Saturday, August 18, 2018

History, Dystopian Novels and Reality

By Jeff Jackson

(Editor's Note:  On Aug 16, 2018 Katharine Otto posted an article entitled, "What Rules the Rulers?" on WriterBeat. A comment was posted by the author of this presentation, which I felt was worth publishing, and he's graciously given me permission to do so.  RK)

Dystopic novels are usually part of the English readings in middle school, at least in the public school system that I attended. Fahrenheit 451 (the temperature where paper ignites) by Ray Bradbury is also among the dystopic novels used. The attempt is to expose young readers to the idea of governments that have gone way too far. Fahrenheit 451 has “firemen” whose sole purpose is to destroy books that might give the citizens ideas about how the government ought to behave.

Brave New World, Animal Farm, and Fahrenheit 451 all have similar themes of governments that have taken control of almost every aspect of human behavior. Controlling what people read is a common theme, because, at least in the time of those writers, written material was the main method of transferring knowledge.

None of the authors, to my knowledge, could foresee something like the internet, and I cannot blame them for that. We are entering a phase of humanity that has replaced books to a large degree, and that will only grow. People like myself prefer books to understand things, but more and more citizens (young people) are relying on electronic books for news and information.

It has been proven in study after study, that if a student has to write things down, they capture more of the content, learn more, and retain more of the content. Despite the growing evidence that reading from a book and writing down the ideas and content are better, educational institutions are relying more and more on electronic sources.

I fear that the reliance on electronic sources will yield citizens who do not understand as much as those who had to read books and handwrite facts and content. Add to lack of understanding the fake news and ideologically-driven content found on the internet and you have citizens who lack an understanding of concepts, as well as their beliefs in false information. Critical thinking and literary criticism are becoming skills that students and governments find less than useful.

We already have Incels, who are convinced that sex should be provided by the government, and I would bet serious money that they got their information on their situation from the internet, and no other sources. As young people are exposed to more and more false information, and their abilities to critically examine ideas diminishes, they are going to believe and defend concepts that would not have gained any support in an environment of critical thinking and historical context.

Most of the governments in the dystopian novels take a dim view of history, and that is a critical point when indoctrinating the citizens to believe the nonsense that the governments of those novels want the public to believe. I also refer you to the deniers of the Holocaust, some of which have attempted to put forth their deranged view of history on this very website.

As one of them wrote in one of my responses, “I’ll debate you all day on the Holocaust” when, in fact, there is nothing to debate. The denial of history and the lack of critical thinking is the beginning of societies where citizens are indoctrinated into believing everything the government tells them, without question. I would like to believe that we have not entered the point of no return, but the march of ignorance and belief of internet nonsense is slowly taking over.

As Nietzsche said: “Convictions have done more to distort the truth than have lies.”

Founding Fathers and Christianity

By Rich Kozlovich

In 1776 every European settler defined themselves as either Christians with the exception of 2500 Jews and 98 percent of all colonists were Protestants the remaining were Catholic. How good a Christian these men and women may have been is immaterial since if we decide perfection is the only definition of a Christian…..there are no Christians.

But make no mistake about this. America was founded by Christians and with the intent of this being a nation based on Christian ethics and principles. This idea the founders were deists is mostly leftist swill as there’s “virtually no evidence than a handful of civic leaders in the Founding era—notably Benjamin Franklin, Ethan Allen, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and (if we count him as an American) Tom Paine—embraced anything approximating this view. "  Personally, I’ve felt for many years Franklin was a closet atheist….but so what?

Whether these few and important founders were deists or something else, is immaterial, since a more than reasonable argument can be made they were influenced by Christian values and ethics profoundly. Furthermore, there is no reasonable argument to show they desired a strict separation of church and state. And there’s more than enough in the historical record that the rest were clearly Christians.

Jefferson’s much quoted and misused statement about a wall of separation was to keep government out of religion, not religion out of government.

The original colonists came to America to live Christian lives and in to be able to worship a Christian God in a manner they desired. They viewed their efforts as a “sacred cause”, mandating “regular church attendance, and to proclaim that anyone who speaks impiously against the Trinity or who blasphemes God’s name will be put to death.”

The “Mayflower Compact, the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, and Massachusetts Body of Liberties are filled with such language—and in some cases, they incorporate biblical texts wholesale. Perhaps more surprisingly, tolerant, Quaker Pennsylvania was more similar to Puritan New England than many realize. The Charter of Liberties and Frame of Government of the Province of Pennsylvania (1681) begins by making it clear that God has ordained government, and it even quotes Romans 13 to this effect."

Article 38 of the document lists “offenses against God” that may be punished by the magistrate, including: swearing, cursing, lying, profane talking, drunkenness, drinking of healths, obscene words, incest, sodomy…stage-plays, cards, dice, May-games, gamesters, masques, revels, bull-baiting, cock-fighting, bear-baiting, and the like, which excite the people to rudeness, cruelty, looseness, and irreligion…” “at least nine of the 13 colonies had established churches, and all required officeholders to be Christians—or, in some cases, Protestants. Quaker Pennsylvania, for instance, expected officeholders to be “such as possess faith in Jesus Christ.”

“The Founders’ use of Christian rhetoric and arguments becomes even more evident if one looks at other statements of colonial rights and concerns such as the Suffolk Resolves, the Declaration of Rights, and the Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking up Arms—to say nothing of the dozen explicitly Christian calls for prayer, fasting, and thanksgiving issued by the Continental and Confederation Congresses.”

The Declaration of Independence, the most famous document produced by the Continental Congress during the War for Independence, proclaims: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” As well, this text references “the laws of nature and of nature’s God” and closes by “appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world” and noting the signers’ “reliance on the protection of divine Providence.”

“In 1775, at least nine of the 13 colonies had established churches. Although establishments took a variety of forms, they generally entailed the state providing favorable treatment for one denomination—treatment which often included financial support. Members of religious denominations other than the official established church were usually tolerated, but they were occasionally taxed to support the state church, and some were not permitted to hold civic office.”

“After independence, most states either disestablished their churches (particularly states where the Church of England was previously established) or moved to a system of “plural” or “multiple” establishments. Under the latter model, citizens were taxed to support their own churches. Although a few Founders challenged establishments of any sort in the name of religious liberty, most arguments were framed in terms of which arrangement would be best for Christianity.”

But are we to believe creating a more equitable concept of church and state meant these people who were so clearly enthusiastic Christians were now abandoning that enthusiasm for Christianity?

History shows unquestionably the founding fathers believed it was absolutely permissible for the state to encourage Christianity by the mere fact none of these anti-Christian policies promoted by the left in government and the courts was ever touted from the very beginning of this nation’s creation.

Everything else is cherry picking rhetorical leftist swill using our own values against us to undermine the American identity, the Constitution and the nation.

The left constantly uses our own values against us, and we just don't seem to get it.  The founders never intended for the First Amendment to be a suicide pact.  America's founders were Christians and America was a Christian nation until the left decided to use our values against us, and we let them, because they've been horribly successful, including corrupting Christian institutions with their anti-God philosophy, where Marx is as likely - and maybe more likely - to be studied than the Bible.

We're heading into a Seldon Crisis with no vision, no plan and no values, and we've lost our minds!

The End of Sweden

By Rich Kozlovich

Joseph Klein recently published an article entitled, Sweden is Buring, asking: Will Swedes finally wake up and deal with their immigration problem?

In the aritcle he points out there are about ten million people living in Sweden, which is small potatoes when you consider there are over eleven million living in Ohio. Sweden has a fertility rate of 1.9, which means they’re going to run out of ethnic Swedes some day if that trend were to continue.  Furthermore, the birth rates of the ethnic Western populations of Europe is being outstripped 4-1 by Islamic immigrants.

The left’s promotion of the gay agenda and the denigration of a traditional heterosexual society, along with the environmentalist’s demands we have less children to save the planet is having, and will have, devastating long-term consequences.

Muslims don’t buy into any of that. They have children - lots of children - and in many western nations they’re openly practicing polygamy, and these European nations know it and are doing nothing about it. At what point is there a point of no return? If these leftist multiculturalist schemes continue - Sweden is soon to become an Islamic State.

A question asked by one reader was: Why does Sweden need Somalis, Afghans, Eritreans, Iraqis, Iranians, and Syrians for, and the same question applies to all Western countries including the United States? The answer?  We don't need them and we shouldn't want them since they don't want to assimilate, they want to destroy. 

What seems clear to me is that Sweden is doomed. In the next thirty years.  At current trends Sweden will be unrecognizable, the old Sweden will be irretrievable and the nation will be just as violent as are all other Muslim dominated cultures.

The only thing Muslims in Sweden will support is having slaves, many wives, the end of women’s rights, the end of freedom of religion and the end of any legitimate form of democracy and dhimmitude. That’s where non-Muslims are taxed by Muslims. We need to get this: Islam is antithetical to Democracy.  Islam isn't a religion!  Islam is a political criminal movement masquerading as a religion. Just because they've managed to go on for over 1400 years is immaterial. 

Can anyone not wonder that leftism is a from of insanity?   Everything they promote and support is anethema to Muslims and yet they stand shoulder to shoulder in support of Muslim immigration into western cultures. Make no mistake about this.  If Muslim culture dominates the west they will eviseate the left. 

Islam means “submission”, and it’s not just rhetoric to Muslims. They are deadly serious about everyone submitting to Islam, and they will use any and every form of violence to make that happen, including the murder of other Muslims with whom they disagree, and that isn’t a small number.

One writer felt the “only useful function Sweden can still perform is as a warning to its neighbors--near and far--but especially near. The remaining Scandinavian countries and Baltic states must take steps now to stop the spread of contagion from Sweden or they, too, will suffer the same ignominious end.”

Sweden is descending into a leftist multicultural Islamic crap hole right out of Dante’s Inferno filled with bestial appetites, violence, perversion, fraud, malice, hatred of their fellow man and intellectual fraud.

This a bed they’ve made for themselves and now they’re going to have to sleep in it, but make no mistake about this. If Sweden is to survive it must collectively recognize Islam is a cancer that must be eradicated from their society, but that’s not going to happen as long as multicultural socialists continue ruling this nation.

Sweden is Burning

Will Swedes finally wake up and deal with their immigration problem?

Omarosa and Peak Trump Bashing Hits Publishing

Posted by Daniel Greenfield 1 Comments Thursday, August 16, 2018 @ Sultan Knish Blog

Did a major publishing firm waste seven figures on Unhinged, Omarosa Manigault’s fake book? 

A parody tweet featuring a faked except from Michael Wolff's Fire and Fury book created the Gorilla Channel meme as media types quickly fell for the idea that President Trump spent 17 hours a day watching an imaginary cable channel where gorillas fight each other.

But that's nothing.

A Simon and Schuster subsidiary paid Omarosa Manigault a reported seven figures for a book in which she claims that Trump wanted to take his oath of office on a copy of The Art of the Deal instead of the bible. The source of the story appears not to be Trump, but a popular Trump impersonator.

Someone should have noticed that. But when fake news meets fake books, there’s no time to check the stories that are too good not to print. The seemingly endless appetite of lefties for Trump bashing touched off a gold rush in the media and its allied publishing companies to mint new bestsellers.

Unhinged, the Omarosa book in question, was apparently sold in July and published in August.

That’s a ridiculously quick turnaround that would have made any serious fact checking impossible. Nor, apparently, was any serious fact-checking attempted, according to subjects like Frank Luntz and George Conway, who are named in the claims that she makes about President Trump using racial slurs.

Simon and Schuster is a subsidiary of CBS. The entanglement between fake books and fake news is a phenomenon that pervades the various sectors of the media as reporters write and report on books.

Simon and Schuster, like many other publishers, has been cashing in on Trump Derangement Syndrome. Samples include Bob Woodward's 'FEAR: Trump in the White House' to be published on 9/11, 'It's Even Worse Than You Think: What the Trump Administration Is Doing to America', a book whose title just doesn't know when to stop, and Michael Ian Black's 'A Child's First Book of Trump'. "The beasty is called an American Trump/Its skin is bright orange, its figure is plump," Black clumsily rhymes.

Simon and Schuster had also published Hillary Clinton’s ‘What Happened’.

Woodward’s FEAR is an obvious answer to the success of Wolff’s Fire and Fury. Both are similarly themed pseudo-journalistic insider accounts. Book sized volumes of the type of fake news that have made lots of money for Bezos’ Washington Post and Sulzberger’s New York Times.

FEAR comes out in September. Before Woodward’s FEAR, though there was more fear at Simon and Schuster with the July release of The Monarchy of Fear by Martha C. Nussbaum. But the pop philosophy attack on Trump misfired. And the two S’s had a hole in August between Monarchy of Fear and FEAR.

So the publishing giant quickly signed a deal with Omarosa and filled its August hole with her crazy claims. Like Fire and Fury, and FEAR, Unhinged plugs into the fake news cycle. Even as the Manafort trial is petering out, leading to snide media attacks on Judge Ellis for restraining the prosecution’s antics and denying them the show trial that their ratings and Chartbeat graphs so badly needed, Unhinged arrived.

The titled of Unhinged could easily refer to Omarosa and the bizarre claims that a major publishing house decided to pay her seven figures for. Aside from the quest for a tape of Trump’s racial slur (Omarosa had spent enough time around media lefties to know that even hinting at the existence of such a thing would unleash a feeding frenzy that would make sharks chasing bloody meat seem sedate), and the suggestion that Trump wanted to take his oath on The Art of the Deal, there’s her claim that Melania uses her fashion choices to “punish” her husband. That’s yet another media conspiracy theory.

Unhinged really isn’t a crazy book. It’s a deeply cynical one. It takes media conspiracy theories and feeds them right back into the media. Omarosa was flushing fake news into the media’s fake news sewer. Omarosa cashed a seven figure check by giving lefty conspiracy theories, no matter how bizarre, the stamp of approval of having an ‘insider’ in the Trump White House tell them their beliefs are really true.

That’s why Simon and Schuster signed the deal and made Unhinged its August anti-Trump pick. Unhinged is unhinged nonsense. But what’s better for fake news than a fake book?

And why shouldn’t Omarosa work the same side of the street as Michael Wolff? Despite his journalistic credentials, Wolff’s narrative was full of holes, his claims dubious and his credibility shot. Fire and Fury contains an admission early on that the book is probably full of lies, but blames those lies on Trump associates. When he tried to extend his 15 minutes by using the same strategy to accuse Nikki Haley of having an affair with Trump, while blaming her for his own implication, even the media turned on him.

And then stopped inviting him on.

Omarosa is working her way through the Wolff slime trial, making dubious claims, invoking a journalistic journey, contradicting herself, blaming the contradictions on everyone else and distorting the events that she supposedly witnessed to make bizarre and inflammatory claims about President Trump.

Meanwhile she keeps dropping illegally recorded tapes that only address her own egotistical careerism.

And that’s where the misfire began.

Instead of getting a #1 bestseller, Simon and Schuster had to settle for #5. As CNN notes, even Rick Wilson’s anti-Trump rant made it to #2. Pro-Trump books by Jeanine Pirro and Gregg Jarrett got to #1. And that’s despite the millions of dollars in free media coverage lavished on Unhinged.

Without the backlash from the White House, Omarosa might not have even gotten to #5.

What went wrong with Simon and Schuster’s seven figure investment?

Unhinged is a self-serving book. Omarosa’s tapes were her big ticket item but they’re there to back up her own narrative of being unfairly fired. The left-baiting claims are just the chocolate coating for the creamy center of her own careerism. And in her past, she had alienated the media badly enough that plenty of big media talking heads were eager to pounce. Not all were as hysterical as April Ryan, who dubbed Omarosa “evil”, but no one in the media was willing to give her the benefit of the doubt.

Instead the media has been unhelpfully calling Omarosa out on the contradictions in her story.

The media isn’t investing too much in Omarosa. But like Wolff, she feeds the fake news media cycle, doling out the material that the media will amplify in its daily hysterical coverage for a Democrat demographic that is obsessed with Trump and has even less selectivity about what it consumes.

Simon and Schuster’s August anti-Trump bid appears to have misfired. The publishing giant is no doubt hoping that the misfire had more to do with Omarosa’s personal qualities than the end of the gold rush.

Bob Bender, a Simon and Schuster VP, predicted back in May that the Trump rush in publishing is about to fade. “Nobody’s going to do that for the second year—assuming there is a second year.”

If Bob Woodward’s FEAR misfires, then the era of fake books may be fading. And that’s bad news for fake news. Both fake news and fake books were a media gold rush fed by Trump Derangement Syndrome. But the golden age of Trump bashing may be ending. And then the soaring sales of the Washington Post and the New York Times, not to mention the few reporters still writing political books who weren’t named in #MeToo scandals, will crash down to earth as the golden age dies.

Omarosa’s Unhinged may be the fake book that broke the fake publishing camel’s back.

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.

Can Bernie Sanders Make Socialism Great Again?

August 16, 2018 by Dan Mitchell @ International Liberty

(Editor's Note:  This is an area where I disagree with the author.  All modern leftists are socialists, and all modern leftists want government ownership of everything, no matter what they say publicly.  Bernie spouts a lot of whoey a lot of the time,  much of which he back tracks with the same passion in which he spouted the things he then disagrees with.  When leftists take over they abolish private ownership of everything or at the very least institute collectivized central planning schemes that obviates private ownership rights, which amounts to the same thing.   The only moral value they have that's consistent is to get and hold power by any means possible in order to control everyone one and everything.  And they will say or do whatever it takes, because once they've achieved power, there's no one who can dare challenge anything they've said, done or promised before they took over.  RK )
When Crazy Bernie became a national political phenomenon back in 2015, I pointed out that the Vermont Senator isn’t actually a socialist.

As I remarked in this brief interview with Melissa Francis, the technical definition of socialism involves government ownership and control over the “means of production.” In other words, policies such as collective farms and government factories.

It’s possible that Bernie Sanders secretly supports those policies, but his public positions are conventional statism – i.e., lots of redistribution, cronyism, and intervention.

Those policies are destructive and harmful, to be sure. Just think about basket-case economies such as Greece and Venezuela.

But not all left-wing economic policies are socialism. Which was the point I made two years ago when I put together this diagram.

As you can see, I think Sen. Sanders belongs on the far left, but he represents a different strand of statism. At least when compared to conventional socialists or totalitarian socialists.

And I categorize the Nordic nations as “rational leftists” to provide a benchmark (even though those countries are very pro-market by global standards, thanks to their laissez-faire approaches to trade, regulation, etc).

I”ll close by acknowledging that language does evolve. So perhaps I’m being pedantic by drawing a distinction between ordinary Bernie-style leftism and socialism. After all, I doubt 57 percent of Democrats and 16 percent of Republicans actually favor collective farms and government-run companies (at least I hope not).

P.S. Modern leftists don’t want to end private ownership, but they do want the government to control the economy. That approach was given a test last century.

P.P.S. For examples of socialism humor, click here, here, herehereherehere, hereherehereherehere, hereherehere, here and here.

No, Chelsea Clinton, Roe v. Wade Did Not Create $3.5 Trillion in Wealth

By Michael New | August 17, 2018

Speaking at the “Rise up for Roe” rally this past Saturday in Manhattan, Chelsea Clinton along with CNN political commentator Symone Sanders and columnist Lauren Duca urged attendees to oppose the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.  Clinton, like many other supporters of legal abortion, thinks Kavanaugh might be the fifth vote to reverse the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. However, Chelsea Clinton’s defense of Roe v. Wade was unconventional. During her remarks, she stated that the women entering the economy between 1973 and 2009 added $3.5 trillion in wealth to the U.S. economy........To Read More....

My Take - Abortion is nothing more than a modern  neo-pagan secular religious rite!  In ancient times children were sacrificed to the gods to assure good harvests, in short for economic reasons.  It's believed Hannibal had an older brother who was sacrificed in such a Carthaginian religious rite.  It's the same argument.  Sacrifice our children for a good economy. 

The fact the children they're sacrificing are he unborn is immaterial.  These ancient pagans murdered their children and so to are we.  Infanticide is a crime against humanity that is unforgivable. To use economics as an excuse is beyond contempt! 

The fruit of the Clinton tree is as corrupt and rotten as the tree.  And just as stupid!

Satanists have wheeled a demonic goat statue onto the lawn of the Arkansas Capitol

Female Students Aren’t oppressed Enough?

By | Aug 16, 2018

Just when you think the neo-communist left has reached their pinnacle in brainwashing at secular institutions, along comes a professor at University of Connecticut to challenge that faulty notion.
Christina Mogro-Wilson, who teaches social work, was taken aback after surveying 118 of her students, finding that “[Masters of Social Work] MSW students tend to endorse feminist principles but are hesitant to identify themselves as feminists."Well, that feminist dog just won’t howl for Mogro-Wilson.  And she has the solution: Oppress female students to help them recognize what they’ve been missing all along.  Isn’t that the wrong direction for feminism?  Aren’t they supposed to “roar” instead of being beaten into believing they are not equal?  Weird.......To Read More....

My Take - If there ever was a course that prepared these students to fail in life.....this is it We really need to fix education in this nation - starting with kindergarten and ending with advanced education, and I don't think any of this will get fixed until the government ends public employee unions, especially teacher's unions, and ends all grant money to all the "higher" education institutions, whether they're worthwhile or loony leftist propaganda factories.

End all student loan programs sponsored by the government and make them all for profit institutions. Make sure not one dime of the tax payer’s money every enters their books in any way. Eliminate tenure. Make every educator stand or falls on their performance. Let each higher education institution make it's case to the parents to justify their costs.

Then education will fix itself! How?

The price of education will drop like a stone. Based on what’s happening at Ohio State there are entirely too many people in administration making entirely too much money. They'll be gone making these schools financially lean and mean.

Many of these loon factories will go out of business, many of these loony educators will have to go out and find real jobs and actually produce something worthwhile. That's of course supposing they can find a job where they have to say more than "Welcome to McDonald's".

I do fear they will be a burden on the welfare rolls, but I'm willing to accept that so long as they're no longer able to contaminate young minds. There's a reason why so many of our young "Feel the Bern" and have no idea about how socialism has not only failed in every nation or culture that's embrace it or had it imposed on them....they don't even know how murderous socialists become when they take power.

If Marcuse and his loony leftist fellows from the Frankfurt school were alive today they'd be proud. But the fact each and every one of them was ever hired in any of America's universities is a clear demonstration this has been a foundational problem that goes back to the 19th century.

Milk Or Water: California Bill Aims To Curb Kids’ Soda Drinking At Restaurants

By Adrienne Moore

Friday, August 17, 2018

Catoon of the Day

Report: Weekly Standard Founder Bill Kristol Caught Up in Spygate Scandal and Linked to Peter Strzok

By - on

For years my colleagues and I battled the left in and out of our party. Establishment RINO’s worked furiously to keep the principled and true out of the tent (ie CPAC).

But the election of President Trump has vindicated us and shown the principled and patriotic just what vicious spineless quislings they really are.

The enemy among us.

Report: Weekly Standard Founder Bill Kristol Caught Up in Spygate Scandal and Linked to Peter Strzok Oh, how the mighty have fallen. Bill Kristol, from the Weekly Standard, went from a leading conservative voice and Obama critic to a Trump hater who worked with Obama to derail the Trump Campaign. by Joe Hoft, Gateway Pundit, August 16, 2018..........Kristol fell so far that he started pushing the Trump – Russia dossier at the same time as John Brennan and the Obama team. Kristol went from leading conservative voice to being the leader of the anti-Trump “conservative” movement in a matter of a few years.

Kristol and The Weekly Standard published articles smearing The Gateway Pundit for supporting the Republican Presidential candidate.  Now we know that Kristol’s fall was worse than we thought.........To Read More.....

My Take - Bill Kristol and George Will have hit rock bottom and are done as a voice for anyone.  The right now despises them and the left won't forget who they said they were.  And Jonah Goldberg is running close behind them.   There has to be a common denominator for this.  Arrogance?  Selfish self-interest?  Stupidity? 

In spite of their academic credentials and clearly high IQ's - I think they're guilty of all three.   But even with those negative qualities I have to wonder at their sanity.  How can any sane person shift gears so badly supporting those who are clearly dangerous and detrimental to the nation?  People who clearly wish to create a super state without the impediments of the Constitution.   
I wish someone would ask them these questions. 
1.       If Hillary had been elected would we be better off than we are now? 
2.      Do they believe the government has become corrupt beyond belief as a result of Obama politicizing the agencies and departments of the federal government? 
3.      If they think that’s true then why would they wish to promote those who are responsible for such corruption?
4.      If Hillary had been elected do they think the nation would be more a nation of laws than a nation of government corruption? 
5.       Do they believe Hillary and the Democrat Party is corrupt beyond redemption or are they the embodiment of law and order? 
6.      Do they believe the Democrat Party undermines the constitution through an unelected bureaucracy and if so, would it get worse? 
7.       What do they believe the long term goals are for the Democrat party?

One has to be insane to support these people, so I think they’re arrogant, selfish, stupid, and I have to add insane to that mix. 



Marxism and Marriage

By David Solway August 17, 2018

In its centuries-long efforts to dismantle the load-bearing structures of traditional and classical liberal society, Marxist dogma in its various forms – communism, socialism, neo-Marxism, Cultural Marxism – has embarked on a sustained campaign to weaken and ultimately to abolish the institution of marriage as it has been commonly understood since time immemorial.  The dissolution or misprision of marriage, as a contract between a man and a woman committed to raising a family and recognizing its attendant responsibilities, is a prerequisite for the revolutionary socialist state in which the pivotal loyalty of the individual belongs to the sovereign collective, not to the family.............

An effective way to destroy marriage and the family was advanced by communist theorist Georg Lukács, who introduced the concept of "cultural terrorism," which involved the liquidation of religion, monogamy, and the ostensibly male-dominated family. Lukács advocated the introduction in the schools of – and as a minister in the 1919 Hungarian Bolshevik government of Béla Kun actually installed – courses on free love, sexual liberation, and Freud's notion of "polymorphous perversity," which he believed a revolutionary necessity. ...............To Read More

Socialism May Be Implemented Even When Rejected

E. Jeffrey Ludwig

The Gallup polling organization recently noted, "For the first time in Gallup's measurement over the past decade, Democrats have a more positive image of socialism than they do of capitalism." This does not represent a dramatic shift since 2010; rather, Frank Newport suggests that "[a]ttitudes toward socialism among Democrats have not changed materially since 2010, with 57% today having a positive view. The major change among Democrats has been a less upbeat attitude toward capitalism, dropping to 47% positive this year – lower than in any of the three previous measures."

Although the Socialist Party never won control over either house of Congress, and never won the presidency, the reader will not be surprised to observe that huge sections of its 1912 platform have been implemented during the past century. For this reason, all righteous constitutionalists should be not only concerned, but alarmed to see a movement consciously toward socialism in one of our two major parties. If so many socialist ideas of 1912 have been implemented while elected officials, at least publicly, disavowed socialism, how much more the danger of implementing socialism if the Democrats are "soft" on socialism, or even embracing of it?

The Socialist Party platform of 1912 was divided in four, preceded by a theoretical and emotional prologue stating the ideological position of that party. The platform itself included the following divisions: (1) Collective Ownership, (2) Unemployment, (3) Industrial Demands, and (4) Political Demands.............. To Read More

Taming the EPA Regulatory Hydra: An essential first step

In America’s most powerful, intrusive and costly agency, power resides in one administrator

William L. Kovacs

Since President Trump’s election, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has turned off its massive regulatory printing press. The nation is still here, there have been no man-made environmental catastrophes, and job creation is quickly growing now that the business community is not under the daily fear of another regulation that will slash its profits, force it to lay off employees or put it out of business.

So far, so good. However, if America is to continue its job creation activities, it needs to continue the Trump Administration’s balance between environmental protection and creating jobs and growing businesses. Unfortunately, in the future another anti-business president could be elected.

If the current administrative process and EPA’s organizational structure remain the same, the new, anti-business president could quickly stop economic progress by issuing many billion-dollar regulations that again freeze business activity, while imposing huge extra costs on consumers for everything they purchase from cars, to light bulbs, to housing – once again for little or no health or environmental benefit.

While President Trump ordered EPA to begin deregulatory activity, those efforts take years. To repeal a regulation, the agency must go through the same administrative process it went through to produce the initial regulation.

The Trump administration has started to revise the three most costly regulations: Waters of the United States, the Clean Power Plan and automobile mileage standards. This effort will last well into third or fourth year of the Trump administration – and then the lawsuits will begin. Equally important, while we need wholesale deregulation at EPA, it is likely that this administration will only make a dent in EPA’s historic overreach.

The almost fifty-year history of the EPA regulatory process is like the mythological “Hydra,” a monster with many heads; when one was cut-off, two more grew back. Such an aggressive regulatory process crowned EPA as the most aggressive regulator in history.

EPA alone has published over 25% of all the pages of regulations issued by all the agencies of the Federal Government, and almost twice as many as the much-derided IRS. Of the 28 most costly regulations issued in eight years by the Obama administration, EPA issued 13 of them.

This situation places those seeking a long-term, rational regulatory process at EPA in a quandary. Determining what can be done to tame this monster is a complex undertaking, because stopping new regulations in one administration does not prevent many more regulations from being issued in another.

However, considering EPA administrators of the past, the first change must be to ensure that no single person in the United States government can exercise the massive powers wielded by those past bosses. Such powers determine who gets a permit to operate, and who does not; what technologies a business must use; what lightbulbs are available for your homes; what gas we can buy; what chemicals can be used; where companies can mine; what local land use decisions will survive; and even where a pond can be built on private property.

While the President of the United States has massive powers over war and peace, and sets the operating philosophy of federal agencies, the EPA Administrator has direct power over the business operations … and thus the economy … of the entire nation.

EPA makes the environmental rules we live under. It is the fact finder who determines if we are breaking the rules, the prosecutor of all alleged violations – and the administrative judge who makes the findings of fact, interprets the law, and permits or punishes our actions.

It’s frightening when you think about it how much power one person can have over our lives. Yet, we don’t think about it until the agency wants to “get us.”

How should we restructure EPA to ensure the agency can still protect our environment – while controlling the massive amount of power exercised by one individual?

Several mechanisms would tame this hydra. Perhaps the most important and most effective would be converting EPA from an Executive Branch agency to an independent agency directed by five commissioners: three appointed by the party holding the presidency and two from the other party.

This commission-style agency would limit the power to act by requiring that any final regulation be approved by a majority of the commissioners. While an anti-business president would still appoint a majority of anti-business commissioners, the minority commissioners would have access to all evidence and decision-making documents, and could file dissenting opinions on all final decisions.

These dissents would allow discussion of the flaws in the majority’s reasoning – including facts, science, economics, costs and benefits.

Under the current regulatory process, there is only EPA’s final rule and a record that can run hundreds of thousands of pages. While the public is allowed to comment, the courts usually uphold EPA’s decision if it is “rational,” meaning the agency can point to some part of the record that supports its reasoning, and can conceal or ignore any parts that do not support its reasoning.

Dissenting opinions would ensure that the reviewing court sees the flaws in the majority decision. This would be invaluable for good policy making, since the minority commissioners could also review and present all the science and economics used by the majority. That would enable the minority to keep an out-of-control agency in balance.

Historically, EPA has not provided all the scientific studies and models to the public for review, analysis and comment. Having access to these documents would allow minority commissioners to point out not just flaws, but also deceptions, concealed facts and data, and hidden agendas.

Other actions would enable EPA to bring focus and coordination to the 13 separate statutes it administers, largely in the absence of any mission statement or meaningful congressional direction.

Those steps will be discussed in Part 2 of this article.

William L. Kovacs was active in national policy issues for over 40 years, as a senior vice president for environment, technology and regulatory affairs for a major business trade association, a chief counsel on Capitol Hill, chairman of a state environmental board, and a partner in several Washington, DC law firms.

Thursday, August 16, 2018

Putting Science on the Stand

By Richard Zuber August 16, 2018

In a closely watched decision, a California jury ruled last week that Monsanto owed former Bay Area school groundskeeper Dewayne Johnson $289 million in damages. Though Monsanto maintains that its products are safe, pointing to clean bills of health from a wide array of national health agencies, Johnson's attorneys argued that the company covered up the risks of the weed-killers Roundup and Ranger Pro – which they say were responsible for their client's terminal cancer.

The lawsuit thus carefully avoided delving into the complex epidemiology of Roundup's active ingredient, glyphosate, arguing instead that the groundskeeper's illness arose from glyphosate's interactions with the weed-killer's other ingredients. Yet with even less available evidence about the safety of Roundup's formulation than about glyphosate, the verdict has revealed far more about the challenges of evaluating science in the courtroom than about the herbicide's alleged risks.............. Read more

Peter Zeihan on Geopolitics

The economic conflict between the United States and China continues to ramp up. Earlier this week the Trump administration announced plans for tariffs on another $200 billion in Chinese exports to the United States. Barring (substantial) Chinese concessions the new tariffs will likely come into effect around the end of August. This is now the third volley in what has become a tit-for-tat trade war. I’m starting to think up snazzy names. “Pacific Pong” doesn’t have quite the right je ne sais quoi, but I’m working on it. Suggestions welcome.

The Americans’ imports from China are triple China's imports from the United States (quadruple if you factor out services). The simple fact is the Chinese are already running out of American imports to penalize. Any effort to shift the dispute to something beyond goods trade will similarly end in colossal failure. The Americans control global trade routes, global energy, global security, and global finance -- everything that makes the Chinese system possible. The Chinese simply can't bring the fight to other fields without suffering immeasurably. (Which isn't the same thing as me saying I'd like to be an American company operating in China right now.) Chinese holdings of American government debt don’t even give Beijing leverage as such "investments" in reality are capital flight from the Chinese system.

While Chinese state media continues to put on a brave face, the days of tone-deaf chest-beating are gone. Government censorship guidelines now regularly bar terms like “Trump tantrum” and “trade war” and in general discourage the discussing of any angle of the issue whatsoever. One of the problems with stoking nationalism is that it can be hard to turn off. With the Politburo realizing they have little ammo for this sort of fight, political consolidation at home is far more important than scoring points in a media firestorm.

But that’s not what I want to talk about today. I want to talk about one of the funniest things I’ve seen in months. On July 11 the Chinese floated the possibility of a 25% tariff on U.S. oil exports. Several media commentators immediately pounced on the trial balloon as evidence of something that would get Trump’s attention because of his stated interest in “achieving American energy dominance.” Maybe it will. The criteria for what attracts or doesn’t attract the American president’s attention continues to elude me.

But that doesn’t mean a tariff on American oil isn’t a fabulously stupid idea. It has to do with the nature of the oil market, and in particular the role of American crude within it.

First, demand for oil is inelastic. What you need, you need.  If it takes ten gallons of gasoline to get your delivery truck from A to B and you only have nine gallons, you cannot make the run. You must have ten.

So regardless of what the price of the gasoline is, you’re going to buy it. Applied to this situation, were the Chinese to levy the tariff they will simply have to buy oil from somewhere else, and America’s oil will (easily) fill that gap in that third market. Net effect on U.S. energy exporters: zero.

Second, American oil is different from the rest. Conventional crude percolates through rock formations over time, picking up impurities as it goes (sulfur being the most common). A big part of refining crude oil into finished product is removing those impurities. But American oil exports are not conventional. They come from shale formations. Shale isn’t as porous as most rock, so the oil never percolates. It is trapped. Shale technologies are all about cracking out these pure bits of petroleum out. Shale oil’s lack of exposure to impurities makes it the lightest, purest oil produced in the world, as well as the most valuable and easiest to refine. China likes shale oil because they can blend it with thicker, dirtier crude to make a cocktail that their refineries can use. American exporters will have zero problems finding alternative buyers, but since the United States produces more of this ultralight/ultrasweet crude than the rest of the world combined. China will find alternate supplies difficult to scrounge up.

So either China isn’t going to put this tariff on, or if it does it won’t have any meaningful impact on the American side of the equation. What the tariff trial balloon might do – what discussion of the topic is probably already doing – is pump up oil prices a touch. Markets – especially oil markets – hate anything that might even momentarily restrict oil’s availability. And this little China discussion is only one of four oil-related bits of news that oil markets are stressing about right now.

The second and third issues involve general civilizational breakdown in two major oil exporters: Libya and Venezuela. Ever since Colonel/President/Wacko Muammar Gaddafi was deposed and killed in 2011, Libya has not existed as a state. It is now a shifting series of warlord-run fiefdoms. Unfortunately for the oil markets, not only is Libya’s crude production not in the same area as the oil export facilities, oftentimes the connecting pipeline infrastructure is under a third party’s control. Libya’s larger oil export ports have switched hands twice already this month, with the expected impact upon export volumes – and global prices.

If anything, Venezuela is even worse. Government ineptitude combined with a slow slide towards one-man dictatorship cum anarchy has transformed what was once South America’s richest state to one of its poorest and condemned much of the population of this once-food exporter to famine. The government’s ability to perform basic maintenance on its oil industry is now collapsing. Venezuela’s oil output is already down to a 30-year low and will likely dip below 1.0 million bpd by year’s end… assuming the country doesn’t completely implode.

Needless to say, such civilizational breakdowns can only exert upward pressure on oil prices.

The fourth hit to the oil markets hasn’t quite landed yet: Iran. The Trump administration is pressuring, well, everyone, to eliminate their imports of Iranian crude by November. The expectation is for a two-thirds reduction in total exports. Countries that resist American pressure will find themselves subject to secondary sanctions that would bar their access to anything that touches the U.S. banking system. Since that is in essence anything that involves nouns it is sort of a big deal. The Indians and Japanese have already signaled they’re going to play ball, and the Europeans are rapidly coming around. That just leaves China.

While the pot-stirrer in me would love to see what would happen to a trade-dependent internationally-wired oil-importing economy like China’s under full financial embargo, I’m fairly sure the Chinese will blink on this one. Financial sanctions of the type the White House is preparing would hit China at least an order of magnitude harder than the tariffs they are staring down, and the Chinese are not suicidal. And while I firmly stand by my claim that no one can really claim to know what Trump is thinking I have to admit things are starting to look more than coincidental: a last-minute cave by the Chinese on Iran just as the third round of tit-for-tat tariffs really start to bite? I see some serious negotiating leverage there, useful in many theaters.

This – all of this – is quite possibly the best-case environment for U.S. shale oil producers. Chronic export outages in multiple countries for multiple reasons, a trade war that is both widening and deepening. All this pushes oil prices up. That helps whichever oil producers can bring new output online fastest. And with today’s shale tech American shale operators can bring on new oil output in half the time the Saudis can bring on their pre-existing spare capacity.

In the first half of 2018, before all this noise erupted, U.S. shale operators were already on course for increasing total U.S. oil output by the largest volume ever – in excess of a fresh 1.5 million bpd. Courtesy of China and Trump and Venezuela and Libya and Iran, that is now the low case estimate.

The concentration of power in the global system continues to gather in the Americans' favor. Trump is demonstrating he doesn’t need to build an alliance to fight and win a trade war with multiple countries simultaneously. Trump is showing he can wield financial tools simultaneously with trade tools to crushing effect. Trump is showing an enthusiasm for standing up to the business community, something that resonates not just with his base, but also Bernie Sanders’. And in case you missed it, last week the United States became the world’s largest oil producer courtesy of shale, granting Trump even more leverage and autonomy in international relations.

As a guy who makes it his business to integrate context and data in to everything, I find Trump’s brash, details-be-damned approach to… everything a bit annoying. But that doesn’t mean he can’t get results.


Thought For the Day


The Church of Trump?

By John Ray, Dissecting Leftism Thursday, August 16, 2018 Australia time.

Editor's Note: This is John's reponse to this article by

I am not entirely sure whether it is a vice or a virtue but I often enjoy reading Leftist writing.  They are so blind that they regularly give me a laugh.  I suppose it is the psychologist in me.  I want to see how their strange minds work.

And the most amusing thing about their response to Donald Trump is their total inability even to consider that he might have got some things right. That's just not an available explanation for them.  So what do they do?  They find something psychologically wrong with either Trump or his supporters.  Leftists have been making such claims about conservatives at least since 1950 and have succeeded in convincing only themselves -- so they are like a dog returning to its vomit in trying the same strategy with Trump.

The first label they tried to stick on Trump and his supporters was the old 1950's claim that he is "authoritarian". But, since it is in fact they who constantly try to confine Americans within a straitjacket of endless regulations, that label had no adhesive power at all and seems now to have been abandoned. See here and here

So it is interesting that the latest explanation for Trump's success below has finally made some attempts to address reality.

She starts out with a litany of Trump's failures and scandals as she sees them and wonders why none of those failures seem to dent his popularity. That most of the failures are simply Trump's impatience with detail she does not consider.  She certainly does not consider that not being a policy wonk might actually be an element in his popularity.  Do policy wonks make attractive political candidates? Few of his voters are likely to be policy wonks so are probably happy with getting it broadly right in their own lives.

In fact, the little lady asserts that Trump supporters like Trump's simple slogans.

And then of course we see the typically Leftist malicious misattributions.  No matter what Trump does, it is a product of racism, not some practical reason. And anything Trump does is wrong anyhow, even if Obama also did it.

Then she gets on to her big discovery:  Trump makes his voters happy!  Could it be that they enjoy his puncturing of the great Obama/Clinton balloon of Leftist pomposity and self-righteousnesss?

Could it be relief at Trump's attacks on the Leftist straitjacket of regulations and are relieved to hear common sense coming from the White House instead of hectoring? 

No way! It's because of "tribalism" and because they don't go to church any more.  Pesky that Trump supporters come from all races and all walks of life!  Pesky that Trump has very broad church support and is himself openly Christian.  Herman Cain tells us that 29% of blacks now support Trump.  I wonder what tribe they belong to?

What the lady is doing is a familiar sleight of hand that any analytical philosopher can tell you about. "Tribalism" sounds like an explanation but is in fact a definition:  To like Trump MAKES you part of a tribe, the Trump tribe. It is at best an observation. It explains nothing.

And the idea that lots of people are alienated from moralistic churches is surely true.  But it is true mainly of the old mainstream churches.  More evangelical churches are forgiving and make a big effort at outreach.  Americans who are religious at all can usually find a church to suit them.  The claim that Trump supporters are worshiping at some sort of new Trumpian religion -- when the religion at his rallies is plainly evangelical Christian -- is just a desperate attempt to look at what his real appeal is -- relief from Leftist tyranny and joy at having a President who makes sense to ordinary people


Sarah Jeong and the Media's Alt-Left

Posted by Daniel Greenfield 0 Comments Wednesday, August 15, 2018 @ Sultan Knish Blog
Ever since the New York Times decided to hire racist blogger Sarah Jeong, despite her history of hateful tweets about white people, “the world could get by just fine with zero white ppl and the thing stopping POC (people of color) is...a disinclination toward genocide?”, white women, men, heterosexuals and Christians, and then refused to part ways with her (unlike its treatment of previous hire, Quinn Norton, whom the left had accused of homophobia based on a few tweets, despite her being gay), the debate has been about all the wrong things.

Jeong isn’t really the issue. Her racism is typical of an influential subset of the left.

Some of the pro and anti Jeong essays briefly circle around the actual problem before quickly zooming away. Andrew Sullivan writes in his anti-Jeong essay of the “extent to which loathing of and contempt for ‘white people’ is now background noise on the left”. Vox's Zack Beauchamp, wrote in his pro-Jeong essay that comments such as hers in the "the social justice left" about "white people" are typical.

But what part of the “social justice left” or “left” is really producing Sarah Jeongs?

To answer that question we have to talk about what no one really talks about, the alt-left. Unlike the alt-right, a subject of numerous essays, news reports and investigative pieces, the internet culture of racism, misandry and heterophobia that is the millennial alt-left is mostly undocumented.

The alt-left’s norms of discourse are defined by the same harsh contempt and winking racism that appear in Sarah Jeong’s tweets. It’s an internet culture where “white people” is an inherently derogatory term and new slurs, such as “caucasity”, are coined. Ironic racism is defined as “resistance” to whiteness. And what better way to resist whiteness than with racial slurs aimed at white people?

Sarah Jeong’s hateful tweets aren’t extraordinary examples of one woman’s bigotry. They’re variations on the typical memes and jokes on the alt-left. When we talk about Jeong’s racism, we’re really talking about the bigotry of an intersectional movement that is obsessed with punitively destroying the “privilege” of white people and other majority groups with racist memes, taunts and harassment.

The alt-left preceded the alt-right. The features of the alt-right that the media has attacked are mirror images of its origins counter-trolling the alt-left. When Sarah Jeong’s critics and defenders claim that she was “counter-trolling”, they hilariously get the origin of the internet culture species completely wrong.

Long before the alt-right (at least in internet years), the alt-left was weaponizing racist memes (“white tears” was a popular one) and harassing targets with online mobs (today’s social justice mobs are alt-left online harassment coordinated with alt-lefties in the media). The current trend of media stories that dox targets on the right almost all tend to come from media millennials aligned with the alt-left.

This isn’t the first time that the alt-left’s ironic racism has gotten its members in trouble. There was plenty of outrage when Drexel University's George Ciccariello-Maher had tweeted, "All I want for Christmas is white genocide". Just like Jeong, the defense was that Maher was just kidding.

The claims by Vox lefties that Sarah Jeong and the “social justice left” are being ironic in their racist remarks about white people, is not a defense, it’s an indictment. Ironic racism was prevalent on the alt-left before it was mirrored by the alt-right. It’s also a misuse of the term. Non-ironic irony is typical of millennial internet culture that uses humor as a distancing mechanism to normalize repellent views.

That’s not ironic. It’s cowardly and disingenuous.

The “ironic” alt-left humor of Sarah Jeong uses absurdity and winks to convey actual hatred for white people. But the same “ironic racism” that the media condemns when it appears on the Twitter accounts of the alt-right is somehow acceptable when it appears on alt-left accounts like Jeong’s. Even the argument that Jeong and the alt-left are just joking is the same “wrongfooting” defense that the media never accepted from the alt-right, even as it now tries to “wrongfoot” the right on Jeong’s racism.

Even the 1488ers, the Neo-Nazis who are the most noxious part of the alt-right, had their original counterparts in the tankies (Communists) in the internet culture of the alt-left. (You’re less likely to have read about them because the media loves writing about Neo-Nazis, but not its own Neo-Commies.)

When we talk about the alt-left, it’s often in terms of antifa, but Black Lives Matter owes as much to the alt-left as it does to the black nationalist thugs it adores and worships. And the violent activists are just a tiny portion of the larger internet culture that is the alt-left. But neither is the alt-left composed of minorities. Most of the alt-left, like the rest of the left, is white. Its racism isn’t the outcry of an oppressed minority, as the pro-Jeong pieces have contended, but of an ideological bigotry.

As John Perrazo notes in the Freedom Center’s pamphlet, “The War on Whiteness”, “The ultimate objective in stigmatizing whiteness is to intensify racial tension. But the anti-whiteness movement also intends to destroy whites’ comfortable assumption that their skin color is ‘normal’ or ‘neutral,’ without consequences, and to make them color-conscious and ultimately rub their noses in their whiteness.”

The left politicizes race. The alt-left’s war on whiteness is an overt rejection of post-racial neutrality and the grand bargain of civil rights. The stream of racist abuse aimed at white people is meant to politicize whiteness. And to force white people to align with racist movements on one side or the other.

What the alt-left fears above all else is post-racial coexistence. And so it fights tolerance with racism.

Why do we hear so little about the alt-left? For the same reason that the media throbs with defenses of Jeong’s ironic racism and the leftist internet culture that birthed it. The media’s millennial new guard is drawn heavily from the alt-left. It seeks out and destroys media millennials who are not alt-lefties.

The alt-left is the media. Gamergate, frequently referenced in the defenses of Sarah Jeong, was a clash between the alt-left entrenched in gaming journalism (tech journalism, and especially gaming journalism, were the parts of the media most likely to hire and quickly promote millennials) and gamer culture. But the alt-left now pervades the entire media from foreign affairs to sports journalism.

Jeong’s past tweets are just one of numerous examples of millennial media hires who had been caught spewing toxic alt-left rubbish. Jugal Patel and Fahim Abed kept their gigs with the New York Times after their old and ugly tweets came to life. There was no reason to think that Jeong would lose hers.

Sarah Jeong’s alt-left racism wouldn’t have dissuaded the New York Times. It was the reason she was hired. Being a vocal alt-lefty on social media while blogging about social justice issues has been part of the Tumblr-to-Times pipeline for a while now. The media looks for a social media background in its millennial hires. Broadcasting alt-left memes in those circles makes you more likely to be retweeted, recognized, quoted and hired to fail upward with more racism at major media orgs.

Gamergate used to be a debate about the alt-left’s takeover of journalism. Now that the alt-left controls journalism, period, it’s become a national debate about fake news.

Sarah Jeong’s racism isn’t an isolated incident. It’s a culture that is taking over newsrooms. The complete disregard for facts, the pervasive contempt for the political opposition, the impassioned victimhood, and the ravening hatred poorly disguised as comedy now defines the media.

And so we don’t talk about the alt-left, because when we talk about the alt-left, we’re talking about the media.

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.

The last remaining weapon of the left

By Rick Hayes August 15, 2018

With no platform to stand on and President Trump hitting the ball out of the economic ballpark, the left continually finds itself having to rely solely on its core strength: blatant lying and fabricating false narratives.

The ability to lie to promote a cause is one of the more powerful capabilities continuously utilized by the left. It's powerful in the sense that it so often works to muddy the waters. However, this does not mean that the freehanded application of lies told on the part of the left contains the energy to produce a good or positive result. More often than not, the result is devastation and misery..................... Read more

Colorado 'On a Crusade to Crush' Masterpiece Cakeshop, New Lawsuit Says

By Susan Jones | August 15, 2018

Liberal activists continue their campaign against Colorado's Masterpiece Cakeshop, despite a 7-2 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June that sided with Christian baker Jack Phillips.

On Wednesday, The Alliance Defending Freedom said it has sued the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for ignoring the Supeme Court ruling:..............“The arbitrary basis on which the state is applying its law makes clear that its officials are targeting Jack because they despise his religious beliefs and practices,” said ADF Senior Counsel Jim Campbell. “Jack shouldn’t have to fear government hostility when he opens his shop for business each day. We’re asking the court to put a stop to that.”...........To Read More....

Social Security: Dunn's First Law - With Enough Idiots, You Don't Need a Conspiracy.

Social Security Fails

By John Stossel Aug 15, 2018

Social Security is running out of money.  You may not believe that, but it's a fact.  That FICA money taken from your paycheck was not saved for you in a "trust fund." Politicians misled us. They spent every penny the moment it came in.
This started as soon as they created Social Security. They assumed that FICA payments from young workers would cover the cost of sending checks to older people. After all, at the time, most Americans died before they reached 65.  Now, however, people keep living longer. There just aren't enough young people to cover my Social Security checks.  So Social Security is going broke. This year, the program went into the red for the first time....... To Read More....

Social Security and Fiscal Doomsday

by William Sullivan August 15, 2018
2035.  That’s the optimistic date for Social Security’s impending doom, after which Social Security is expected to provide only 75-80% of expected benefits to retirees.  For the record, I turn 67 (full retirement age, for me) in 2047, so I, like many Americans, have been skeptical about the program for some time.

But perhaps it’s pertinent to note that when I began following this looming doomsday in earnest, it was projected at 2038.  It’s been creeping forward, with some estimates placing it as early as 2034.

But there’s an interesting thing that happens when people think about Social Security, just as that same interesting thing happens when people imagine the impending doom of municipal and state pension liabilities that are now crippling governments across the country with a roughly $5 trillion hole nationally.  Somehow, Americans think, the money is there if governments are capable of properly managing the inflows from workers, capitalizing upon the underlying investments, and just delivering the outflows to beneficiaries.

Each and every of those assumptions are wrong............To Read More

Liquidating Federal Assets: A Promising Tool for Ending the U.S. Debt Crisis

by William F. Shughart II and Carl P. Close (Revised 4/12/17) @ Independent Institute

The national debt may be the biggest problem in decades that federal policymakers have failed to confront. Its importance is measurable not only in dollars—almost $20 trillion[1] ($61,552 per capita[2])—but also in the grave threat it poses to the American financial system and therefore to the health and well-being of private businesses and households. A default on a scheduled federal debt payment, caused by the government’s lack of funds necessary to service its debt obligations, could spark a fire sale on U.S. Treasury securities, prompt a sharp fall in the value of the dollar, and launch a rapid “flight to quality” as investors and dollar holders flee to the perceived safety of other nations’ bonds and currencies—all culminating in a U.S. financial meltdown.

This worst-case scenario is not the only concern. Even if the Treasury has overdraft protection in the form of the Federal Reserve,
[3] the large debt servicing requirements exact a heavy toll on public services and economic growth.

This Executive Summary examines the potential for vastly improving the U.S. government’s fiscal position by using a method seldom utilized for the purposes of federal debt-reduction: the sale of federal assets.........
To Read More....

My Solution?
By Rich Kozlovich

What is the news worth knowing and why don’t we know it?  Let’s just deal with domestic issues, primarily the budget and the nation’s debt.  There is more hot air circulating about this than there is even about Lance and Oprah.  Most of it meaningless because the economy really is far worse than the main stream media reports and important facts are being ignored by those in leadership positions!  Why?

Let’s start with the cost of regulations, because they will amount to the same thing to business and the consumers, higher costs.  It was estimated that it would cost the American consumer 1.75 trillion dollars to pay for the regulations imposed by the federal government.  Although that number is disputed because of the way in which that figure was computed, it has to be recognized that it is high and we know it is growing.  And it is the consumer that pays those costs, because as businesses costs go up prices go up.  At least until the costs get so high that they go out of business because the consumer can no longer afford it.   

According to Warner Todd Huston  on January 16th there has been an increase of  $518 Billion in Regulations Since Obama Took OfficeHe goes on to say that.......To Read More...