Monday, October 15, 2018

When the Google Dream Died

Posted by Daniel Greenfield 0 Comments Saturday, October 13, 2018 @ Sultan Knish Blog

Google is throwing itself a hell of a 20th birthday party. And everyone is bringing the gifts.

While the dot com giant puts up celebratory doodles and shows off its original garage headquarters, Attorney General Sessions had already convened 14 state attorney generals to discuss censorship, privacy issues and antitrust issues involving, among other tech monopolies, the cutesy corporation.

Few meetings between Sessions and AGs well to the left, like California’s Xavier Becerra, would have gone as well as this, but big tech monopolies were already controversial on the left, now they’re also being unfriended by Republicans. There’s a growing consensus that they’re just too big and powerful.

Google’s August search market share in America stood at 84%. That means it defines the internet.

Its secretive algorithms determine what people see when they search. It can unilaterally redefine an issue, such as when it shifted the search results for “Jihad” away from counterterrorist sites to favor Islamist and pro-Islamist media sites. It shapes how political leaders, including President Trump, are seen, and manufactures an ongoing consensus by simply choosing one set of results over another.

(During the election, its search engine provided more positive results for Democrats than Republicans.)

And then there are the constant privacy scandals.

Even as Google is trying to celebrate its anniversary, it’s under fire for automatically signing Gmail users into its Chrome browser (which is a key link in its chain of monopolies meant to lock users into its search engine). After the outcry, Google, as usual, offered a partial retreat.

The scandal is fairly typical of Google which runs on privacy violations and monopolistic abuses. Before Google was rigging search results for political reasons, it was rigging them to favor its products. Search for “mail” and the first result won’t be the post office, it won’t even be which actually predated Google by a few years, it will be Google’s own Gmail. And that’s how it always works.

Google searches drive users to Google products. And Google products drive users to Google Search.

Its monopolistic vision of the future is of an Internet of Things, a smart home run on Google with eternally watchful smart speakers in every room of your house, processing your questions through Google, and sending every conversation in your house back along its servers to be analyzed by machine learning to better target you with ads on your smart fridge. And then it really will be Google’s world.

Or Amazon’s world.

America’s political and cultural elites already live in one world or the other. But despite the wide range of both companies, many Americans are unhappy with the power and control they wield over their lives.

And so the utopia in which Google is your home, your car, your clothes, your entertainment and your life, may never arrive. The company has more power, but also more enemies, than ever before.

Even as Google aspires to run the world, investing in a variety of moonshot businesses, from self-driving cars (Waymo) to delivering internet by balloon (Loon) through Alphabet, its mothership company, its core business, search, that delivers most of its revenue through ads, is stagnating. While Google dreams of answering your questions before you ask them using machine learning and voice search, it’s doing a terrible job of answering them when you do ask of them. Like all monopolies, its product is mediocre.

Google Search was retuned for mobile search by making every search trending. Search for “Supreme Court”, and Google will deluge you with Kavanaugh hysteria and assorted lefty media background pieces delegitimizing a “Republican” Supreme Court from FDR’s day to modern times.

This isn’t just a monopolistic abuse of power for purely partisan purposes; it’s also a poor product.

Trending stories are friendlier to mobile users who have less time and patience for extended queries. It’s also simpler to deliver inaccurate results that fit the needs of the lowest common denominator user, who types in Supreme Court to see stories about Kavanaugh, than to deliver actual accurate results.

And Google is rigging search results to browbeat sites into orienting entirely toward mobile. Just as it will, before too long, dumb down search even further, to aid its voice search ambitions.

Turning search into a lowest common denominator exercise isn’t about serving users, but about securing Google’s hold on the future. And, in ways both great and petty (like forcibly logging users into its browser), it isn’t shy about herding its user products like sheep into its digital products.

Naked political bias was meant to cover Google’s silicon fundament from its greatest political threat. Republican administrations have offered little threat to the big tech companies. It was largely the left that was actively agitating for breaking them up or limiting their power. And Google focused on the left.

(In last year’s major Google scandal, former Google exec chairman Eric Schmidt allegedly convinced the New America Foundation, a lefty think tank, to purge Open Markets for its criticism of Google.)

And then President Trump showed up.

The famous video of Google’s elites mourning Trump’s victory isn’t just political bias. As the firing of James Damore showed us, lefty political intolerance is baked into Google’s political culture. And anyone at Google who wanted Trump to win has to keep quiet and leak videos. But President Hillary Clinton would have also been really good for Google’s business interests.

Eric Schmidt, who once responded to Google privacy concerns by sneering, "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place”, was a close Hillary ally. His “Notes for a 2016 Democratic Campaign” sent to Hillary’s people proposed a $1.5 billion operation that would create “a single record for a voter that aggregates all that is known about them.”

Schmidt was applying the Google ethos to the Hillary Clinton campaign.

The unspoken back end of the pitch is that privacy violations can be harnessed for the good of powerful political interests. (The manufactured scandal over Cambridge Analytica’s Facebook scraping never touched the truly epic dot com privacy violators on the left.) Google’s vision of the end of privacy could be very good for President Hillary Clinton and the Democrats. So why regulate it?

That’s what Google elites were really mourning after Election Day.

They weren’t just crying because their lefty political movement lost, but because the vision of a Clinton-Google alliance running the country was lost.

President Trump has warned Google that it can’t expect to abuse its powers and avoid scrutiny. And the leading figures on the Democrat side are less promising for Google than Eric Schmidt’s pal.

Google was ranked as the single biggest employer of Bernie Sanders donors, and its search results were accused of favoring Sanders. As the Washington Post noted, “nine of his top 10 results were rated "very pro" in the analysis”. Google’s current top 10 for Trump, by contrast, includes a bonkers New York Mag conspiracy screed, “What If Trump Has Been a Russian Asset Since 1987?” (In 1988, Bernie Sanders was honeymooning in the USSR, but Google doesn’t think that’s worth including in Bernie’s top 10.)

And while Bernie Sanders has been relentlessly attacking Amazon, a major Google rival, he has been fairly silent about Google. Meanwhile the Washington Post, owned by Amazon’s boss, has been critical of Bernie. But that doesn’t make him a reliable or ideal ally in Google’s war for the future.

Meanwhile Google faces the threat of Trump. A conventional non-populist Republican would have posed little threat to Google’s business interests. Elites love Google because of its shiny technocracy. Schmidt’s pitch to Hillary’s people is seductive to many in the GOP, but alienating to Trump and alien to his insurgent campaign which relied on populist enthusiasm rather than Big Brother level manipulation.

And Trump’s impact on the GOP has shifted it away from the unthinking worship of multinationals.

Google’s vision of the future is multinational, multilateral, multicultural and multi-everything. It’s a borderless world in which we’re no longer defined by nations, but by platforms. Every individual is a terabyte profile swimming among the vast server farm zettabytes in Finland, Singapore, the Dalles in Oregon and Quilicura, Chile, to be run on Google products designed by hipsters the Bay Area and manufacturerd by slave labor in China.

That was Hillary’s vision. That’s not Trump’s vision.

Trump’s economic nationalism is antithetical to everything that Google and the big dot coms stand for. Their borderless world requires the dismantling of nations into united markets governed by global treaties. There’s no room for national interest if Google or Amazon are to run the world.

America isn’t just at war with a nebulous left, but with a leftist vision embraced by the big tech companies that have defined how we talk to each other, what we read and what we know.

Google isn’t just leftist by accident. It’s leftist by design. Its vision is globalist, its scope is endless and the only thing standing in its way, besides its rivals, is the nation-state. America.

The confrontation between Google and Trump encapsulates the clash between the national and the multi-national, workers in red states and elites in blue cities, tradition and technocracy, the individual and the machine. The struggle will decide whether the future belongs to the individual or to Google.

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.

Real-World Examples of How the Minimum Wage Destroys Jobs and Hurts Workers

October 14, 2018 by Dan Mitchell @ International Liberty
Politicians can interfere with the laws of supply and demand (and they do, with distressing regularity), but they can’t repeal them.

The minimum wage issue is a tragic example. If lawmakers pass a law mandating wages of $10 per hour, that is going to have a very bad effect on low-skilled workers who can only generate, say, $8 of revenue per hour.

You don’t need to be a libertarian to realize this is a problem.
Catherine Rampell leans to the left, but she warned last year in the Washington Post about the danger of “helping” workers to the unemployment line.
…the left needs to think harder about the unintended consequences of…benevolent-seeming proposals. In isolation, each of these policies has the potential to make workers more costly to hire. Cumulatively, they almost certainly do. Which means that, unless carefully designed, a lefty “pro-labor” platform might actually encourage firms to hire less labor… It’s easier, or perhaps more politically convenient, to assume that “pro-worker” policies never hurt the workers they’re intended to help. Take the proposal to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour… raising wages in Seattle to $13 has produced sharp cuts in hours, leaving low-wage workers with smaller paychecks. And that’s in a high-cost city. Imagine what would happen if Congress raised the minimum wage to $15 nationwide. …Why wouldn’t you want to improve the living standards of as many people as possible? The answer: You won’t actually be helping them if making their labor much more expensive, much too quickly, results in their getting fired.
By the way, while I’m glad Ms. Rampell recognizes how big increases in the minimum wage will have an adverse impact, I think she is rather naive to believe that there are “carefully designed” options that wouldn’t be harmful.

Or does she have a cutoff point for acceptable casualties? Maybe the thinks that an increase in the minimum wage is bad if it throws 500,000 people into unemployment, but a small increase that leads to 200,000 fewer jobs is acceptable?

In any event, the voters of DC apparently didn’t read her column and they voted earlier this year to restrict the freedom of employers and employees in the restaurant sector to engage in voluntary exchange.

But then something interesting happened. Workers and owners united together and urged DC’s government to reverse the referendum.

The Wall Street Journal opined on this development.
…last week Washington, D.C.’s Democratic city councillors moved to overturn a mandatory minimum wage for tipped workers after bartenders, waiters and restaurant managers served up a lesson in economics. …The wage hike was billed as a way to give workers financial stability… But tipped workers realized the policy came with serious unintended consequences. …workers pushed for repeal. Though restaurants pay a $3.89 hourly wage to tipped workers, “we choose these jobs because we make far more than the standard minimum wage” from tips, bartender Valerie Graham told the City Council. …“Increasing the base wage for tipped workers who already make well above minimum wage threatens those who do not make tips,” such as cooks, dishwashers and table bussers, Rose’s Luxury bartender Chelsea Silber told the City Council. …Repeal requires a second council vote, but Democratic Mayor Muriel Bowser says she agrees. Congratulations on the revolt of the restaurant masses.
Let’s review another example.

There’s now a mandate for a higher minimum wage in New York. Ellie Bufkin explains some of the consequences in a column for the Federalist.
This minimum wage spike has forced several New York City businesses to shutter their doors and will claim many more victims soon. Businesses must meet the $15 wage by the end of 2018, the culmination of mandatory increment increases that began in 2016. …For many businesses, this egregious law is not just an inconvenience, it is simply unaffordable. The most recent victim is long-time staple, The Coffee Shop… In explaining his decision to close following 28 years of high-volume business, owner Charles Milite told the New York Post, “The times have changed in our industry. The rents are very high and now the minimum wage is going up and we have a huge number of employees.” …Of all affected businesses, restaurants are at the greatest risk of losing their ability to operate under the strain of crushing financial demands. They run at the highest day-to-day operational costs of any business, partly because they must employ more people to run efficiently. …Eventually, minimum wage laws and other prohibitive regulations will cause the world-renowned restaurant life in cities like New York, DC, and San Francisco to cease to exist.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think restaurants will “cease to exist” because of mandates for higher minimum wages.

But there will definitely be fewer establishments with fewer workers.

Why? Because business aren’t charities. They hire workers to increase profits, so it’s unavoidable that we get bad results when government mandates result in some workers costing more than the revenue they generate.

Which is what we’re now seeing in Seattle.

I’ll close by recycling this debate clip from a few years ago. I made the point that faster growth is the right way to boost wages.

And I also gave a plug for federalism. If some states want to throw low-skilled workers out of jobs, I think that will be an awful outcome. But it won’t be as bad as a nationwide scheme to increase unemployment (especially for minorities).

P.S. As is so often the case, the “sensible Swiss” have the right perspective.

P.P.S. Here’s a video making the case against government wage mandates. And here’s another interview I did on the topic.

Cultural Marxism: One of Those Legitimising Ideologies that Come and Go

Sean Gabb, 10th December 2017 @ Sean Gabb

(Editor's note:  As I've stated before, Sean has given me permission to publish his work so I expect you will be reading more of his commentaries.   Although I find this commentary thought provoking, I also find myself in disagreement with some of his positions.  I leave it to you to decide for yourself.  RK)

Last month, I wrote a defence of Charlie Elphicke, my Member of Parliament. He had been suspended from the Conservative Party while the Police investigated him for an alleged sexual assault. He has still not been arrested or charged. He has still not been told the nature of the complaint against him.

It may be that he is about to be unmasked as a serial sex-murderer. More likely, the sinister clowns who direct law enforcement in this country have found nothing that even they regard as an assault worth prosecuting. But, if the former of these possibilities might embarrass me, the general reflections I made on his case stand by themselves. What I wish now to do is to elaborate on these reflections.

I begin by granting that ideologies are in themselves important. They are sets of propositions about the world that are true or false in much the same way as a scientific hypothesis is true or false. They are true or false regardless of what motives people may have for adopting them. This being granted, every person is born with a set of dispositions that draws him to accepting a particular ideology. Some of us are born with a dislike of pushing others around.

This will not invariably make us into free market libertarians. But it will incline us to less intrusive formulations of whatever ideology is accepted. There are liberal Catholics and liberal Moslems. There have even been liberal Marxists. Others are born with a will to dominate. These will gather round the most fashionable intolerant ideology on offer.

Last month, I used the examples of Calvinism and Cultural Marxism. These were and are legitimising ideologies. Each has different formal propositions. Each has different enemies. Each has different effects on the character. But their essential function, so far as they can be made hegemonic, is to justify the gaining and use of power by an authoritarian élite or by "The Puritans."

If you want to see this case made at greater length, I refer you to my earlier essay. The case briefly stated, I turn to what may follow from it.
This is to suggest that direct argument with the Puritans is of limited value. Our own Puritans are Cultural Marxists for reasons other than the truth or falsehood of Cultural Marxism. Because its surface claims about treating people as individuals, and not being rude to them, are broadly in line with public opinion, it is an ideal legitimising ideology.
If our Puritans had, after about 1970, taken up traditional Calvinism, or Orthodox Marxism-Leninism, or National Socialism, they would have got nowhere. The social liberalism of the previous two decades would have rolled straight over them. Instead, there was the combination, in Britain and America, of a large cohort of those inclined to Puritanism and an ideology, or set of ideologies, that could be shaped into a powerful legitimising ideology.
It may be that the universe as a whole is locked into a rigid scheme of cause and effect. In this case, what happened was inevitable. But looking only at those parts of the universe we can understand and control, I think there was an element of contingency here. We are where we are because of a largely accidental discovery by the Puritans of a legitimising ideology that worked for them.
I suggest that direct argument is of limited value. This is not to deny that argument has some value. No point of view should be rejected without examination. It may be correct, and there is an obvious benefit in knowing the truth. Before we reject anything, we should assure ourselves of its falsehood. We discover its falsehood by arguing about it.
Direct argument is also useful, so far as it brings over the uncommitted, or simply immunises them intellectually against otherwise hegemonic propaganda. It can be useful for giving comfort to the victims of an ideology, and for giving them their own ideology of reaction against what is established.
But anyone who thinks that bombarding people like Theresa May and Hillary Clinton with memoranda on the error of their ways will be disappointed. Lecture even a junior Puritan, and the most effect you will produce is a momentary annoyance. They will ignore you. If that fails, they will smear you. If that fails, they come after you.

When argument does appear to work, it is generally because a legitimising ideology is wearing thin. When this happens, there are defections. In the short term, the loss of unanimity can make an established order more liberal. But these defections will be to a different ideology of control. What may be called a “liberal interglacial” can be prolonged by secondary causes for several centuries – as happened in England after 1660. Or, as with the social liberalism that followed the Second World War, it can last just a few decades.
Whatever the case, Puritanism is not defeated by direct argument.
I say, then, that setting up institutes to fight a direct war of ideas with Cultural Marxism – or whatever you want to call it – is not in itself a sufficient response. Indeed, so far as it absorbs clever liberals into the details of ideology, it may be a dangerous waste of effort. We already know enough about the present legitimising ideology of the Puritans to know it is false. We can also see that it is not fit for purpose.
Let us compare it with Christianity – and I ask my Christian readers to look beyond questions of theological truth. Once its more liberal formulations – Marcionism, Pelagianism, and so forth – had been marginalised as heresy, the Christianity of the Church Fathers became a fine legitimising ideology for the Puritans of their age. There was a nexus without seam between the bishops about the Emperor and the Desert Saints.
There was eventually no intellectual production outside the Church. Christianity may have disrupted the civilisation of Late Antiquity. It gave a voice to Semitic nationalists in Egypt and Syria who had previously been silent or ignored. Overall, though, it saved what could be saved of that civilisation. It allowed the Western Barbarians to be integrated into territories they would have invaded in any event. It allowed those Eastern Provinces that were Greek in language and Orthodox in religion to hold together for centuries after the disintegration of the Western Empire.
Or we can look at Calvinism. Again leaving aside questions of truth, this poisoned lives with visions of unavoidable hellfire. It encouraged waves of hysterical persecution. But the Calvinist rulers of England and Holland presided over a rise to wealth and greatness, and may have been part of the cause.
Or we can look at the Jacobins. Once the lunatics had been guillotined or sent off to die of yellow fever, the moderates gave France a rational system of laws and a system of government more suited to its people than the Old Order had been.
One of my Books
Learn More
What use is Cultural Marxism? It is the intellectual equivalent of a parasite that kills its host. Its alliance with big business has imported enough unskilled immigrants to bring on a visible collapse of working class incomes. Immigration has led to a rise of crime and disorder. It is also allowing parts of the country to become alien and hostile enclaves. The taxes and regulations that enable a Puritan bureaucracy are harming economic performance – this at a time when other peoples are waking from their inertia of the past five hundred years.
The ideology is even eating itself. The immediate effect of the sexual assault mania is a random destruction of men. Its longer term effect will be a regulation of contact between the sexes to make it impossible for women to have dealings with men outside the household. Homosexuals are now part of the ruling coalition. Their status as historic victims will not save them when, in the next ten years, homosexuality is reconflated with pederasty. Leftist Jews are being quietly eased out of the ruling coalition. Israel is approaching the same pariah status as South Africa once enjoyed. Again in the next ten years, only those Jews will be left in leading positions who make public and continuing declarations of anti-Zionism.
No doubt, there are Cultural Marxists for whom none of these is an unintended consequence – or who will shut their eyes and carry on. But most of them, I think, like to believe they are doing those they rule a favour. When it is plain they are not – and when it is plain they are held personally responsible, and hated, for what is happening to us – prepare to see them stop being Cultural Marxists. Like a hermit crab dissatisfied with its existing shell, the Puritans will go looking for a new ideology of legitimisation.
What will be their replacement ideology? I used to think it would be radical environmentalism. With its call to guilt and self-denial, and its need for despotic intrusions, this has obvious appeal to any Puritan. Its disadvantage is that it rests on a set of scientific claims that are manifestly false. Even real scientists are not always disinterested seekers of the truth. But there is a limit to how far they can be paid to lie; and you do not need a degree in Statistics to see the fudged temperature readings and the failed predictions. The Puritans could convert to Islam. Some of them appear to be edging in that direction. But Islam has about as much appeal to the rest of us as pristine Calvinism.
My suspicion is that the Puritans will find their new home on the nationalist right. At the moment, I have friends within that set of movements. These generally embrace the more liberal formulations of their ideology. This is because some of them passed through libertarianism on their journey, and they have not wholly shaken off what they used to believe – or because they are born liberals who are scared by what is being done to us. It is also because the logic of their position makes them contingent libertarians.
Because they are victims of censorship, they believe in freedom of speech. Because they are not left in peace, they believe in freedom of association. Let the spiritual children of Polly Toynbee and George Monbiot decide that the White Race is in peril, and you will see the implicit authoritarianism of the ideologies in question become very explicit.
One of my Books.
Learn More
This is why I doubt the value of making any big fuss about Cultural Marxism. It will collapse by itself. Harness oceans of money and terabytes of brain power into a refutation of the Frankfurt School, or whatever, and it will be as useful as if a formal anti-Jacobite movement had been created in, say, the 1720s that then continued publishing and holding conferences into the 1790s.
Beyond the level I have accepted, there is no point in giving attention to Cultural Marxism in itself. The real strategy should be to work towards a set of institutional arrangements that marginalises the Puritans. This brings me to my usual remedy, which is a radical shrinking of the State and an embrace of subsidiarity.
We stop the Police from warning us that kissing under the mistletoe is rape not by telling them to go looking for burglars, but by abolishing them – or at least by breaking them up into small units under the close direction of local juries chosen by lot. We stop the war on smoking, drinking and eating and looking at naughty images by a ban on state-funding of charities, by deregulating the medical professions, by scaling back on patents and the regulation of medical research, and by a gradual switch from state welfare to the voluntary mutualism that was destroyed in this country after 1911.
The Cultural Marxists were able to become so hegemonic so quickly because they were able to colonise a state apparatus that had already been constructed, if for less malevolent purposes. Clear out the Cultural Marxists, and do no more than that, and we simply leave ourselves open to colonisation by some other variety of Puritanism.
Every essay should have a conclusion. Here is mine. Our enemy is not a shelf-load of more or less unreadable books. It is the people who have decided to read those books. Let them find other books – they will be the enemy still.
© 2017 – 2018, seangabb.
Thanks for reading this. If you liked it, please consider doing one or some or all of the following:
1. Share it on social media – see buttons below;
2. Like my Facebook page;
3. Subscribe to my YouTube channel;
4. Sign up for my newsletter;
5. Click on a few of the discreet and tastefully-chosen advertisements that adorn this article;
6. Check out my books – they are hard to avoid.
Best regards,

The Unmasking of The Weekly Standard

By  July 31st, 2018

First, had Kristol and his fellow neoconservatives not pushed for a deadly, prolonged war in Iraq after September 11, there would be no President Obama. The first-term senator’s premature candidacy for president was based largely on his vocal opposition to the Iraq War, which had been supported by his primary opponent, Senator Hillary Clinton.

“Most of you know I opposed this war from the start,” Obama said in his announcement speech in February 2007. “America, it’s time to start bringing our troops home. It’s time to admit that no amount of American lives can resolve the political disagreement that lies at the heart of someone else’s civil war.”

Second, Kristol’s magazine, The Weekly Standard, just gave political cover to Obama’s most unforgivable scandal: The weaponization of our law enforcement and intelligence apparatus to target Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and violate the constitutional rights of private U.S. citizens.............

Unreasonable and Belligerent.............Kristol objected to the memo’s release, then ridiculously warned that “when the history of the degradation of the Republican Party is written, the Nunes memo will be a significant moment.” ..................

Well-Documented for “Bunk”............Doss needs to twist the facts, omit key details and smear the messenger. She uses the same evidence twice, much like the FISA application itself, but disguises it as separate material: “..............

Spinning, Spinning, Spinning..........Incredibly, Doss then argued that a small footnote in the application about the dossier’s “bias” refutes Nunes’s most explosive claim that the FBI concealed from the FISC the dossier’s political funding............

The Doss article is the latest proof of how far this once-serious publication has fallen; how much it has abandoned any legitimate ties to the Right; and how its founder and reporters are now protecting left-wing loyalists of a corrupt administration that spent eight years doing everything in its power to undermine the conservative movement and vilify conservatives.........To Read More.......

Civility Is Heresy When Leftism is a Religion

By  October 13th, 2018

After a week of victories by Trump and his Republican supporters, the Left has escalated sharply the rhetoric and practice of “resistance.” What once could be dismissed as a mere fringe phenomenon of a “few extremists” now appears to have the blessing and encouragement of the Democratic Party’s top leadership. Whether it manifests as confirmation hearing disruptions, impromptu checkpoints by Antifa in Portland, or an election day bombing plot, it’s clear that violence and incivility are supported by the highest ranks of the political Left.

Despite pleas from weary moderates for more civility, Hillary Clinton—not exactly a fringe figure—had this to say on CNN: “I would love to see us return to civility . . . [But] you cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about. That’s why I believe, if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and/or the Senate, that’s when civility can start again.” ............... The root of the Left’s dalliance with political violence stems from the fact that politics occupies a different place in their mental and spiritual landscape. For the Left, it holds the same place that religion does for most people............. The Left’s religiosity is apparent all the time in ways great and small..........we see the Left’s religiosity in its approach to nonbelievers and critics: They are castigated, cast out, and condemned as heretics.............To Read More....

Civility, Civil War, and the Future of Our Civilization

By  October 13th, 2018

Hillary Clinton, the most vengeful, spiteful loser in the history of American electoral politics, has abandoned the Left’s always deceptive, now evanescent call for “civility.” She insists there can be no civility between the parties until the Democrats are restored to power—and, by extension, the Republicans are vanquished.

“You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about,” she told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour last week.  “That’s why I believe, if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and/or the Senate, that’s when civility can start again. But until then, the only thing that the Republicans seem to recognize and respect is strength.”

These are fighting words, and in more ways than one. But first, let’s stop to examine the extraordinary ignorance she evinces here................. What Hillary Clinton and her allies are really calling for is not civility, but submission. Like True Believers everywhere, theirs is a Manichean view of the world in which one side is wholly and manifestly good, the other deplorably and irredeemably evil. There can be no victory but total victory, no matter how long the struggle takes. After all, “there is only the fight.”...............To Read More......

Jordan and Meadows call on Republicans to stop acting like Democrats

Chris Pandolfo · October 12, 2018

Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., are calling on their fellow Republicans to “act like Republicans,” to offer a clear alternative to the Democratic Party in the final weeks before the midterm elections.  In an op-ed written for Fox News, the lawmakers note that political experts and electoral history both suggest that Republicans are set to lose the House of Representatives in November.

“The truth is, over the next 25 days if our party doesn’t show the sharp contrast in each party’s vision for America, then the ‘experts’ will be right,” they write.  Showing that “clear difference” means exposing how “the Democratic Party of 2018 has adopted the most extreme positions in American history.”

The character assassination of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the harassment of conservatives encouraged by Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., and others, impeaching President Trump, raising taxes, abolishing ICE, and passing single-payer “Medicare for All” make their list of extreme leftist positions. “These radical positions aren’t shared by the country,” they emphasize........To Read More....

Sarah Palin for Senate, 2022

I am glad that Sarah Palin decided to stay active in politics. Her message - “I can see 2022 from my house” - has given me a lot of reasons of joy and hopes that she would re-enter the political arena as energetic and assertive as she was in 2008.

I voted for Palin in 2008 and I am grateful to the late Senator John McCain that he selected her as a Vice President nominee. Although I finally voted for the senator, he was originally only my fifth choice among the Republican contenders (after Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson) and only before Ron Paul. But Sarah was my first choice as a Vice President.

Actually, I consider that I voted for her and, indirectly, for Senator McCain...........Read more

Maxine Waters snubs Chicago’s Democrat royalty as no-show at a fundraising event that was supposed to feature her

The entire Democrat establishment of Chicago was publicly humiliated last week after selling expensive ($200) tickets to a fundraiser in the grand ballroom of the Hilton Hotel downtown, only to have the “special guest,” Maxine Waters, missing in action, with no notice and no excuse.

Representative Waters has titillated angry Democrats with her incitements to harass their political opponents, and her demands for impeachment of President Trump that began even before he took office.

These outbursts won her the sobriquet “Auntie Maxine.” But based on her failure to show up with no notice, one has to wonder if she isn’t turning into Ross Perot’s legendary “crazy aunt in the basement.”............. Read more

My Take - Did he say she's "turning into the crazy aunt in the basement"?  She's been a loon as long as she's been in politics, and it would be my guess as long as she's been alive.  And let's face it.  Any group that would feature her as their main speaker, is as loony as she. 

Sunday, October 14, 2018

Soutered Again?

Gil Gutknecht Oct 14, 2018

Many conservative friends could not contain their excitement when the final vote for Judge Kavanaugh was announced. Many rushed to their Twitter account to predict that Roe v. Wade would soon be consigned to the ash heap of history. The histrionics of the looney left mirrored the excitement on the right. We smiled at the scenes of unhinged demonstrators pounding on the metal doors of the Supreme Court. Those scenes will be remembered for a long time. We will also remember the.......announcement of Maine’s Senator Susan Collins......

The Left predictably and immediately unleashed fire, furry and vitriol..........The Right just as predictably heaped high praise on her..... What both sides seemed to have missed is what she actually had said leading up to her historic announcement. ............She repeatedly called Judge Kavanaugh a centrist. She reinforced that point with several examples. On over 93% of the cases jointly decided, he and Judge Merrick Garland concurred. Was it a Garland fellow traveler that we had in mind?

Lisa Black, who clerked for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg and has argued more cases in front of the Supreme Court than any other woman, offered high praise for Kavanaugh. Black is a self-professed staunch defender of Roe and said that he “fits within the mainstream of legal thought.”........To Read More.....

Democrats use Hitler's propaganda technique

By Lloyd Marcus October 13, 2018

Folks, I guess I should let this go. But it still blows my mind that the American left is committed to branding Brett Kavanaugh, without a shred of evidence, a sexual predator for the rest of his life. That is incredibly, cold, calculating and evil. Adolf Hitler said, "If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed." This propaganda technique has been embraced by the Democratic Party. Here are three huge lies Democrats continue to invest billions' worth of media in to deceive the public.

Big lie number one: America's cops are racist and routinely murder blacks. Big lie number two: Trump colluded with Russia to steal the presidency from Hillary. Big lie number three: Brett Kavanaugh is a serial rapist..........To Read More.... 

Vox found shilling Chinese state propaganda

Keynesian Monetary Policy: A Recipe for False Booms and Real Busts

October 13, 2018 by Dan Mitchell @ International Liberty
I periodically explain that you generally don’t get a recession by hiking taxes, adding red tape, or increasing the burden of government spending. Those policies are misguided, to be sure, but they mostly erode the economy’s long-run potential growth.

If you want to assign blame for economic downturns, the first place to look is monetary policy.

When central banks use monetary policy to keep interest rates low (“Keynesian monetary policy,” but also known as “easy money” or “quantitative easing”), that can cause economy-wide distortions, particularly because capital gets misallocated.

And this often leads to a recession when this “malinvestment” gets liquidated.

I’ve made this point in several recent interviews, and I had a chance to make the same point yesterday.

By the way, doesn’t the other guest have amazing wisdom and insight?

But let’s not digress.

Back to the main topic, I’m not the only one who is worried about easy money.
Desmond Lachman of the American Enterprise Institute is similarly concerned.
Never before have the world’s major central banks kept interest rates so low for so long as they have done over the past decade. More importantly yet, never before have these banks increased their balance sheets on anything like the scale that they have done since 2008 by their aggressive bond-buying programmes. Indeed, since 2008, the size of the combined balances sheet of the Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank, the Bank of Japan and the Bank of England has increased by a mind-boggling US$10tn. …in recent years, if anything central bank monetary policy might have been overly aggressive. By causing global asset price inflation as well as the serious mispricing and misallocation of global credit, the seeds might have been sown for another Lehman-style economic and financial market crisis down the road. …the all too likely possibility that, by having overburdened monetary policy with the task of stabilizing output, advanced country governments might very well have set us up for the next global boom-bust economic cycle.
If you want the other side of the issue, the Economist is more sympathetic to monetary intervention.

And if you want a very learned explanation of the downsides of easy money, I shared some very astute observations from a British central banker back in 2015.

The bottom line is that easy money – sooner or later – backfires.

By the way, here’s a clip from earlier in the interview. Other than admitting that economists are lousy forecasters, I also warned that the economy is probably being hurt by Trump’s protectionism and his failure to control the growth of spending.

P.S. The “war on cash” in many nations is partly driven by those who want the option of easy money.

P.P.S. I worry that politicians sometimes choose to forgo good reforms because they hope easy money can at least temporarily goose the economy.

P.P.P.S. Easy money is also a tool for “financial repression,” which occurs when governments surreptitiously confiscate money from savers.

P.P.P.P.S. Maybe it’s time to reconsider central banks?

How Living Two Years Under Socialism Made Me a Capitalist

Dov Fischer October 13, 2018

In 1985 my family moved to Israel for two years, playing our part in reclaiming a heretofore unclaimed portion of our Biblical patrimony. So, with 35 other young families, we co-founded the new community of Neve Aliza in Ginot Shomron (“Samaria Gardens”) in the heart of Samaria, the northern half of what is falsely misnomered as the “West Bank.” Neve Aliza since has grown by 600%, with Ginot Shomron likewise now comprising part of greater metropolitanKarnei Shomron. Karnei Shomron now has a population of some 8,000 people, approximately the population of Malibu or Sedona, Arizona. Israel-haters call it a “West Bank settlement.”

In those years, Israel was governed primarily under socialist economic principles. Always a democracy, Israel’s governing institutions nevertheless were founded by deeply non-religious and even anti-religious secular socialists who had fled Tsarist Russia in the late 1800s. For half a century, until the Menachem Begin earthquake election of 1977, Israel was governed by coalitions led by the leftist Labor Party. They had built the socialist kibbutzim (agricultural socialist collectives) that the liberal media idealized. These were the darlings of the leftist-liberal media during Israel’s nascent years, names like Ben-Gurion, Rabin, Dayan, Golda Meir. Leftist socialists all.........

To encourage Israelis not to be materialistic, the Labor Socialist government “Big Brother” did not penalize what they believed you needed… but they double-taxed what they felt you greedily wanted.

I still remember these examples from back in 1985:
  • For a washing machine — no penalty. The government agrees you need a washing machine. But for a dryer, a 100% surtax — go hang your clothes with wood pegs on a line.
  • For a refrigerator — no penalty. But for a freezer, a 100% surtax.
  • For a television — no penalty. But for a VCR (remember those?), a 100% surtax: you do not need to watch videos.
  • For corn flakes — no penalty. But for Rice Krispies — a 100% surtax.
  • There was a tax for having a radio in your car; the Labor Socialist left saw no need for you to listen to radio while driving.
I had been forced to study socialism on an undergraduate level at Columbia’s Ivory Towers.   Now I was getting my graduate degree in real life. I started to see how people live in actuality under socialism.

They cheat. ..........To Read More.....

The Environmental Scam: One Quick and Easy Response

by Sean Gabb October 2018 @ Sean Gabb 

(Editor's Note Sean has given me permission to publish his work.  You will be seeing more in the future. RK)

Once you cut through their verbiage, the enemies of bourgeois civilisation have two demands. These are:
  1. Put me and my friends in charge of preferably a one-world government with total power over life and property; or, until then, or failing that,
  2. Give us a lot of money.
When I was younger, the occasion for making these demands was something to do with poverty or economic instability, and the alleged need was for a bigger welfare state, or state ownership of the means of production, or playing about with money to “move the aggregate demand curve to the right.” The nice thing about these claims and their alleged solutions was that they all had to be debated within the subject area of Economics. Because most of us knew a lot about Economics, we could always win the debates.
By the end of the 1980s, winning was so easy, the debates had become boring. Since then, the alleged need has shifted to saving the planet from some environmental catastrophe. The resulting debates are now harder to win because most of us are not that learned in the relevant sciences. Though I am more than competent in Economics, my main expertise is in Ancient History and the Classical Languages. Much the same is true for most of my friends
Take, for example, the latest occasion for making the two demands stated above. This is that the sea is filling up with waste plastic, and that this looks horrid, and is being eaten by the creatures who live in the sea, and that they are all at risk of dying – and that this will be a terrible thing of all of us. For the solution, see Annie Leonard, writing in The Guardian: “Recycling alone will never stem the flow of plastics into our ocean. We must address the problem at the source.” You can take her last sentence as shorthand for the usual demands.
What response have I to this? Not much directly. Give me half an hour, and I will explain with practised ease that the Phillips Curve is at best a loose correlation between past variables, and that there is no stable trade-off between unemployment and inflation. But search me how most plastics are made, how long they take to degrade, or what harm they do if eaten.
A short search on the Web has brought up some useful information. There is, for example, an essay by Kip Hansen, published in 2015 – “An Ocean of Plastic.” He says, among much else:
  • That the Great Garbage Patch said to be floating about the Pacific is a myth, and that the main alleged photographs of it were taken in Manila Bay after a storm had washed the rubbish out of the streets;
  • That the amount of plastic waste floating in the sea is very small per cubic metre of water, and that it is invisible to the uninformed eye in the places where this Garbage Patch is said to be floating;
  • That plastic waste quickly breaks down into tiny chunks that are then eaten by bacteria, who are not harmed by it;
  • That larger chunks eaten by fish and birds are easily handled by digestive systems that have evolved over many ages to cope with much worse than the occasional lump of polystyrene foam.
His conclusion:
The “floating rafts of plastic garbage”-version of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is a pernicious myth that needs to be dispelled at every opportunity.
That really is all I need to know. Of course, however, it is not enough to win an argument. Put me up against someone whose job is to lecture the world on the horrors of plastic waste, and I shall do a very poor job. He will pour scorn on the response I have summarised. He will draw attention to other alleged facts, and support these with reams of official statistics collected I have no idea how. We shall be engaged not in a deductive argument about the science of human choice, but in an argument about facts that I am in no position to examine for myself, and about scientific claims that I am not remotely qualified to assess. What to do about that?
Here is my response. During the past half century or so, we have had one factual claim after another about the natural world. These include:
  • The claim my English teacher repeated to me in 1974 about the coming exhaustion of mineral resources – that, for example, there would be no more gold to mine after 1984, and that the oil would run out shortly after or before then;
  • The claim, made around 1986, that aids would, by 1990, have killed two million people in England alone;
  • The claim, made in 1996, that, by 2006, a million people in England would have had their brains rotted by eating beef infected with Mad Cow Disease;
  • The claims, made in the 1980s, that factory emissions were turning the rain to acid, and that this would do terrible things;
  • The claims, made about the same time, that our refrigerators and air conditioning units had opened a hole in the ozone layer, and that we would all soon be cooked by radiation from the Sun;
  • The claims, that I noticed in 1989, that areas of jungle the size of Belgium were being regularly cut down in the Amazon, and how this would somehow be bad for us;
  • The claims, made since about 1988, that our industrial civilisation as a whole was causing a rise in global temperatures.
I leave the last of these claims aside for the moment. What the others all have in common is that they involved predictions of substantial or total collapse unless the usual demands were met. These demands were not met, and the world carried on as normal. Gold and oil did not run out. I am not sure how many people have heard about the ozone hole. I am not sure if anyone now claims it is getting bigger, or is still there. Nothing substantial was ever done about acid rain, but the world has still not become a giant desert. None of my friends has died of aids, nor of Mad Cow disease. My South American students do not report that Brazil nowadays looks like the surface of the Moon.
I now turn to the claims about global warming. I will not discuss the intricacies of how much carbon dioxide we are releasing, or what effect this may have on temperatures. I leave aside the persistent claims of scientific fraud and other corruption. As said, I am not qualified to comment on these or other matters. What I do note is that, in 2006, Al Gore
[p]atiently, and surely for the 10,000th time, [explained to The Guardian] what’s going wrong. The atmosphere is like a coat of varnish around the globe, he says. When it’s thin, as it should be, heat naturally escapes. But when it gets thicker, thanks to carbon dioxide emitted by us, it traps in the heat and the world gets warmer. “It’s cooking and wilting the most vulnerable parts of the eco-system, melting all the mountain glaciers, the north polar ice cap, parts of Antarctica, parts of Greenland.” That molten ice-water will raise sea-levels, flooding food-producing areas that all of us rely on. Eventually it will submerge whole cities, from San Francisco to Shanghai. The site of the Twin Towers will not be a memorial garden: it will be underwater. 
… He agrees with the scientists who say we have 10 years to act, before we cross a point of no return.
In 2009, the Prince of Wales – advised by the “leading environmentalists Jonathon Porritt and Tony Juniper” – said we had 96 months to change our ways. After that, we faced “irretrievable climate and ecosystem collapse, and all that goes with it.”
In 2005, George Monbiot wrote in The Guardian:
Winter is no longer the great grey longing of my childhood. The freezes this country suffered in 1982 and 1963 are – unless the Gulf Stream stops – unlikely to recur. Our summers will be long and warm. Across most of the upper northern hemisphere, climate change, so far, has been kind to us.
Ten years took us to 2016. Assuming my arithmetic is correct, 96 months take us to about now. If we have really reached the “point of no return,” why have these people not yet switched to telling us “I warned you: now it’s too late”? Instead, the apocalyptic warnings continue at top volume. Oh – and English weather remains as unpredictable today as it was in 2005. In March this year, there was an inch of snow in Deal.
The point of repeating these claims is that they were not random assertions, but appear to have been made on scientific advice – scientific advice that turned out to be wrong. Whether the scientists in question were lying, or whether they advised in good faith, is less important than that they were wrong. You do not need a degree in the natural sciences to notice when predictions are falsified. It is with this in mind that I take the present claims of plastic waste in the sea, and reject them out of hand. It may be that, this time, the claims are true. But the whole burden of proof is on those making them. The burden of proof comes with the barely-rebuttable presumption that we are being fed yet another diet of alarmist falsehoods.

My general view is that our planet is a vast treasure house of resources that, properly used, will take us to the stars. We shall colonise the inner planets, and mine the Asteroid Belt. We shall find cures for every illness and extend our lives. We shall uncover every remaining mystery of the natural world. During the past three centuries, much encouraging progress has been made. The curve is now turning almost vertical. It may be that, now and again, our scientific and technical progress throws up problems. If so, the solution is more scientific and technical progress. The only reasonable fear we should have is that the usual suspects will have their way, and return us to a past that I am fully qualified to describe, and that I assure you was horrible in every respect.
© 2018, seangabb.

The IPCC’s Latest Climate Hysteria

Paul Driessen Oct 13, 2018 @

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Special Report 15 claims the latest disaster “tipping point” is just 12 years away. If governments around the world fail to make “rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society,” human civilization and our planet face cataclysm, the IPCC asserts.

MIT Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Physics Richard Lindzen accurately called the hysteria-laden report and press releases from this tunnel-visioned agency “implausible conjecture backed by false evidence and repeated incessantly … to promote the overturn of industrial civilization.”

In fact, the IPCC insists that fossil fuel use must be slashed from over 80 percent of global energy today to zero by 2050 – and the world must spend $2.4 trillion per year for the next 17 years to subsidize the transition to renewable energy. That’s on top of the $2 trillion per year already being spent on Climate Crisis, Inc.  research, consulting, carbon trading and renewable projects. The likely total bill: $60-80 trillion by 2036!
These massive upheavals are essential, the IPCC claims, because average global temperatures cannot be allowed to rise more than another 0.5 degrees C (0.9 F) “above pre-industrial levels.” That’s around 1850, when the Little Ice Age ended. Indeed, the IPCC now says all warming since then is due to fossil fuels!

IPCC officials also want to use climate chaos scares to redistribute the world’s resources and wealth – and “transform” the capitalist model into a one-world centrally/UN planned and controlled economic system.

Adding to the pressure for immediate action, the increasingly politicized Nobel committee awarded half of its Prize in Economics to William Nordhaus for his work trying to show that carbon taxes and other pricing mechanisms for fossil fuels are more effective and efficient than direct government controls.
It’s all just in time for the November US elections and December climate confab in Katowice, Poland.

The IPCC claims and demands are laughable, but expected after years of corruption and conflicts of interest. They are also belied by the world’s rapidly increasing reliance on fossil fuels to lift and keep people out of poverty, create jobs, and improve human health, nutrition, welfare and living standards.

Germany is building new coal-fired power plants and demolishing ancient forests and villages to extract more coal. China plans to double its coal use and (plant-fertilizing) CO2 emissions by 2030. India expects to increase its coal use and CO2 output threefold. Africa and the rest of Asia are racing to catch up.

Equally important, the IPCC disaster claims are contradicted, refuted and even demolished by real-world data, evidence and studies by scientists who are not on government and alarmist payrolls.
A 986-page 2013 report by 49 scientists from 14 countries analyzed hundreds of studies examining the physical aspects of climate change. The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change report, Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, presents a detailed, authoritative, independent and persuasive analysis of the natural and human causes of climate change and their impacts on our planet.

The 1038-page 2014 NIPCC report Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts was prepared by 30 scientists from 11 nations. It summarizes and quantifies the real-world biological implications – and benefits – of a moderately warmer planet with more plant-fertilizing atmospheric carbon dioxide.
A recent, first-ever audit found temperature data shortages so severe during the 1800s and early 1900s, especially in the Southern Hemisphere, that the information is useless for analyzing climate trends as fossil fuel use increased. The audit also cites repeated data adjustment errors, a near absence of quality control checks, and patently ridiculous errors: for example, the IPCC reported that a town in Colombia endured three months in 1978 at an average daily temperature of over 80 degrees C (176 F)!

Yet these data are the foundation for IPCC computer models, horror stories and energy policy demands.

A new NIPCC report, CCR II: Fossil Fuels (by 117 scientists, economists and other experts from 11 countries) examines and refutes claims that climate change impacts on people and the environment justify dramatic reductions in fossil fuel use. To the contrary, the report carefully documents, fossil fuels hugely benefit human employment, communication, mobility, health, living standards and longevity.

For example, coal, oil and natural gas production and use affect far less surface area than wind, solar and biofuel energy, thereby keeping more wildlife habitat in its natural state. Fossil fuels also deliver plentiful, reliable, affordable energy that is the foundation for human prosperity, health and welfare.

All these studies strongly suggest that Dr. Nordhaus’s work is a solution in search of an exaggerated and largely fabricated manmade climate problem. Carbon taxes and other energy pricing systems are really an expensive, burdensome, unworkable new form of government control through price mandates. They fail to acknowledge or consider true market mechanisms and tradeoffs – thereby allowing crony capitalists, bureaucrats and activists to impose economy-wrecking price-hikes on nearly all goods and services.

Over the past four decades, “climate sensitivity” factors have steadily declined and temperaturepolar icesea levelhurricanetornado, drought and other real-world observations have trended far below IPCC claims that fossil fuels are causing dangerous and unprecedented problems. However, Dr. Nordhaus has consistently accepted IPCC assertions and built his carbon-pricing theories on that shaky foundation.

Actual scientific evidence increasingly shows that human effects on global climate are likely too small to be measured against the background of natural variation, much less cause “unprecedented climate mayhem.” Most climate model forecasts of future warming due to human activities violate accepted principles of scientific forecasting and have been far above actual temperature measurements.

“Public choice” research by Gary Becker, James Buchanan, Ronald Coase, Elinor Ostrom and other Nobel Prize Laureates explains why legislators, regulators and interest groups repeatedly exaggerate ecological and other threats: the hyperbole and sensationalism advance their financial interests, fame, stature or ideological agendas. In all too many cases, costly government regulations are imposed that benefit the few, while reducing opportunity, health and welfare for millions.
To the extent it is a problem, manmade climate change will not be solved by markets or by government intervention. Climate and extreme weather are still poorly understood phenomena that involve the interaction of numerous natural (and some human) forces. Addressing the hypothesized human causes involves the needs and choices of billions of people, thereby producing countless positive and negative externalities along the way. Fossil fuel benefits today and over the past 200 years have been huge and well documented, while the costs are uncertain but clearly orders of magnitude smaller than benefits.

Wind and solar provide insufficient electricity, at high pricesbelow rated capacity, from extensive land, using vast raw materials – making them unable to power modern economies or lift nations out of poverty.

The world is not dealing with a “tragedy of the commons” – but with an “opportunity of the commons,” an chance to use wealth created by fossil fuels to support environmental policies based on sound science, rather than ideology or scare tactics; study the actual causes of climate change, and predict changes accurately; and find the best ways for societies to respond to future climate and weather challenges.

The fact that externalities almost always exist does not necessarily justify government intervention, In fact, governments often struggle to find solutions to complex conflicts or disparate access to public goods. Coase taught that negative externalities can be traded, while Ostrom demonstrated that solutions are most likely found in private institutions that can tap the value-creating power of human genius, reliable information, private property rights, voluntary exchanges and negotiated tradeoffs.

Nordhaus and other economists need to acknowledge these facts, ClimateGate and data falsification problems within IPCC circles – and the fundamental right of people everywhere to improve their lives using fossil fuels … until equally accessible, reliable and affordable alternatives are developed.

Up to now, the IPCC and its allies have behaved too much like crooked prosecutors, witnesses, judges, juries and agitators in a capital case against fossil fuels. We cannot let them decide humanity’s future.

A Party of Stalkers

By The Editors October 12, 2018

Capitol Police arrest protesters who had formed a mob in front of the Capitol
ahead of the successful confirmation vote of Judge Brett Kavanaugh in
Washington, D.C., October 6, 2018. (Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)
James Hodgkinson seems to have slipped down the memory hole.
  • Hodgkinson was the left-wing activist who accused Donald Trump and Mike Pence of treason and — “fueled by rage against Republican legislators,” as the Virginia attorney general put it attempted to massacre a group of Republican congressmen practicing for a baseball game.
  • He shot Representative Steve Scalise, along with a Capitol Police officer and two others, and very likely would have murdered a goodly chunk of the GOP caucus if not for the police assigned to protect Scalise, the majority whip.
  • Senator Rand Paul.......was attacked while mowing his lawn, suffering six broken ribs. The man who attacked him, Rene Boucher, is a left-wing Chomskyite social-media rage-artist who wrote about his desire to see someone “fry Trump’s gonads.”
  • In 2013, a gunman attacked the conservative Family Research Council.
  • In 2016, Micah Xavier Johnson massacred police officers in Dallas.
  • Before that, five men associated with the Occupy movement made plans to blow up a bridge in Ohio.
  • We have a memory, a faint one, of Democrats lecturing Republicans about their “tone” not so long ago, something about Sarah Palin and metaphorical crosshairs.
This is terrorism......The Left is in the grip of mass hysteria..........It’s a temper tantrum, true, but a temper tantrum thrown by antifa thugs is a riot.............They should be kept as far from the levers of power as voters can put them...........To Read More....

Saturday, October 13, 2018

Children are NOT more sensitive /vulnerable to chemicals in the environment

Steve Milloy @

Let’s review the nonsense in today’s New York Times op-ed by notorious junk scientist goofballs Phil Landrigan (Mt. Sinai) and Lynn Goldman (George Washington University).

Mt. Sinai’s Phil Landrigan, a health scare dinosaur who admitted
long ago that legally applied pesticides hurt no one.

GWU’s Lynn Goldman, who leaped to embrace the infamous 1996 Tulane University
endocrine disrupter study that was eventually retracted as science fraud.