Monday, August 20, 2018

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

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

August 20, 2018 Danusha V. Goska

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

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

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

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

August 20, 2018 Daniel Greenfield 17

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

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

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

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

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

Kurt Schlichter Aug 20, 2018

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

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

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

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

First They Came for Alex Jones

By Jack Cashill August 20, 2018

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

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

Here is why.

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

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

Clapper: Brennan's rhetoric is becoming an issue

By Megan Keller -



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

A double ban gets a double reversal

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

Sunday, August 19, 2018

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

Nicole Spector

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

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

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

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

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

Do Voters Reward Pro-Market Politicians?

August 13, 2018 by Dan Mitchell @ International Liberty

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

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

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

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

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

Here’s a way of visualizing what they investigated.


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Brian Harrington August 15, 2018

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

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

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

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

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

By Jeannie DeAngelis August 19, 2018

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Or is it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

So, neither is...


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

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


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

NOTES:

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

Junk Science and Leftist Folklore Have Set California Ablaze

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

August 17, 2018 Bruce Thornton 106

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

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

The Death of France

How French leaders trigger lawlessness by their own cowardice and passivity.

August 17, 2018  Stephen Brown 96

If radical Islamic clerics thought they were immune to terror threats themselves, then they have now been disabused of that notion.  Last month in France, instead of the predictable pattern of arrests of Islamic jihadists plotting deadly terrorist attacks; this time, the jihadists were apparently the targets themselves.  This turn of events signals France's accelerated spiral into lawless violence.

The French newspaper Le Figaro reported that police in June took ten people into custody for allegedly targeting for attack “radical imams, veiled women and convicted jihadists released from prison.” (There are currently 512 people convicted on terrorism charges in French prisons.) The arrests were made in the Paris region, Corsica, and in Charante-Maritime.
 
“This group was aiming for ‘targets presumed in connection with radical Islam,’ ” a source told Le Figaro.
 
Raids on several homes turned up “rifles, pistols, and homemade grenades” and police reported this “groupuscule” (small group) “trained regularly at sport shooting clubs and had prepared arms caches and food supplies in case of a major crisis.” (Which makes one wonder whether they were “ultra-right” terrorists or simply survivalists.)...........To Read More.....
Posted by Daniel Greenfield 0 Comments Sunday, August 19, 2018 @ Sultan Knish Blog

"Strongman politics are ascendant," Barack Obama warned in South Africa. He spoke passionately about "the politics of fear and resentment" at the Mandela Lecture. He worried that we were entering a world, “where might makes right and politics is a hostile competition between tribes and races and religions.”

While the media used the remarks to attack Trump's meeting with Putin, Obama had shared a stage with South African President Cyril Ramaphosa who had come to power promising to seize land from white farmers. Ramaphosa was the latest in a series of ANC strongmen, including his predecessor, an alleged rapist, beginning with the Communist terrorist whose legacy Obama was commemorating.

President Ramaphosa had vowed early on to seize land from white farmers without compensation. "The expropriation of land without compensation is envisaged as one of the measures that we will use to accelerate redistribution of land to black South Africans,” he had declared. And denied that such racist Communist tactics were unconstitutional. Now he’s moving to modify South Africa’s constitution.

Initially, the ANC, which is partnered with the South African Communist Party, had claimed that seizing land would not violate the law. Now it’s actually going to change the South African constitution.

“It has become pertinently clear that our people want the constitution to be more explicit about expropriation of land without compensation,” President Ramaphosa announced.

When your only rule is mob rule by ANC thugs, it doesn’t really matter what a piece of paper says.

“We will accelerate our land redistribution programme not only to redress a grave historical injustice, but also to bring more producers into the agricultural sector and to make more land available for cultivation,” Ramaphosa claimed in his State of the Nation address.

Zimbabwe had already made great strides in improving agriculture through land seizures.

Land was stolen from the farmers who knew how to work it and handed out to politically connected thugs. Soon the former "bread basket" of Southern Africa was starving. Black groups pleaded with the white farmers to remain. Rural Zimbabwe died. Hyperinflation made the currency worthless. A trillion dollars might not be enough to buy one egg. A former food exporter was forced to rely on food aid.

"If white settlers just took the land from us without paying for it," Mugabe had declared, "we can, in a similar way, just take it from them without paying for it."

Ramaphosa’s rhetoric is an echo of one of Africa’s worst racist strongmen. Land seizures won’t bring South African land into “full use”, as he claims. It will mean productive land falling into the hands of ANC thugs who will be too corrupt, incompetent and greedy to do the hard work of working the land.

South Africa’s agricultural sector will go the way of Zimbabwe.

Cyril Ramaphosa is one of South Africa's richest men and has an estimated net worth of $550 million. How did a socialist student activist make a mint? The answer is an inevitable as it is unsurprising.

South Africa’s agricultural sector has been steadily in decline. Farms used to provide millions of jobs. Now they offer less than a million. Wheat planting has fallen to a third. Cotton to a tenth. A country that once exported wheat, is now importing millions of tons while its agriculture sector fails.

The decline of South Africa’s agriculture has gone hand in hand with what it euphemistically calls its land reforms. White farmers have been murdered or driven off their land. But land seizures, legal and illegal, with compensation or with a hatchet, haven’t made South African agriculture more productive.

Instead South Africa is becoming increasingly dependent on agricultural imports to feed its people.

Like Zimbabwe, South Africa is due to revisit the same implacable economic consequences of land seizures that took the Soviet Union down the road to famine and terror. Toward its end, the USSR, despite possessing territories that had once bulged with rich harvests, had gone deep into debt to buy food from the United States. The African National Congress’ Communist roots are taking South Africa down the same path as its fallen Communist masters. And with the same miserable results.

Comrade Ramaphosa, as Comrade Mandela liked to call him, is less of a strongman, than a weak man. More afraid of thugs like Julius Malema and the greed of his ANC comrades than of dooming his people to hunger. The ANC is populated with thugs who are impatiently waiting to loot South Africa’s corpse. And they’ve grown tired of pretending that they are anything more than a failed state’s Marxist mob.

The constitutional gambit is a desperate attempt to legitimize racist mob violence and ANC corruption. It takes the constant assaults on white farmers and tries to disguise lawlessness under the color of law.

1 white farmer in South Africa has been murdered every 5 days. This ethnic cleansing has been going on with the same regular clockwork as the tributes to Nelson Mandela and his even more murderous wife. The racist violence, the murders, rapes and land seizures, the chants of, “Shoot the Boer” are backed by lies about a shadow white majority somehow still ruling South Africa even after all the years of ANC rule.

The media frequently repeats fake news statistics which claim that white farmers own 70% or more of the country’s farmland. The actual number is less than a quarter. Some of the best land in South Africa is already in black hands. And, just as in Zimbabwe, it hasn’t remedied the agricultural or social problems.

South Africa’s agricultural sector is already on its deathbed. Its corrupt economy is incapable of competing on the world stage. Its exports are not at issue, its ability to feed its own people is. Aggressive land seizures won’t do much more damage to South Africa’s economy, though it will discourage investors and drive out more white farmers, but will bring its society to its knees.

Meanwhile the plight of South Africa’s white farmers continues to be ignored. The ANC genocide has been slowly unfolding for a generation with the complicity of the same leftist leaders who covered up Communist genocides in the Soviet Union, Communist China and Cambodia. But this latest legitimization of land seizures by the ANC will only encourage a further outpouring of racist attacks on white farmers.

Australian Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton has urged helping the persecuted white farmers of South Africa receive political asylum. But while every “persecuted” group is fast tracked for asylum, the door still remains shut for a productive population that has been targeted for economic ethnic cleansing.

In his State of the Nation speech, President Ramaphos declared, “We are building a country where a person’s prospects are determined by their own initiative and hard work, and not by the color of their skin, place of birth, gender, language or income of their parents.” Seizing land from people because of the color of their skin and giving it to those who haven’t worked for it is the opposite of that vision.

And yet it’s easy to see why Obama was so comfortable with a politician who could twist the language of equality to justify identity politics theft and the verbiage of tolerance to justify racial oppression.

South Africa, like the Soviet Union and Venezuela, like Cambodia and Cuba, is not just an atrocity, it’s a cautionary tale. Ideology, more than race, connects the scattered strands of the leftist killing fields. To pretend that what happened there cannot happen here would be ignoring the lessons of history.

And a new red famine is growing where the red blood of white farmers flows into the dying earth.






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.

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.