
The RPB decision did the unthinkable. It gave Interior’s often hyper-activist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) potential veto power over every farm operation, building project and land use decision across 378 million Eastern and Midwestern acres, the RPB’s (possible) erstwhile habitat. That’s equal to Montana, North and South Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois and Indiana combined!
All to “protect” a ground-nesting bee that provides minimal pollinating services, has supposedly been sighted” a number of times since 2000 in 13 states, has long been rare for multiple reasons, and got its “endangered” status due to an collusive sue-and-settle lawsuit between agitators and regulators.
This is the same FWS that told a timber company it had to create “potential” habitat on its land in Louisiana for a “dusky gopher frog” that has not been seen in the state for 33 years and could not survive on the 1,544 acres of company land selected by the FWS, because the chosen area did not offer essential habitat conditions. So Fish and Wildlife ordered the company to convert the land into “suitable” habitat, at company expense – after which the company could never cut trees in the area!
The RPB decision was particularly perilous for farmers because, just a few years earlier, the Service had eagerly negotiated yet another sue-and-settle style agreement with radical greens in the Center for Food Safety, to ban genetically engineered crops (aka GMOs) and neonicotinoid insecticides on the extensive lands the FWS leases to farmers in often enormous U.S. wildlife refuges.
The ban was issued without any public consultation or comment period. Worse, it was wholly at odds with USDA and EPA findings on the environmental safety of both GMOs and neonics. But it was a huge gift to activists who have been campaigning against those technologies for years. It set a dangerous precedent of basing government decisions on “precautionary” criteria, much like Europe’s wholly unscientific regulatory process, which is completely antithetical to the risk-based U.S. system.
The infinitely malleable “precautionary” pseudo-guideline says chemicals and other technologies should be restricted or banned if there is any possibility (or accusation by radical activists) that they could be harmful, even if no evidence-based cause-effect link can be shown.
Even worse, the “Precautionary Principle” only examines (often inflated) risks from using technologies that activists or regulators dislike. It never considers the risks of not using them – or risks that using them could reduce or eliminate. Just as perversely, anti-technology factions ignore or actively suppress evidence of harmful impacts from supposed alternatives – and from any technologies they support.
The European Union has formalize the Precautionary Principle as official policy. Regulators thus have carte blanche authority to take any action, at any time, no matter how arbitrary, based on the claim that sometime in the future, in ways not yet understood, something might possibly have a negative impact on people or the environment. Scientific evidence is not needed.
It’s an open door to regulation by activists who are experts at raising alarms and making claims of impending Armageddon unless a targeted technology is banned. Europe’s embrace of “precaution” in agricultural regulation is a major reason why the continent has become a net importer of food, despite having some of the most fertile land and predictably temperate weather in the world.
If this horrendous refuge precedent had stood, combined with the Endangered Species Act, it could have given a few USFWS activist regulators the power to micro-manage enormous swaths of the American public and private landmass, and large segments of the nation’s agricultural and construction economy.
Its impacts would have been felt almost as widely as the infamous “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS) rule that presidential candidate Donald Trump vowed to kill and which the EPA under Scott Pruitt began to dismantle – or the even more insidious Paris climate treaty, which would have given international and United Nations climate alarmists control over the entire U.S. economy.
I’m therefore happy to note that Mr. Zinke Department has implemented a double reversal of the USFW double ban. In an August 2 memo, Interior again spelled out the need to raise crops in parts of wildlife refuges to provide food for people and forage for ducks, geese and other wildlife – and to note the important role that genetically engineered plants and neonics play in that effort.
Of course, the GMO-neonic ban never made an iota of scientific sense. Hundreds of government and independent studies – and decades of eating and other real-world experience – confirm that GMOs are as safe for human and animal consumption as the almost 100% of crops that have been genetically modified by traditional breeding … or by soaking seeds in harsh chemicals or bombarding them with radiation to cause multiple mutations, some desirable, others unknown, but just fine with organic food promoters.
Equally important, the massively funded environmentalist campaign against neonics was based heavily on the wholly fabricated “bee-pocalypse” scare of several years ago. As most people now know, honeybee populations have been rising the entire time since neonics were first used, and the problems honeybees had for several years were due to due to Varroa destructor mites and an assortment of bee diseases.
Anti-neonic agitation also ran headlong into EPA’s scientific risk assessments. Even amid the regulatory frenzy of the final Obama years, EPA could find no scientific reason to take away the long-standing approvals of these vital crop production tools, which target only insects that actually feed on crop plants.
Not surprisingly, though, once the honeybee-pocalypse was debunked, activists immediately switched gears to the equally fraudulent claim that wild bees are on the path to extinction – because of neonics, of course. However, wild bee problems are also almost entirely due to disease and long-term habitat loss.
The vast majority of wild bee species are “doing just fine,” prominent U.S. Geological Survey wild bee expert Sam Droege has noted. Even more telling, a recent global study of wild bees found that those which pollinate crops and thus come into most frequent contact with neonics are flourishing.
Greens have already announced they will sue to block the refuge decision, but that’s par for the course.
Secretary Zinke deserves high praise for starting to rein in USFWS’s regulatory power grab. However, it’s only a start. There’s much more left to do: at Interior, Agriculture, Energy and of course EPA.
Next up should be the Fish and Wildlife Service’s role in implementing the Endangered Species Act. Even if congressional attempts to rein in some of the worst abuses of the ESA finally succeed, after years of futility resulting from environmentalist intransigence, agency activists will find ways around them.
Mr. Zinke also deserves major kudos for pushing back on the nonsensical claim that 129 million dead trees in California, repeated conflagrations that completely wipe out wildlife habitats and species, over 700,000 once-Golden State acres burned so far this summer (Rhode Island plus Washington, DC), and 57 Californians killed by forest fires in two years – are due to that all-purpose villain: climate change.
As the Secretary makes clear, this horrific destruction is the result of near-criminal mismanagement of that state’s forests, at the behest of rabid greens who refuse to allow any timber harvesting anywhere. 
There’s an old saying that “personnel is policy.” Secretary Zinke next needs to replace DOI zealots with permanent, career service land and resource managers who can keep the eco-power-grabbers under control, by honestly, dispassionately and transparently applying evidence-based science to rulemaking.
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death and other books and articles on energy, climate change, economic development and human rights.

Sunday, August 19, 2018

The doctor is out? Why physicians are leaving their practices to pursue other careers

Nicole Spector

This week's news that New York University will offer free tuition to all its medical school students, in the hope of encouraging more doctors to choose lower-paying specialties, offered hope to those wishing to pursue a career in the field.

However, becoming a doctor remains one of the most challenging career paths you can embark upon. It requires extensive (and expensive) schooling followed by intensive residencies before you're fully on your feet. The idea, generally, is that all the hard work will pay off not only financially, but also in terms of job satisfaction and work-life balance; then there's the immeasurable personal benefits of helping people, and possibly even saving lives. In terms of both nobility and prestige, few occupations rank so highly.

So why is there a waning interest to grow a career as a physician? A recent report from the Association of American Medical Colleges projected a shortage of between 42,600 and 121,300 physicians by 2030, up from its 2017 projected shortage of 40,800 to 104,900 doctors.

There appear to be two main factors driving this anticipated doctor drought, as it were: Firstly, young people are becoming less interested in pursuing medical careers with the rise of STEM jobs, a shift that Craig Fowler, regional VP of The Medicus Firm, a national physician search and consulting agency based in Dallas, has noticed.

"There are definitely fewer people going to [med school] and more going into careers like engineering," Fowler told NBC News........To Read More....

Do Voters Reward Pro-Market Politicians?

August 13, 2018 by Dan Mitchell @ International Liberty

A few days ago, I shared some academic research investigating whether economic crises lead to more liberalization (Naomi Klein’s hypothesis) or more statism (Robert Higgs’ hypothesis).

Given the dismal long-run outlook for the United States and most other developed nations, this is not just a theoretical issue.

Well, the good news is that the evidence shows that economic turmoil appears to be associated with pro-market reforms. At least with regard to regulatory policy.

Today, I’m going to share more good news. We now have some empirical research from two Danish economists showing that voters like good policy.

Here’s what Niclas Berggren and Christian Bjørnskov wanted to ascertain in their research
Since the early 1980s a wave of liberalizing reforms has swept over the world. While the stated motivation for these reforms has usually been to increase economic efficiency, some critics have instead inferred ulterior motives…with the claim that many of the reforms have been undertaken during different crises so as to bypass potential opponents, suggests that people will dislike the reforms and even be less satisfied with democracy as such. We test this hypothesis empirically, using panel data from 30 European countries in the period 1993–2015. The dependent variable is the average satisfaction with democracy, while the reform measures are constructed as distinct changes in four policy areas: government size, the rule of law, openness and regulation. …We moreover include a set of control variables, capturing economic circumstances, political institutions and features of politics.
In other words, we’ve seen considerable liberalization over the past 20-plus years. Were voters happy or unhappy as a result?

Here’s a way of visualizing what they investigated.

For what it’s worth, I’ve argued that Reagan showed good policy is good politics.

And the good news is that this research reaches a similar conclusion. Here are their main results.
Our results indicate that while reforms of government size are not robustly related to satisfaction with democracy, reforms of the other three kinds are – and in a way that runs counter to the anti-liberalization claims. Reforms that reduce economic freedom are generally related to satisfaction with democracy in a negative way, while reforms that increase economic freedom are positively associated with satisfaction with democracy. Voters also react more negatively to left-wing governments introducing reforms that de-liberalize. …the hypothesis of a general negative reaction towards liberalizing reforms taking the form of reduced satisfaction with democracy does not stand up to empirical scrutiny, at least not in our European sample.
Wonky readers may want to spend some time with this table, which shows the results of the statistical analysis

I’ll close with a couple of specific observations from the research, all of which deal with whether some reforms are more popular than others.

The good news is that voters are most satisfied when there’s less protectionism.
It turns out that the most immediately important type of reform here is liberalizations that increase market openness, such as reductions in protectionism and removal of obstacles to capital movements.
(Methinks the folks in the White House may want to reconsider their protectionist policies. It seems people understand that trade wars cause blowback.)

The bad news is that voters don’t seem to get excited about reforms to restrain government spending, whereas other types of pro-market reforms are popular.
Reforms that involve government size are rarely statistically significant; reforms that involve the other three reform areas typically are.
Though voters sometimes aren’t happy when government gets bigger, so I guess that’s partial good news.
Crises only seem to matter when government size increases, and then they make the effect on satisfaction with democracy much more negative.
Perhaps this is evidence that people recognize Keynesian “stimulus” schemes aren’t a good idea? I hope that’s the right interpretation. Heck, maybe this is yet another reason to stop sending tax dollars to subsidize the OECD.

"Everyone Knows’ — Why John Cox Can Win Governor of California

It’s happened else where, as blue states turn to Republicans to get their fiscal mess in order.

Brian Harrington August 15, 2018

Everyone “knows” that a Republican like John Cox can’t be elected Governor in California because the state is just too blue, right?   Well, the people of Maryland, Massachusetts, Illinois, or Maine might not know that. Each of those states elected a Republican governor even though they are as blue, or even bluer, than California.  Conventional wisdom was wrong in these other states for the same reason it is wrong in California. Voters there didn’t elect a Republican politician, they elected an outside businessman who happened to be a Republican.

That’s just what John Cox is. He’s not a politician, he’s a successful businessman who has personally created hundreds of jobs and will right California’s fiscal ship, starting with repealing the gas tax that is killing the state’s middle class. And Cox will force the left-wing legislature to curb profligate spending........................Newsom is dodging needed public debates with John Cox..............Newsom could literally send the state over the fiscal cliff...........All the ingredients are in place for California to shock the nation come November, as other blue states have recently done, by electing a Republican businessman who will attack problems with genuine, potent solutions........To Read More.....

My Take - This kind of shakeup happens, but it's not going to happen in California, if for no other reason is voter fraud.  It will be massive if it even looks close.  Furthermore, no governor can fix a state when they have to deal with a legislature that operates with complete and utter economic insanity.  Take a look at the states mentioned in the article that elected Republican governors to see how well they fared.   

I hope this good man isn't elected because if he is his life will become a nightmare.  Let California go straight down the tubes.  There's nothing like a good disaster to get everyone's head on right.  And if there's a state that needs a disaster - it's California - they've earned it. 

The Do-Gooders Who Got a Hard Lesson in the Existence of Evil

By Jeannie DeAngelis August 19, 2018

In 2001, believing he was Superman and could fly, a third-grade boy named Julian Roman attempted to jump rooftops in the Bronx. Julian died after slipping and smashing into an air conditioner protruding from an apartment window below. At the time of Julian's death, in Manalapan, New Jersey, a boy named Jay Austin was cultivating a Superman mentality similar to the one that cost Julian his life.

Born in New York, Jay grew up in Monmouth County, attended the University of Delaware, and earned a master's degree from Georgetown University. It was at Georgetown that Jay met fellow unicorn-chaser Lauren Geoghegan. Austin, a vegan, spent his days advocating for sustainable living, worked for the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) during the Obama administration, and owned a trendy micro-house he parked in Washington, D.C.

In 2017, Jay decided to follow in Julian Roman's footsteps and tempt fate. At the time, Austin wrote on his bicycle blog that "[t]here's magic out there, in this great big beautiful world." Apparently, Jay believed that "wishing for kind human beings" supernaturally creates kind human beings. So, to prove that his brand of "magic" had power, he and girlfriend Lauren gave two weeks' notice and embarked on a cycling journey.

In the second year of the couple's intercontinental bike trek, on a quest to prove that those perceived to be evil for beheading enemies with hunting knives, drowning cages full of helpless men, and burning people alive just "hold values and beliefs and perspectives different than our own," Jay and Lauren pedaled into ISIS recruitment territory.............Read more

My Take - And with thinking like that ..... and the idea that evil is a make-believe concept.......What could possibly go wrong?
The trouble with leftists minds are the fantasies they have swallowed hook, line and sinker, that contaminate their ability to see the world as it really is.  Sadly, the better educated they are the deeper they fall into the fantasy world of the left.  As a result they end up in leadership roles promoting fantasy versus history and reality. 
American universities are fever swamps of toxic thinking and if these bad things only happened to them I wouldn't much care, as they paid the penalty for their thinking. Unfortunately, these are the kind of fantasies they promote to the public, and then the public pays the penalty.
Ask the French and the Swedes.

Disorder In The Court - A Supernaturally Dumb Lawsuit Over The Word 'Natural'

By Josh Bloom — August 15, 2018 @ American Council on Science and Health

The terms "natural" and "organic" have spurred a cottage industry in which companies and internet sleazebags compete to suck money out of the thoroughly manipulated and misguided American public. And it's been a smashing success!

For example, how many of you know that organic foods:
  1. Are grown using chemicals -  pesticides and herbicides. To be certified organic, farmers are permitted to use chemicals from a different list, all of which have their own properties, including toxicity. 
  2. Offer no additional nutritional value than their conventional counterparts.
  3. Cost a whole lot more than their conventional counterparts.
And did you know that:
  1. Lead is natural
  2. So is uranium
  3. And so are dioxins (1)
So, let's just call this a mini-lesson about how useless and confusing the two terms are. Too bad Alexandra Axon doesn't read ACSH or she'd know how scientifically ridiculous her lawsuit against Florida’s Natural and its parent company, Citrus World Inc.

Or is it?

Or perhaps she does know. The Brooklyn woman is suing the company as part of a class-action lawsuit by The Richman Law Group, against the juice maker, claiming that the presence of trace quantities of glyphosate in the juice means the claim "natural" cannot be used on the label.

Hmm. Glyphosate. Monsanto. It's only natural to sniff out a hidden agenda when lawyers smell a fat payday against Monsanto (2). And that's the case here. There have been more than 300 cases filed against the company in a San Francisco federal court by cancer victims who claim that the chemical caused their cancers.

And who can blame Axon for wanting a piece of the action? On August ninth a California jury ruled against the company and awarded $289 ( $39.2 million in compensatory damages and $250 million in punitive damages) for failing to warn Dewayne Johnson, a groundskeeper, who claimed that the herbicide caused his non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, about the risk of cancer from glyphosate. The only problem is that glyphosate does not cause cancer, something that my colleague Dr. Alex Berezow wrote about last year (See Glyphosate-Gate: IARC's Scientific Fraud).

Despite the overwhelming evidence against the carcinogenicity of the chemical, when you follow the formula:  The name Mosanto + Any chemical or product + Any California jury + California anti-chemical Craziness.

The verdict is virtually guaranteed to be determined in advance: Defendant is doomed regardless of evidence, lack of evidence, whether the defendant even had cancer, or whether the day of the trial ends in "Y."

But this article is not about cancer. It's about how ridiculous the Brooklyn "natural" claim is. In the suit, Axon claims that Florida’s Natural Growers orange juice should not contain the term "natural" because it contains minuscule amounts of glyphosate. How much? An independent lab determined that the juice contained 5.11 nanograms per mL. Is this a lot? A little? Does it matter? Let's do some math. Perhaps it will even be correct (3).
  • 5.11 nanograms = 0.0000051 mg. This is the amount of glyphosate in 1 mL of the juice.
  • 8 ounces = 237 mL 
  • So, one 8-oz glass of the OJ will contain 0.0012 mg of glyphosate.
  • The LD50of glyphosate in rats is about 2,800 mg.
  • So, it would take 233,333,333 glasses of OJ to get enough glyphosate to kill a rat (4).
  • That's a lot of #%#%#ing OJ
So, the orange juice isn't going to harm anyone or anything, but is it "natural?" This is a rather existential question because although the EPA doesn't list a maximum allowable quantity of glyphosate for orange juice, it does for oranges - 0.5 ppm, which is 100-times more than the amount found in the OJ. Which means: If the OJ isn't "natural", neither is the organge. Which also means: Nothing on Earth is "Natural".

Because with the right analytical instrument something man-made will be found in every food on earth. Do you see how silly this is?

But it gets sillier. Also in the suit are claims that the OJ cannot be called natural because of "deaeration, the process of removing oxygen as a preservative; blending and long-term storage."
Well isn't that interesting? Mixing the juice, sucking out the oxygen, and putting it in a carton also means it cannot be natural. Which makes me wonder about milk. 

"Not Natural" because they were Pasteurized, mixed and put in a carton.

So, neither is...

Not Natural......Because it's in a container.
Photo: Modern Farmer.

Nor is...
Not Natural...because the milk is being collected in a pail!
So, the only way to drink truly natural milk would be...

This article is obviously stupid, but I couldn't think of a better way to describe what is going on in the court in Brooklyn.   So I had to write it................ Naturally.


(1) Dioxins are formed by volcanoes and forest fires. They were in the environment long before any human roamed the earth.
(2) Sorry, Monsanto haters, you'll need a new placard. The company was recently bought by Bayer.
(3) But more likely not. I use math in my articles from time to time. I don't believe I've ever gotten it right, even once. Go ahead. Shoot me down. I'm used to it.
(4) There is no LD50 data for glyphosate humans, but the very low toxicity is consistent in other animal models. There have been fatalities from intentional exposure of the chemical, but these deaths are attributed to other ingredients that help the chemical get into plants.

Junk Science and Leftist Folklore Have Set California Ablaze

How left-wing "global warming" policies are torching the West Coast.

August 17, 2018 Bruce Thornton 106

The Left Coast is burning. Oregon is fighting 13 wildfires encompassing 185,000 acres. California is battling 19 fires, including tornados of fire called "fire whirls," which have gobbled up 577,000 acres and left eight dead. A good progressive who never lets a crisis go to waste, Governor Jerry Brown told Californians, “With climate change, some scientists are saying that Southern California is literally burning up.” He warned that man-made global warming created a “new normal,” and that “more serious predictions of warming and fires to occur later in the century, 2040 or 2050, [are] now occurring in real time.”

A few days later Brown had a tweet-duel with President Trump, who in contrast claimed, “California wildfires are being magnified & made so much worse by the bad environmental laws,” like those against thinning and clearing forests: “Tree clear to stop fire spreading!” Seems like on this issue, the allegedly doltish Trump has the better argument than the Berkeley and Yale-trained Brown.....To Read More....