“If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people.” Calvin Coolidge on the 150th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence
Monday, May 4, 2026
Friday, December 26, 2025
Shall Every Knee Bow
By Rich Kozlovich
"Darwin’s theories are not, in the modern phrase, settled science.
They aren’t even unsettled science. They are educated guesses at best.
To be science, Wolfe reminds us, “There are five standard tests for a
scientific hypothesis. Has anyone observed the phenomenon — in this
case, Evolution — as it occurred and recorded it? Could other scientists
replicate it? Could any of them come up with a set of facts that, if
true, would contradict the theory? Could scientists make predictions
based on it? Did it illuminate hitherto unknown or baffling areas of
science? In the case of Evolution… well… no… no… no… no… and no.”' - Larry Thornberry on Tom Wolfe's, Kingdom of Speech
Between Thanksgiving and Christmas, its presumed our thoughts turn to
issues of faith, so for the last few years between Thanksgiving and
Christmas I have published this article, and will continue to do so most
years, with additions expanding on the logic and factual foundation. This may well be my last post on P&D, and I wanted it to be a good one. The links go back years and some of them no longer work, so you can accept what I'm presented as factual, or not, it's up to you.
One of the things that started this was an article I read where a
science commentator stated - with great confidence - the Theory of
Evolution was now bullet proof. Really? My personal motto is De
Omnibus Dubitandum: "Everything is to be Questioned", and I think this is worth
questioning. So, let's do that together!
There was an article I came across entitled, "Many atheist scientists take their kids to church”! The article went on to say:
“about one in five atheist scientists with children involve their families with religious institutions even if they do not agree with the teachings, according to a study done by Rice University and the University at Buffalo.” The article pointed out “The findings surrounding atheists shouldn't be too surprising, since the Pew Forum Religious Survey taken back in 2008 that showed 21 percent of self-described atheists responded that they believe in God.”
Does everyone really find this to be all that extraordinary?
Anthropologists have noted that in every culture in the world, and in
all of human history, religion has played an important role in people’s
lives. There was one prominent atheist,
Antony Flew who
claimed at the end of his life he was now a believer. Why? Is it true
"there are no atheists in foxholes"? Of course the explanation was that
he had lost his mind, yet
Albert Einstein, who
was not a religious person in any sense, and absolutely rejected the
idea of a personal God, also rejected the idea of atheism.
For the believers among my readers the explanation is simple; we are
designed to believe. For the non-believers among my readers the
explanation is simple also. There is no other logical explanation!
The other thing that triggered this effort was a political debate on
television where the moderator asked the Republican candidate, running
for some office or other, if he believed in the Theory of Evolution. The
candidate looked foolish because he was obviously flustered by the
question, which clearly was the moderator’s goal.
The first thought from everyone should have been - why can’t any
reasonably intelligent person answer this question intelligently? Yet
many of those who profess to be believers would be equally flustered to
provide a rational intellectual response in that situation. So let me
help everyone!
Here is the answer and the correct response.
I wish to state categorically that I believe in the Theory of Evolution
because that theory presents clear and incontrovertible scientific
evidence there must be an Intelligent Designer!
Wow! I’m willing to bet that’s a shocker for many – on either side of the aisle -so let’s explore this.
For years I’ve been saying, “everything is the basics”. What's that
mean? It means in order to understand anything we must explore the
foundational thinking of what it is we’re trying to understand. If the
foundation is flawed, then the entire structure of thinking that it’s
built on is a false premise, and will collapse under scrutiny from its
own weight - that is if we wish to really see the truth. And that is the
crux of the matter isn’t it?
Once we delve into all this it
becomes apparent the things that are known are being ignored because
they're inconvenient, and the things that aren't known, they're making
up.
Believing takes on many forms. For some it has to do with a higher
power. For others it can take on the worship of oneself, for others it
can take on the worship of some philosophy or other; but humanity has
the desire to look to some higher explanation for existence, and human
existence in particular. But one thing seems clear, ‘believing’ is
inherent to our genetic code. Otherwise how can anyone explain why so
many have believed so much over so long a time of human history, and in
so many different cultures?
Of course, the problem for the unbelievers among my readers with this
explanation is that they would then have to explain how that genetic
code was designed in that manner - or designed at all for that matter -
if there is no higher power.
I do find it fascinating how some can believe that Intelligent Design is
“a pig that won’t fly”! The design is so complicated that it defies
explanation as to how infinitely small mutations over millions of years
could bring us (and all else in the universe) to what now exists.
Whether one disagrees or agrees with evolution, I question how anyone
can say that there is no designer.
Some feel that an intelligent designer used evolution. Some feel
evolution is a mistake constantly making more mistakes and changing
everything all the time all by accident. I wonder how anyone can explain
how this can happen by accident and develop successful organisms since
"geneticists estimate that 99 out of 100 mutations are harmful, and about 20 out of the 99 are lethal."
Then there are those who [chap.
14] state there is so much “statistical data that they were at last
able to confirm what they had suspected all along: Mutations were not 99
percent harmful to the DNA and the organism; they were 100 percent
harmful! It was discovered that in EVERY instance, mutations caused some
kind of damage—always! Out of it all, the researchers learned that DNA
coding in the genes simply will not tolerate much change. More than just
the slightest amount will ruin the code and the organism will be
greatly weakened.”
According to the Theory of Evolution life started when electricity, in
some form such as lightening, charged some molecules existing in a
chemical rich ocean soup and thus became cellular life. Of course no
one can explain where these mythical molecules came from or the chemical
rich ocean. In point of fact - there is absolutely no evidence that
this ever occurred, and there is no evidence that it can occur since no
one has been able to duplicate this mythical event in a lab - ever.
"Abiogenesis is the idea of life originating from non-living material (non-life). This concept has expanded a great deal as mankind’s understanding of science has grown, but all forms of abiogenesis have one thing in common: they are all scientifically unsupportable."
"Modern ideas of abiogenesis can be very complex..........from deep-sea lava vents to meteoric impact sites and even radioactive beaches. In general, all modern theories of abiogenesis imagine some scenario in which natural conditions create, combine, and arrange molecules in such a way that they begin to self-replicate.
These theories vary widely as to the nature of these conditions, the complexity of the molecules, and so forth. All share at least one common factor: they are implausible to the point of impossibility, based on established science, including a DNA molecule which can’t form without a preexisting protein. There is no “prototype first cell.”...........Life either had a natural origin (abiogenesis) or a supernatural origin (intelligent design).They've been able to get molecules to group together, but it isn’t life! Especially since no one has ever been able to generate more than four of the twenty amino acids needed for life. These “cells” are all lacking in all the things that make life possible, including a DNA molecule which can’t form without a preexisting protein.
Paraphrasing the quote
at the beginning regarding Darwinism, and in line with abiogenesis.
My friend Mike Shaw of Shaw’s Eco-Logic once commented: - Has anyone observed the phenomenon — in this case, Evolution — as it occurred and recorded it?
- Could other scientists replicate it?
- Could any of them come up with a set of facts that,if true, would contradict the theory?
- Could scientists make predictions based on it?
- Did it illuminate hitherto unknown or baffling areas of science?
"In the case of abiogenesis… well… no… no… no… no… and no.”'
"When I was at MIT I used to drive them nuts with this simple question: Where does the information whereby the transfer RNA is able to decode the Messenger RNA sequence into a protein come from? After all, there are enzymes (proteins) that help synthesize the DNA and RNA sequences into their particular coding, thus creating those enzymes, right? As such, we have an untenable case of circular logic. Somehow, the nucleic acids just seem to "know" the proper sequence of their nucleotides; or, the protein (enzyme) seems to "know" the proper sequencing."
Protein molecules are amazingly complex, and are absolutely necessary
for life. Furthermore, in order for a cell to function it takes 2000
protein enzymes. If life started in the ocean in some chemical rich
soup, through some accidental electrical discharge then how did that
cell, or group of cells, survive long enough to replicate themselves?
That's foundational!
Evolutionary thought would require millions of years of mutations before
the next step to propagation would come into being. If that’s so - how
did they replicate? If we are to believe what proponents of evolutionary
theory claim, then we have to recognize that these mythical cells would
have died within seconds, minutes or days, but they would have ceased
to exist long before they could have reproduced. How do I know that?
Let's go back to the foundational question once again!
If life could only advance from active cells in the ocean in some
chemical rich soup, which came into being as a result of some accidental
electrical discharge; how did that cell, or group of cells, replicate
themselves to become what we are all now through a series of mutations
occurring over millions of years?
As we explore this we must realize there is a very serious crack in the
foundation of their theory - and logic. When you think this out
correctly the very foundation for the explanation propounded by
scientists gets even more complicated and incomprehensible. If such an
event really did take place, the first order of business would not be
propagation - the first order of business would be survival!
Survival means that this mythical cell, or cells, would have already had
an advanced biological system in place allowing them to recognize the
need for nutrition. In order for any of this to occur the cells would
have to be self aware to some extent, no matter to how small a degree,
which in itself would require some sort of advanced design. Which leads
to the next obvious question - “How does matter become conscious of
itself?”
Then along with the ability recognize the need for nutrition, it would
also have to be able to recognize what was nutritional and what was not.
These mythical cells would then need a system for absorption, i.e.,
some way to eat! That would then require a digestive system, which would
require an internal biological mechanism allowing the organism to
recognize and separate that which was nutritional from what would become
waste during the absorption process. Then the cells would require an
energy storage and utilization system, and along with the ability to
recognize what was food, it would have be about to recognize, or see,
where it was. Then it would need a form of locomotion to get to it -
and finally - after all of that, this mythical organism would require a
system for waste elimination.
Then and only then would propagation come into play!
That's a definition of a complex organism with advanced biological
systems completely in tack and functioning together harmoniously from
the very first second of its existence. What organism could possibly
survive long enough without these advanced fundamental functions that
would allow it to live long enough to propagate?
But then we come to the next crack in the "science" and logic of
Evolution: How many millions of years of mutations would it take to
allow for enough development to allow for propagation? Millions of
years and millions of small mutations, all of which would have to be
beneficial mutations. So what happened in those millions of years
between origin and propagation?
Does it seem rational this could possibly occur if it takes millions of
years of tiny mutations to create a next step in the developmental
process as scientists claim? And - once again - we are expected to
believe this came about as an accident after an electrical discharge of
some sort?
Okay, let’s say, for the sake of argument, it did happen - it still
means the organism had to have some seriously advanced biological
functions to survive past a very short time. If that’s the case, and it
clearly must be, then doesn’t that imply planning and design? Doesn’t
planning and design require intelligence?
Do we really think these advanced systems could come into existence at once without some predetermined design?
Which brings me back to the beginning!
Evolutionary thought requires millions of years of mutations before any
of these absolutely necessary biological systems would come into being
before the organism could advance to the next step of propagation. So
assuming these organism’s survived, we have to wonder how any organism
could know which tiny mutations were beneficial, or even needed, over a
million years or so, and decide to save them for a next step, which
presumably was another accidental mutation. The complexity of that
kind of design would require some kind of organizational planning and
implementation. With the rate of detrimental versus beneficial mutations
it could not be accidental and still be beneficial!
Now let’s take a look at propagation!
Take a woman’s monthly cycle. It is amazingly complex! The right amount
of chemicals, hormones and enzymes would have to come into play in
exactly the right sequence of time in order to begin the cycle and
finish the cycle. However, if a woman becomes pregnant during the cycle
another whole set of chemical conditions would come into play. How could
any organism know how to plan for two diametrically opposing end
results?
Remembering that there are untold numbers of species in the world that
have cycles unique unto themselves, that means that this would have to
be done an incalculable number of times in an incalculable number of
organisms and all be beneficial. One negative mutation would seemingly
doom the organism. Yet, we are to believe this happens through a
series of positive accidents that would overcome all of these deadly
accidents! Isn't that a form of belief, i.e. faith? It does seem to defy
logic...or science as it were!
How would any organism know what chemicals to develop over millions of
years? How did the organism know that hormones and enzymes were needed
along with other chemicals? How would the organism know how to organize
them? How did the organism know which chemicals would work harmoniously
together and in conjunction with enzymes and hormones? How would these
organisms know how to ‘create’ them?
And finally, how did the organism know what end result would follow without some sort of plan, and I defy anyone to explain evolution and the existence of that amazing biological complexity known as the human four stage sleep cycle, requiring a fully developed brain, with fully developed harmonious chemistry.
The human sleep cycle requires use of "the thalamus, hypothalamus, basal forebrain, pineal gland, and portions of the brainstem", and requires "neurotransmitters
GABA and adenosine, sunlight working in conjunction with the circadian
clock, and "hormones
such as glutamate, histamine, and orexin" as the chemistry to make it
all work. How could that all happen progressively? So, how could
anyone sleep if this system wasn't completely in place from the
beginning? Read the whole article linked and then explain how anyone
can possibly
believe this could come into existence in stages, and by accident? And
that cycle varies with every species on the planet. Unending complexity
requires organization. Effective organization isn't an accident.
However, even with a design, how could incredibly small mutations be of
value during the whole process of millions of years? In point of fact,
it seems reasonable that these mutations would hinder continued
existence, not enhance it. But even if you accept the idea of small
changes over millions of years the question still remains: How could
all of that come into being without intelligence behind it?
How could so many complex systems come into being all at once without
some sort of design and an application of the design? Wouldn’t the
presumption be that these cells already had an amazingly complex
chemical make-up that would create an end result? If so, doesn’t that
imply planning and design? Doesn’t planning and design require
intelligence? And if these events actually did happen, and cells came
into existence with all these complicated biological systems in place;
what would you call it? Creation?
Dennis Prager wrote an article on June 18, 2013 titled, “Why Some Scientists Embrace the' Multiverse'", where-in he cites views held by prominent scientists regarding this universal complexity and just how fragile it is.
He quotes:
“Michael Turner, astrophysicist at the University of Chicago and Fermilab: "The precision is as if one could throw a dart across the entire universe and hit a bulls eye one millimeter in diameter on the other side."
"The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge and would be total chaos if any of the natural 'constants' were off even slightly." Paul Davies, professor of theoretical physics at Adelaide University
Steven Weinberg, recipient of the Nobel Prize in Physics, and an anti-religious agnostic, notes that "the existence of life of any kind seems to require a cancellation between different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120 decimal places. This means that if the energies of the Big Bang were, in arbitrary units, not: 1 followed by 118 zeros…but instead: 1 followed by 118 zeros and a 1, there would be no life of any sort in the entire universe."Dennis goes on to say:
“Unless one is a closed-minded atheist (there are open-minded atheists), it is not valid on a purely scientific basis to deny that the universe is improbably fine-tuned to create life, let alone intelligent life. Additionally, it is atheistic dogma, not science, to dismiss design as unscientific. The argument that science cannot suggest that intelligence comes from intelligence or design from an intelligent designer is simply a tautology. It is dogma masquerading as science.”
"The universe is far more massive and complex than previously thought. The observable universe boasts at least 10 times as many galaxies as originally estimated......This means that the cosmic census of galaxies, which has been conventionally pegged at around 100 to 200 billion, may be closer to a whopping two trillion individual galactic systems."....... “It boggles the mind that over 90 percent of the galaxies in the universe have yet to be studied".Which brings me to what I consider a central point in our exploration of the Theory of Evolution. Where and how did the theory really originate?
Darwin wasn't the originator of this theory, as one writer noted - "Darwin was primarily the enthusiastic collector of the ideas of others", and probably stole his theory from his grandfather Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802) who had "already had pretty much developed a full theory of evolution."
But it goes back much further to ancient Greece with Pythagoras, a searcher of enlightenment who traveled all over his known world. It's believed he was influenced by Hindu religious thinking and the transmigration of the soul - migrating from lower forms to higher forms. This pattern of thinking continued through the centuries to Darwin.
"The Hindus were Spinozas 2,000 years before the birth of Spinoza, Darwinians centuries before the birth of Darwin, and evolutionists many centuries before the doctrine of evolution had been accepted by the Huxleys of our time, and before any word like 'evolution' existed in any language of the world." - Sir M. Monier-Williams, Professor of Sanskrit, Oxford University
It appears the Theory of Evolution is hardly "bullet proof" and is in reality nothing more than a
tenet of pagan religion, and an article of faith for non-believers.
Interesting dichotomy, don't you think?
I can understand anyone’s reason for not subscribing to any religious
group. The sanguinary history of the world’s religions has not done much
to inspire confidence over the course of human history. So I can
understand someone being non-religious, and I can understand why someone
would believe that there may be a higher power that doesn’t interfere
in the lives of humanity. I can understand why people might not be sure
and proclaim they're agnostic - although I consider that to be pragmatic
atheism.
What I can’t understand is how anyone cannot believe there must be a
planner behind this phenomenally complex reality we call - existence!
And that's why I say I believe in the Theory of Evolution because it
scientifically proves that there must be an Intelligent Designer! A
Creator!
I will leave it to you to decide for yourself if there is a benevolent God. But there must be a creator.
That’s foundational! That’s “the basics”!
Shall Every Knee Bow Additions: These were originally published in 2022 Part I, and Part II. Here are some pieces I've saved over the years with really excellent information I intended to add to this article but never completed that task. RK
- Scientists Can’t Make Life — And That’s the Point They Don’t Want You to See
- Anything But God?: Scientists ‘Seriously Asking’ If Life On Earth Was ‘Seeded By Aliens’
- Can Consciousness Exist Without a Brain?
- Velikovsky – Worlds in Collision
- Chemistry Nobel Recognizes 'Spectacular Proteins' Scientists
- Stages of Sleep Explained: How Brain Hormones Control Your Sleep
- Researchers Identify 50 Additional Genes For Eye Color
- Here's why we hear.
Truth will very patiently wait for us, and this one thing is absolutely clear: For evolution to have been successful then these stunningly complex biological systems such as the sleep cycle, hearing, eyesight, mental acuity, chemical make up of the body, and all else that makes living possible would had to have come together all at exactly at the same time, by accident.
Can we really be expected to believe all these necessary systems came together by accident over millions of years of small almost unrecognizable changes, all in harmony with equally small almost unrecognizable changes that would harmonize into a viable organism, actually millions of viable organisms, millions of years in the future?
How can any rational sane person believe such nonsense?
Saturday, November 22, 2025
The Democrat Epstein Conga
By Rich Kozlovich
I don't care what the issue is the Democrat party has an unflinching political philosophy that can be summed up in two words. Everyone Conga!
Some weeks ago I stated this was the last year for P&D, and would end publication after December. At the beginning of this week I stated I was taking a few days off, and why. I'm amending all that. P&D is done for the most part. There are a couple of issues I consider a major issue that isn't being addressed properly which I will be running. Issue I've developed massive files on, and I just can't walk away from that. Think conspiracy, and a RICO "Deprivation of Rights" investigation. And yes, there really is such a thing as a conspiracy.
But otherwise, I won' be posting anything on a regular basis, and at some point P&D will be dismantled entirely.
As for the Epstein issue, the Democrat party now owns it, and I'm guessing there's going to be a lot of leftists in trouble very soon..... since Epstein was their guy...... and in spite of their twisted machinations to put this on to Donald Trump, make no mistake, even the media knows the Democrat party owns this and the consequences.
Monday, November 17, 2025
Hiatus
As my regular readers already now... I haven't published anything today..... and I've decided to take a few days off. Even a newsie like me can only stand so much, and truth be told, I can hardly stand some of the biggest names and biggest events appearing in the news. There are so many big egos blabbering nonsense, and I don't really mind that so much as they've accomplished nothing of note in their lives other than becoming prominent, and then have the nerve to "correct" Americans for not groveling before their unending self adoration.
Bad attitudes, backstabbing, lying, and rampant criminal behavior, and that's among elected officials, and it's mind boggling. What's worse, the courts are party to that criminal behavior.
The courts are out of control, and something has to be done to rein them in, which can become a slippery slope. The Democrats are clearly insane and entire too many Republican want to be just as insane, at least at the leadership level, and that's not going to be fixed without an intense and massive national effort by conservatives organized to oust them in every state. Target them, isolate them, and crush them, no holds barred.
You may wish to review My Commentaries, in the meanwhile, have a good day,
Rich
Saturday, November 15, 2025
P&D and The Week That Was
Truth is the Sublime Convergence of History and Reality
De Omnibus Dubitandum, (Everything is to be questioned!)
This Link will take you to My Commentaries.
By Rich Kozlovich
There's all this talk about the need to come to some kind of trade agreement with China, a nation that's devoted it's wealth to destroying western civilization. They talk one way and act another, and it's their historical pattern, they're notorious for their history of broken promises, and make no mistake, Xi Jinping is in trouble and in order to save himself he'll promise anything. He then turns around setting "red lines" for his promises to be kept. Red lines that were already unacceptable before any agreements were made.
I gotta wonder what's going on in South Korean politics as their new President, who clearly is a far left wing nutroll has declared any criticism of China or its ruling Communist party will be treated as a criminal offense. How nuts is that? With friends like that who needs enemies? Maybe it's time American pulled out the approximately 25,000 American troops that have been keeping S. Korea free from N. Korean/Chinese occupation.
Christian refugee who sought safety in France murdered by Jihadi migrant. Christian persecution is becoming common place. We're seeing this same kind of misanthropy playing out all over the world, and it's not exclusive to Jews.
The
problem lies in definition. Islam isn’t a religion, it’s a violent,
criminal, political movement masquerading as a religion, and needs to be
officially classified as terrorist movement, and it's influence is a growing plague. But that's not what upsets the UN. The UN, that hot bed of corruption and human rights abuses has warned .... warned mind you..... the U.S. attacks on drug boats are ‘unacceptable. I'm liking Rubio more and more as he tells them they have no say in the matter of how the U.S. defends itself. In short he's telling them to shove it letting them know we don't care what they think, and maybe it's a warning shot across the UN's bow saying, we don't like you, and we don't need you.
South Africa is a poster child for human rights abuses and genocide, and just like so many of these leftist murderous tyrannies they're demanding Israel be condemned as genocidal, yet none of these nations are willing to step up and offer asylum to Gazans. Well, Israel has found a way around that.
Unwanted guests arrive as a chartered-plane full of uninvited Gazan refugees arrived in South Africa recently. This is an event that really happened. As far as I can piece together, Israeli authorities allowed 153 Gaza
residents to enter Israel, travel to a nearby airport, board a chartered
jetliner and fly to Johannesburg, via Nairobi. There they sat on the tarmac for 10 hours until local South African authorities could figure out what to do. From BBC News,
South Africa has maintained strong support for the Palestinian cause throughout the war between Hamas and Israel in Gaza.
And now South Africa gets the opportunity to prove up their support with real action. Well, they’re yours now. No takebacks. A local charity agreed to look after them as a condition of disembarking. The war in Gaza is the first humanitarian crisis that I can recall where not a single country on earth has agreed to accept a single refugee from the area. Why is that?
There's a massive RICO investigation in the works, even if the DOJ isn't aware of it yet. These investigations involving the corruption surrounding Jack Smith's illegal "investigation" of.... anyone who was opposed to the Democrats. Now we have clear evidence that Judge James Boasberg was up to his neck in what can only be called a criminal conspiracy. Judges have “judicial immunity” and can’t be prosecuted for their actions….. unless those actions are illegal. There is no way he can justify authorizing these subpoenas. He’s guilty of “deprivation of rights”, and it’s clear - at least to me - this is a RICO conspiracy.
The willful violation of a person's constitutional or federal rights by someone acting "under color of law," which often includes government officials like police officers. This can include excessive force, false arrest, or unlawful searches, and is a federal offense with severe penalties that depend on the resulting injury or death.
Those officials includes judges. He’s guilty as sin. His actions violate the 1st, and 4th Amendments, and this opens up an even bigger RICO case than already is in the works, and he needs to be prosecuted beyond impeachment. The judiciary at all levels are out of control, and have been for some time. It’s time for Judicial Immunity to be seriously re-evaluated and reformed. These jurists need to be held accountable for what can only be called criminal decisions.
There's a turf war breaking out between Tulsi Gabbard and Kash Patel, regarding who should have oversight of foreign intelligence. The fact is the FBI was created to prosecute criminal activity, and we’re discovering they’re not very good at it when leftists are in charge at all levels, and in point of fact, they’ve been downright treasonous.
So
why would we want to consolidate more power to the FBI when they’ve
demonstrated how easily they can be corrupted to openly violate our
constitutional rights? At least if the responsibilities and power are
spread out it can be contained more easily, and fixed more easily if
corrupted as it was under the three Obama administrations.
Please try and remember it was only a few short months ago many were calling for the dissolution of the FBI for what in my view was blatant criminal activity. Attorney General Merrick Garland and then-FBI Director Christopher Wray. FBI issued almost 200 subpoenas seeking records and communications from 439 Republican individuals and organizations. As all these corruption cases such as Russiagate, Arctic Frost, Crossfire Hurricane, and all the cases what they were part of the Deprivation of Rights cases against Trump, and others, we’re going to see just how corrupt they became, right along with the DOJ, CIA, NSA and others, and eventually will come to together as one gigantic all encompassing RICO case.
- Freedom Center Fellow Louie Gohmert Spied on for 3 Months by Biden Admin
- New: USAID’s Secret Signal Chats Document Plot Against U.S. Leadership
Germany
as we know it is toast. They’re not going to be able to reverse the
many leftist disasters with which they’ve plagued Germany. Is there a
Hitlerian somewhere in their political forest? I’m betting there is and
if so, the violence will erupt just as it did in the 1920’s.
But after this all plays out in a few years Germany, as well as most of the rest of Western Europe, will not remain structured as it is now. Expect to see Europe fractionalize into their historical foundational social paradigm of small autonomous or semi-autonomous states.
Europe speaks over 200 languages with mutually lived cultural factors, and it seems more likely to me that will be the deciding factors, not to mention the divisions are already there going back centuries.
Leftism is a secular religion, and it’s a superstition, but most profoundly, it’s a mental disorder that fills the mind and heart with lies, irrationally negative raw emotional social paradigms, hate and violence. That’s history, and that history is incontestable.
Let's start with the fact in the late 19th and early 20th centuries progressive thinking was common in both parties, and the Republicans of today are heirs to that progressive mind set, many of whom are descendants of the politicos of yesteryear. Did you ever wonder how Tucker Carlson got into the “news” business? His father was a prominent politician/journalist/diplomat. That’s a pattern in political parties.
Invertebracy is the rule, not the exception for the Republican leadership in each and every state and at the federal level. It even looked like Thune was caving on the shutdown. What kind of moral pool do these people marinate in? As for losing in NYC, New Jersey, and Virginia…. so what? Those states do not represent the rest of the nation. All it takes is a backbone, and the courage to get up on your hind legs and stand for something.
Former Wyoming Senator Alan Simpson, who had his stupidly “progressive” side also, reportedly used to say "We have two political parties in this country, the Stupid Party and the Evil Party. I belong to the Stupid Party". He said that decades ago, and nothing’s changed.
The Republican party base is far more conservative than the leadership, which is filled with RINOs in every state party, ergo, the Republican party has no idea who it is, and in spite of the rhetoric, what it stands for. The result? It stumbles around like a bunch of drunken sailors just begging to be defeated. Never doubt the ability of the Republicans to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory.
Historically, we’re in the end cycle of this historical cycle, and all end cycles are filled with violence and economic downturns before the new cycle begins. We’re heading there, and truth be told, it’s my view only Trump’s election is holding it off in America. Europe is doomed.
As for the "government shutdown" the Democrats think it was worth it in spite of the fact they get nothing, looked like a bunch of unruly brats, and their leadership is on the ropes turning leadership over to the most radical among them like AOC, and I agree with them. It was worth it since now it's clear:
- Longest Shutdown Ever Reveals U.S. Could Stand To Fire A Lot Of Federal Workers
- Irony Alert: Democrats’ Shutdown Opened The Door To Dismantling Obamacare
- Rollins: We’re Going to Make ‘Everyone Reapply’ for SNAP to Ensure Integrity
- Dead double dippers November 14, 2025 by Kevin Finn Peel back the veneer of SNAP and you’ll find a cesspool of abuse, fraud, and waste that’s draining taxpayers, fattening a generation on government-funded gluttony, and enabling dependency and decay. More
See, wasn't that worth it? As I've written in the past, if caught between bipartisanship or gridlock? I'll take gridlock.
This week I have five commentaries of my own and thirteen by others. Have a good weekend and best wishes to all those of honest heart and good will.
Rich
My Commentaries
- Conclusions In The Face Of Reality!
- Points To Ponder
- Adam Schiff and Letitia James: The Real Face of Politics
- National Debt and The Government Shutdown
- The Shutdown is Over, and Schumer's Toast
Commentaries
- The Lies They Tell About Obama By Susan Daniels
- Media Balance Newsletter for November 10 , 2025 By John Droz, Jr.
- UN Convenes Climate Conference in Brothels Daniel Greenfield
- America is Spreading ISIS Around the World America is Spreading ISIS Around the World Daniel Greenfield
- An Orwellian Documentary Hijacks Orwell Daniel Greenfield
- Kamala’s F____ Rebrand Daniel Greenfield
- Food Stamps for Everyone By Robin Itzler
- ‘I Beat Hitler’ By Robin Itzler
- Christians and Jews Are Now Second Class Citizens in the UK By Robin Itzler
- News Anchors Beware: Your Job is in Danger By Greg Mathers
- The Latest Political Scam -- "Affordability" -- Is Really Taking Off By Francis Menton
- Federal District Judges Running The Executive Branch: Even Justice Jackson Draws A Line By Francis Menton
- Democratic party gains, Democratic party losses By Mike Shaw
Constant as the North Star
Friday, November 14, 2025
Conclusions In The Face Of Reality!
By Rich Kozlovich
"Come here quick!" said the boy, "You won't believe what I heard! Satan and the Lord are down at the cemetery dividing up the souls!" The man said, "Beat it kid! Can't you see it's hard for me to walk?" When the boy insisted though, the man hobbled slowly to the cemetery. Standing by the fence they heard, "One for you, one for me. One for you, one for me." The old man whispered, "Boy, you've been tellin' me the truth. Let's see if we can see the Lord!" Shaking with fear, they peered through the fence, yet were still unable to see anything. The old man and the boy gripped the wrought iron bars of the fence tighter and tighter as they tried to get a glimpse of the Lord.
At last they heard, "One for you, one for me. That's all. Now let's go get those nuts by the fence and we'll be done...."They say the old man had the lead for a good half-mile before the kid on the bike passed him.
My friend Maury Siskel, who signed off as Maury and Dog, was a retired scientist in Texas who passed some years ago and used to send me stuff every day. Mostly serious stuff,
but occasionally he’d send a joke, a humorous story, or some cartoons - some
funny and some political. The interesting thing about humorous stories is they
so often reflect how we humans live our lives. Maury and Dog sent this story to me, and I think it’s reflective of why people fall for so much clabber
from the world’s activists.
On the outskirts of a small town, there was a big, old pecan tree just
inside the cemetery fence. One day, two boys filled up a bucketful of nuts and
sat down by the tree, out of sight, and began dividing the nuts. "One for
you, one for me, one for you, one for me," said one boy. Several dropped
and rolled down toward the fence.
Another boy came riding along the road on his bicycle. As he passed, he
thought he heard voices from inside the cemetery. He slowed down to
investigate. Sure enough, he heard, "One for you, one for me, one for you,
one for me ...."He just knew what it was. He jumped back on his bike and
rode off. Just around the bend he met an old man with a cane, hobbling along.
"Come here quick!" said the boy, "You won't believe what I heard! Satan and the Lord are down at the cemetery dividing up the souls!" The man said, "Beat it kid! Can't you see it's hard for me to walk?" When the boy insisted though, the man hobbled slowly to the cemetery. Standing by the fence they heard, "One for you, one for me. One for you, one for me." The old man whispered, "Boy, you've been tellin' me the truth. Let's see if we can see the Lord!" Shaking with fear, they peered through the fence, yet were still unable to see anything. The old man and the boy gripped the wrought iron bars of the fence tighter and tighter as they tried to get a glimpse of the Lord.
At last they heard, "One for you, one for me. That's all. Now let's go get those nuts by the fence and we'll be done...."They say the old man had the lead for a good half-mile before the kid on the bike passed him.
So, what’s the
moral of this story? What message could I possibly take away from this? How
about this! People will fall for anything if they start out with the wrong
conclusion already in their heads!
This tale has a
young boy hearing an ambiguous and incomprehensible conversation and quickly
arriving at a conclusion. If we conclude from this story he came from a
Christian ethic we can understand his conclusion, but it was a conclusion he
didn't bother to investigate. He panics and then runs off in an emotional state
and involves another party, an old man. But he was just a kid you might say.
True, but what really makes this story work is bringing in an old man. Someone
who should have known better, and then having him fall for the same fallacious
conclusion as the young boy, both becoming imbued with an irrational panic!
But what's the big
deal - after all, this was just a story? It’s not real! No, but the theme is
very real! Unfortunately for humanity much of what poses as science in the real
world follow the concept of this story - fallacious conclusions! Conclusions
charged with emotion and filled with logical fallacies, such as:
- Anecdotal fallacy - using a personal experience or an isolated example instead of sound reasoning or compelling evidence.
- Appeal to probability – is a statement that takes something for granted because it would probably be the case (or might be the case).
- Base rate fallacy – making a probability judgment based on conditional probabilities, without taking into account the effect of prior probabilities.
- Unwarranted assumption fallacy - The fallacy of unwarranted assumption is committed when the conclusion of an argument is based on a premise (implicit or explicit) that is false or unwarranted. An assumption is unwarranted when it is false.” Much of what impacts us from scientists involved in the world of activism ends up being conclusions in search of data to promote some cause or other.
Rachel Carson promoted the idea DDT was destroying the world’s bird
population in her book Silent Spring. That
was a lie and she had to know it.
Rachel Carson is touted as a great scientist. She wasn’t a scientist at
all. She did no research. Carson was a writer with a science degree
writing for the Fish and Wildlife
Service writing about the research done by others. As a result we know
she had to have access to the actual bird counts
performed by the Audubon Society. She had to know the bird population of
North
American increased dramatically during the DDT years, including the Bald
Eagle.
And the robin was the most populous bird in North America. In short– she
deliberately lied –
and the world accepted it, as did most in the scientific community.
People who
had to know better!
Now we've
"returned to the future", with the cycle of lies constantly being
repeated by activists. They claim neonicotinoid pesticides cause Colony
Collapse Disorder - that's a lie. As that lie finally unfolds
they shift back to the Carson premise claiming neonicotinoids are killing birds - that's
a lie too. They report "declines in certain groups and species of
birds" but fail to report those declines preceded the introduction of
neonics by decades. They also fail to report “other birds that rely on
wetlands, such as waterfowl, have been increasing over the same period.”
Clearly they should know better, but academics willingly jump on board
with that same pattern of lies they accepted about DDT. It would appear fifty
plus years of fact based reality haven't made a dent in their willingness to
draw preconceived unfounded conclusions.
Let's try and get
this once and for all time, the greenies lie! Lies of commission and lies of omission!
That's why logical fallacies play such a large role in their pronouncements. In
his book, Economic Facts and Fallacies Thomas Sowell said logical fallacies:
"..........are not simply crazy ideas. They are usually both plausible and
logical – but with something missing. Their plausibility gains them political
support. Only after that political support is strong enough to cause fallacious
ideas to become government policies and programs are the missing or ignored
factors likely to lead to “unintended consequences,” a phrase often heard in
the wake of economic or social policy disasters. Another phrase often heard in
the wake of these disasters is, ‘It seemed like a good idea at the time.” That
is why it pays to look deeper into things that look good on the surface at the
moment."
This is true of virtually every issue promoted by the anti–everything
activists, along with their myrmidons in government and science. The
universities are now so addicted to government grant money they can no longer
to be trusted regarding anything they promote or publish.
Dr. Jay Lehr, one of the original founders of the USEPA, says:
"....science is
following the government money, and it’s a problem in all industries. We’ve
totally distorted science, not all of it, but certainly at the university
level. They know they have to say what the government wants to hear in the
grant proposal process in order to get their money.
"U.S. EPA rules the
roost, and if they’re not out to prove or say bad things about chemicals of all
kinds, they won’t likely get the money. This is all driven by the environmental
advocacy groups that control U.S. EPA today. It’s a horrible thing, and what it
has done to science mostly at the academic level is bad. But U.S. EPA’s goal is
to remove every useful chemical from the environment." (Read the entire interview here. RK)
Every year Retraction Watch lists hundreds of papers
that have to be retracted, and many of them due to fraud. In one period in 2012 two hundred and thirty
papers were retracted out of about fifteen hundred. And those were the ones
caught. It's my belief there are far more that should be retracted and aren't
because of the collusion among "scientists" of like persuasion.
Government grant money has made science rich. When science becomes rich it
becomes politics. When politics dominates science the term scientific integrity
becomes an oxymoron.
For decades the left has been screaming about anthropogenic global warming, and yet every prediction they made has failed. Bill Gates was a big promoter of that nonsense, and now he's backing away, and being attacked by the only people making money off all this climate madness, the environmentalists. This climate cult is killing Europe, "a poverty engine that is systematically draining Europe’s industrial base in global competition", as Ursula von der Leyen takes COP30 attendees, "on a journey to fairyland -- EU-style, dreamy, green-tinted, and
disconnected from reality. The Commission President declared, with
evident pride, that EU member states now have a “crystal-clear
commitment” to reduce CO2 emissions by 90 percent by 2040."
As a result of their unending embrace of this insanity European pension funds, that heavily invested in Net Zero projects are facing massive losses. Projects that were predicted to fail by those on my side of this issue twenty years ago.
De Omnibus
Dubitandum – Question Everything. That's my personal motto, and is supposed to
be the personal motto of every scientist in the world. Well, truth is no longer
the Holy Grail of science, it's grant money. So what's to be done? Society must
take oversight of science into its own hands, and that oversight should include
serious penalties for fraud. When fraud is exposed, as was done in the now
infamous Tulane endocrine disruption study, someone should be charged
criminally. In the Tulane study not one person was charged with a crime. And as
far as I can tell - that never happens in science - making science a Sacred
Cow! That needs to be changed!
The term
"citizen scientist" came into existence in 2014 and includes anyone “whose work is
characterized by a sense of responsibility to serve the best interests of the
wider community" or "'a member of the general public who engages in
scientific work, often in collaboration with or under the direction of
professional scientists and scientific institutions'" an amateur
scientist.” That’s who we all have to become, but without allowing ourselves to
be enfolded into the scientific community and used as "helpers", as
is the current defining trend.
If citizen science is to be effective it should
be a movement of heterodoxy, having the courage to stand up to the
conventional wisdom and tell the world, "you're wrong, and I'm going to
tell you why!"
We cannot entrust policy promoted by “scientists”, because we know the
scientific community isn't trustworthy. If we don’t stand up to be counted we
will all end up like the old man and the young boy, panic stricken and running
like chickens with their heads cut off, which is just what the activists want.
A society that's panic stricken, ignorant and compliant to a movement that's
irrational, misanthropic and morally defective.
UN Convenes Climate Conference in Brothels
By Daniel Greenfield @ Sultan Knish Blog
The Brazilian rainforest is so endangered that the latest UN climate conference will take place there. Along the way to saving the planet, a four lane highway had to be cut through tens of thousands of acres of protected and endangered rainforest. Endangered by its protectors.
(But the good news, according to the Brazilian government, is that it’s a “sustainable highway.)
And if that’s not enough, fleets of jets will soon descend on the Brazilian rainforest as an estimated 45,000 attendees will show up to party, socialize, conference, and listen to lectures about how this time the planet is really on the edge of destruction. Please pass the canapes.
COP30, as the conference is known, hasn’t saved the planet in 29 conferences, but maybe the 30th one will do the trick, at least if the delegates can find someplace to stay in the rainforest.
The Brazilian government is announcing that individual rooms are available for planet-savers from other countries for as high as $600. Over the summer, the UN held ‘emergency talks’ not over saving the planet, but over the cost of hotel rooms to save the planet from $600 rooms.
‘Poorer’ African nations warned that they couldn’t afford the cost of the hotel rooms (but they can usually afford gold watches, elaborate palaces and private armies) and would not come unless the costs came down. With the fate of the planet at stake, UN negotiators held several ‘urgent’ meetings to discuss plans for lowering the costs of a hotel room to save the planet.
Unfortunately the only way to lower the costs of the planet-saving hotel rooms would be chopping down even more rainforest to build more hotel rooms. Sometimes you have to destroy the rainforest to save the rainforest, or destroy the rainforest to make it cheaper to host African delegates to discuss saving the rainforest from umm… the people destroying the rainforest.
By then it was too late to build new hotels, but two massive cruise ships were dispatched to the Brazilian rainforest to provide African delegates with cheap cabins to stay in. For the planet.
The MSC Seaview, a 1,000 foot cruise ship with 18 decks, massive pool, four-story glass-walled atrium, disco, theater and full-sized bowling alleys, and the Costa Diadema, that has a 4D theater, a spa across 4 decks and a crew of over 1,000, were dispatched to save the planet by hosting the African diplomats to discuss reducing emissions from things like cruise ships.
It would take the average person 100 years to produce as many ‘emissions’ as these cruise ships do in one hour. But sometimes you just have to pollute to stop polluting the planet.
These cabins on cruise ships going nowhere (an apt metaphor for both the UN and its serial climate conferences, currently up to 30 and counting) will be going for a mere $220.
While the Africans were appeased, the Europeans were still furious over the high price of hotel rooms and refused to book rooms at $600 a night. Not even for the sake of saving the planet.
The Brazilian government rushed to find cheaper motels and Airbnbs to save the conference and thus save the planet, and the Europeans relented, but cut back their delegations so that fewer diplomats will be coming to save the planet. And that might actually save the planet.
But since this is Brazil, for those truly passionate about saving the planet, many of the arrivals will have to make do with ‘love motels’ that in America are usually known as the sorts of places that charge by the hour.
As the New York Times described it, the ‘love motels’ are preparing “rooms that range from the sensual to the raunchy for a different kind of guest: diplomats and climate scientists, civil servants and environmental activists” and “taking out anything too erotic“ which suggests that they have no understanding of what diplomats and ‘civil servants’ actually do at conferences.
Diplomats and ‘climate scientists’ will be given the option of having the “erotic chair — a metal-and-leather contraption resembling a dentist’s chair that was bolted to the floor for safety” taken out. At another hotel, “an oversized framed picture of a person’s rear end” was taken down. The brothels are doing this in the hopes of charging foreigners as much as $650 a room.
There’s something undeniably fitting about using whorehouses to host UN conference attendees. For all the talk about saving the planet, these conferences are shakedown sessions at which nothing is done for the environment (which is invariably worse off after a mass of glorified tourists converges on some exotic out-of-the-way locale) and the only green is the kind that comes in wallets.
“I’m also listening to ‘Bitch Better Have My Money’ by Rihanna nonstop,” Juan Carlos Monterrey Gomez, the vice chair for the implementation of the UN Climate Convention, told reporters at COP29 which was held in the oil-rich and otherwise bleak hinterlands of Baku.
Juan’s female dog in question was the Western world, and it’s tired of bringing the money to pay off third worlders, whether for expensive rooms in mildly redecorated brothels, for ‘climate offsets’ or for their ‘climate catastrophes’. Much of the talk at the COPs comes down to creating large funds with which to bribe Africa, Asia and Latin America into going along with the latest version of the Chicken Little hoax, from ice ages to global warming to climate change, that a bunch of special interests and their hired ‘scientists’ describe as the ‘climate consensus’.
Third world countries are too busy wiping out endangered species to care about the planet. The only reason they show up to these UN shindigs is to demand ‘compensation’ from the West. The compensation comes in the form of funds set up to help them deal with the supposed effects of ‘global warming’ and in the form of ‘climate offsets’ in which Western nations agree to ‘cut’ emissions, but in practice just pay third world countries to buy some of their non-emissions.
If this sounds confusing, imagine that UN Secretary General António Manuel de Oliveira Guterres has promised not to cheat on his wife, but he finds himself staying in a Brazilian ‘love motel’ at a mere $650 a night and decides to use one of the menus to avail himself of a local lady of the evening who is similarly disposed to reducing emissions and saving the planet.
But UN Secretary General António Manuel de Oliveira Guterres has taken a firm vow at COP29 to stop cheating on his wife. So he arranges for an ‘adultery’ offset in which he offers $220 to a local gentleman who is not cheating on his wife to offset his adultery. Guterres, now in possession of an ‘adultery offset certificate’ then commits adultery. And when Mrs. Guterres catches him in the act, shows her the certificate and explains that he’s not committing adultery, he’s actually reducing the total amount of planetary adultery by offsetting his adultery with the purchase of someone else’s unused adultery. And this is really a way to end adultery.
If this sounds like a complete immoral fraud, welcome to the business of saving the planet. You not only know more than all the ‘experts’, but you’re not paying $600 for a room in a brothel or paying $600 million in climate offsets to non-industrialized countries to buy their pollution.
Fortunately, President Trump is keeping American diplomats home and out of Brazil. That means we’ll save money on their hotel rooms/brothels and actually save the planet.
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.
.png)
The Latest Political Scam -- "Affordability" -- Is Really Taking Off
November 12, 2025 Francis Menton @ Manhattan Contrarian
If you want to run for office as a Democrat, there is a new catchword that you need to make as your main promise: “Affordability.”
As anybody paying attention knows, the cry of “affordability” was the central theme that carried the Democrats to victory in all the big races this year, most notably those of Zohran Mamdani for Mayor in New York City, Abigail Spanberger for Governor in Virginia, and Mikie Sherrill for Governor in New Jersey. The same theme also carried two Democrats to victory as Public Service Commissioners in Georgia — the first victories by Democrats in statewide elections for state office in Georgia since 2006.
But here is the question: Is the promise of “affordability” by these politicians something that has any prospect of being delivered through their proposed policies? Or are the proposed policies instead more likely to be useless, or even counterproductive, thus making the promise of “affordability” a scam from the outset?
In the campaigns, the theme of “affordability” got applied across multiple areas of household spending, including such areas as housing, healthcare, and transportation. But one spending category was the biggest focus of the campaigns above all others: energy. In a piece at Vox on November 7, Umair Irfan exults at the success of the Democratic candidates’ appeal to affordability as to energy, under the headline “Clean energy could become a huge political winner.” (available outside paywall at MSN here). Excerpts:
This off-year election was a pressure test of Democrats’ broad message on affordability and who voters hold accountable for the rising cost of electricity. . . . In New Jersey, Gov.-elect Mikie Sherrill, a Democrat, ran on a promise to fight skyrocketing energy bills. She even vowed to declare a state of emergency and freeze utility rates on day one in office. And it worked. . . . In Virginia, Democratic Gov.-elect Abigail Spanberger also made affordable energy a tentpole of her campaign against republican Winsome Earle-Sears. . . . [In Georgia] Democrats Peter Hubbard and Alicia Johnson defeated two incumbent Republicans [for seats on the Public Service Commission]. . . . Frances Sawyer, founder of Pleiades Strategy, an energy analysis firm, [said] “It is just a huge sign that Georgians are fed up with rate hikes. They’re fed up with high bills. . . .”
So what are the policies that are supposed to deliver “affordable” electricity rates? For Sherrill and the Georgia PSC Commission candidates, number one was a freeze (or opposition to increase) of rates. And for both Sherrill and Spanberger, next came big expansion of wind and solar generation. From Sherrill’s website:
By prioritizing the right investments in new clean power resources, we can reduce our carbon footprint, increase energy independence, and help families across the state save money. . . . Prioritize and support low-cost, in-state clean energy investments and innovations to bring down rates. . . . Increase the use of state properties to host solar projects. . . . Assist New Jerseyans in adopting clean energy solutions, like community solar. . . .
Sherrill appears to be clueless that wind and solar generators require vast additional backup, energy storage, and transmission capacity to make an electricity grid work full time, thus making their end costs to consumers a multiple of those for traditional thermal generation. The same blindspot applies for Spanberger. From the Spanberger for Governor website:
Abigail knows that Virginia has the opportunity to be a national leader in clean energy, including by bringing high-paying clean energy jobs to the Commonwealth through investments in offshore wind, rooftop solar, and other renewable energy sources. In Congress, Abigail supported commonsense incentives for increased deployment of clean energy sources such as wind and solar, as well as electric vehicles and grid-scale energy storage. As the next Governor of Virginia, Abigail is committed to making sure Virginia can meet its energy needs while growing its economy and keeping costs low for Virginians.
Back here in New York City, electricity costs are not so much on the Mayor’s agenda, but Mamdani preached “affordability” of everything from housing to groceries to buses. How to deliver that? For housing, how about a rent freeze? For groceries and buses, subsidies from the taxpayers.
Why anyone would ever again build or maintain a rental apartment building in New York under a regime of permanent rent freeze is an issue that apparently has never occurred to Mamdani (or the people who voted for him).
To give you an idea of just how far the fantasy cry of “affordability” has penetrated the ranks of current Democrats, take note that one Jack Schlossberg has just declared that he is running for Congress from New York’s 12th Congressional District. Have you heard of Schlossberg? He is JFK’s grandson, via daughter Caroline. The 12th Congressional District includes much of Midtown Manhattan, plus the Upper East and West Sides (currently represented by the execrable Jerrold Nadler, who is retiring).
According to an October 2024 piece here at Yahoo Finance, New York 12 is the third wealthiest district in the country (ranked by median household income), trailing only two Silicon Valley districts in California — although NY12 is second in “mean” household income, and also has more people earning $200,000+ (156,102 households out of 393,204) than either of those two pikers in California.
And of course Schlossberg’s number one issue according to his announcement: the “cost of living crisis.” OK, it’s slightly different messaging from “affordability,” but only slightly. Schlossberg attended the Collegiate School in Manhattan for high school, where the current tuition is about $66,000 per year (it probably was in the range of $45,000/yr 15 years ago when Schlossberg attended). He makes a point in his announcement that he took the cross-town bus each day, from the Upper East Side to the Upper West Side, to get to school. In other words, he is a true man of the people.
Schlossberg has not yet addressed what policies he intends to implement to address the “cost of living crisis.” But as we know, there are really only two policies in the Democrats’ playbook to deal with such a thing, namely price controls and taxpayer subsidies. I might suggest to him as a start that he impose price controls on exclusive Manhattan private high schools.
You might think that the voters of NY 12 would have to realize that in any effort to control the “cost of living” via government subsidies, the wealthy like them would have to pay far more in taxes than any benefit they might receive in lower prices. Don’t count on it. The more solidly Democratic is any voting group, the more innumerate it proves to be.
Thursday, November 13, 2025
Points To Ponder
By Rich Kozlovich
As I sit in my seat in the back row watching the world go by I see comments and events that are profound, provocative, humorous, and even idiotic. But... that's life... and I think worth pondering. Just a bit anyway.
Talk show host Larry King once observed what amazes him about UFO's is they never seem to land at the White House. They land at Laramie, Wyoming. Thirty miles out, where they're seen by on farmer. Another post asked if CNN existed in 1967 would they have called the arrest of Charles Manson a police kidnapping of a peaceful protestor?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)