Thursday, February 27, 2020

Trump Must Pull the US Out of the Whole UN Climate Change Fiasco

By  February 25th, 2020 @ America Out Loud

Since at least 1995 the United Nations has used climate change as a vehicle to attempt to increase its power over the world’s sovereign nations. In that year, they began to hold massive annual conferences focused on stopping the ‘planet’s temperature’ from rising. The fact that such a temperature was merely a statistical computation that had little or no significance in the real world made no difference – ‘we must stop global warming’ became the clarion call of the yearly Conferences of the Parties (COP) to 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) treaty.

The 1995 Berlin COP was the first and so was designated COP1. COP3 was held in Kyoto where the Kyoto Protocol was created. And so it continued year after year until COP21 met in Paris in 2015 when the Paris Agreement was adopted. Last December COP25 was held in the beautiful city of Madrid and, this November, COP26 will be held in Glasgow, Scotland. As described by independent analyst Dr. David Wojick here, the Climate Intelligence Foundation (CLINTEL) is planning a major debate on climate change to coincide with the Glasgow UN event. We look forward to it.

The UN assumed from the start that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the burning of fossil fuels was increasing the so-called greenhouse effect so much that this would warm the Earth to dangerous levels.
When the data showed that the Earth was no longer warming, they simply changed the topic from global warming to climate change, allowing them to attribute any natural variation in climate – warming, cooling, drought, floods, whatever they wanted – to man’s influence.
The UN then passed non-binding agreements for each nation to reduce their CO2 emissions. Taking a page out of George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, they referred to the gas as ‘carbon,’ at times even ‘carbon pollution,’ to increase the intended fear. While this made sense as a propaganda tool, it made no sense scientifically. Carbon is soot and coal black which is real pollution while CO2 is an odorless, colorless gas, of course, that supports all life on our planet.

As the years went by, the UN ratcheted up the fear level to where we hear daily of the absurd “existential threat of climate change,” warning that if we do not eliminate the use of natural gas, coal and oil, life as we know it will end within a decade or two.

There is a huge impetus by most countries’ bureaucrats to continue holding these useless conferences. More than 190 nations send delegations which in total, wait for it, number more than 20,000 folks living in luxury hotels and dining at fine restaurants in attractive locations at tax-payer expense, ironically producing vast amounts of CO2 in the process. Holding the meetings by teleconference would eliminate most these emissions, of course, but who would not enjoy a two-week paid vacation at in exotic locals such as Marrakech, Morocco (COP7), Bali, Indonesia (COP13) or Cancun, Mexico (COP16). COP24, held in Katowice, Poland, got a lot of attention as it is the coal production center for Poland which depends on coal for both energy and jobs. Here were tens of thousands of foreigners calling for the end of this important resource for Poland.

COP21 in Paris is the most famous as it was here that President Obama pledged to give $3 Billion of US taxpayer money to the $100 billion Green Climate Fund (GCF). The GCF is a nest egg from the developed nations coffers to the less developed nations who claim that the ‘carbon’ emitted by the wealthy nations was blowing over them, deserving recompense. Obama immediately proceeded to write a check for the first $500 million of it, followed by another $500 million shortly before he left office. In 2017 President Trump announced the intention for the US to leave the Paris Agreement after the required waiting period was over, which occurred in 2019. Given a one-year’s notice for withdrawal, the US will be out of the treaty on November 4, 2020, the day after the US presidential election.

The Paris conference itself admitted that the reduction in ‘carbon’ (carbon dioxide) emissions called for would not have significant impact on altering the ‘planet’s temperature’ but felt that eliminating the use of fossil fuels was warranted anyway. They certainly got support from all candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination at their February 18 debate in Las Vegas. They all supported the end of fossil fuels and the reinstating of the US into the Paris Agreement.

Every year the leaders of the COP meetings have called all nations to make mandatory “carbon pricing” high enough to make fossil fuels artificially too expensive so as to promote wind and solar power despite their huge costs and unreliability. A backlash began around the world after COP24. Riots in France after President Macron installed a tax on ‘carbon emissions’ forced him to backed down.

In Germany, electrical cost overruns from their solar panels and wind turbines are threatening to drive long-time chancellor Angela Merkel out of office. The memory of $4.00 gasoline will surely stop any US President from recommending a heavy tax on our major fuel source.
Twenty-five years of COP events have indeed been, to quote Shakespeare, “sound and fury signifying nothing.”
Sadly, there is no reason to believe these bureaucrats will ever want to give up their luxury vacations at our expense. President Trump was right to get us out of the Paris Agreement. In his second term, he needs to dump the whole UNFCCC process entirely.

Note: the authors wish to thank Jim Hollingsworth whose outstanding book Climate Change: A Convenient Truth dedicates a chapter to the COP meetings which inspired this article. We highly recommend Dr. Hollingsworth’s book for insight on every facet of the climate change delusion.

About the Author:

Dr. Jay Lehr is Senior Policy Analyst with the International Climate Science Coalition and former Science Director of The Heartland Institute. He is an internationally renowned scientist, author and speaker who has testified before Congress on dozens of occasions on environmental issues and consulted with nearly every agency of the national government, as well as many foreign countries. After graduating from Princeton University at the age of 20 with a degree in Geological Engineering, he went on to receive the nation’s first Ph.D. in Groundwater Hydrology from the University of Arizona. He later became executive director of the National Association of Groundwater Scientists and Engineers. Tom Harris is Executive Director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition, and a policy advisor to The Heartland Institute. He has 40 years experience as a mechanical engineer/project manager, science and technology communications

Who Is Richard “Ric” Grenell?…The Destroyer

By  February 26th, 2020

If I was a betting man, I’d say Trump is going to have a gay ol’ time cleaning out his closet. That’s why he appointed Ric Grenell his “acting” Director of National Intelligence. Grenell is still Trump’s Ambassador to Germany and apparently will remain so. He’s a Harvard graduate, not always a good thing, but it checks off a needed box. He spent some years at the UN defending the US from the collectivist machinations of those mediocre cretins, and has pushed hard to make NATO countries, especially Germany, pay their fair share for their own defense. 
In light of his experience over the past three years, President Trump has come to realize that the Intelligence community’s role is not to serve the American people, but to protect and serve the personal interests of what we have come to know as the “Deep State.”
Look at it like a large family, the Cosa Nostra for example, intent on its own self preservation to the detriment of any outsiders, and Trump is most definitely an outsider. 

To his advantage, Mr. Grenell is a constitutionalist, Trump supporter who has cultivated a team of like thinking patriots with the sole purpose, at Trump’s direction, to purge the bloated non functional bureaucracies of the governments national security and foreign policy establishments. Gone will be the “Never Trump” leakers and policy saboteurs to be replaced hopefully, with actual true conservative patriots. William Barr has already started on the DoJ.........To Read More...

 

The Deep State Lies Continue – Overstate Assessment of 2020 Russian Interference

By  February 25th, 2020

Much to the chagrin of President Trump and his national security advisor, the U.S. intelligence community’s top election security official overstated the intelligence community’s formal assessment of possible Russian interference in the upcoming 2020 election. At this time, it is not known of her intent, but the officials omitted an important nuance during the secret briefing provided to selected Congressional lawmakers earlier this month.  
The official, Ms. Shelby Pierson, who worked out of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, where she was a senior official, told the lawmakers on the House Intelligence Committee, including Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA), that Russia is interfering in the 2020 election with the goal of helping President Donald Trump get re-elected. Ms. Pierson further elaborated that the U.S. intelligence community has assessed that indications were that Russia is currently interfering in the 2020 election and has separately assessed that Russia views President Trump as a leader they can work with. 
According to, three national security officials, the information that was presented by Ms. Pierson to the Congressional member is totally false, totally out of context and depending on her intent, is an outright lie.
They indicated that in fact, the U.S. does not have any intelligence evidence indicating at this time that Russia’s interference this cycle is aimed at the 2020 Election, nor is there any information what-so-ever that Russia’s intent and plan is specifically targeted at re-electing President Trump.........To Read More...
 

There's No Rule Democrats Won't Change for Their Own Convenience


For example, those who are old enough will remember the case of Robert Torricelli, the Democrat senator from New Jersey who withdrew from his Senate race because questions about his campaign finance practices were causing him to lose popularity and threaten that his Republican opponent might actually defeat him. However, his withdrawal left the Democrats without a candidate in that race, which in turn endangered their bare 1 seat majority in the Senate. To further complicate matters for the Democrats, the legal deadline to put forward a new candidate had passed.

Never fear. The Democrats went to the friendly New Jersey Supreme Court and got a decision that allowed them to call the venerable Frank Lautenberg out of retirement and run in Torricelli’s stead. And, of course, the seat was saved.

For the second example we move to the Senate. Many readers will also remember the contretemps over George W. Bush’s nomination of Miquel Estrada to the Washington DC district court in 2001. By all accounts, Estrada was supremely qualified to sit on that bench, but he spelled trouble for the Democrats. For one, he was conservative; for two, he was Latino; and for three, he may have been a White House choice for a future Supreme Court nomination.

Thus, at the behest of liberal activists, Democrats, newly in the minority in 2002, would not let Estrada’s nomination come to a vote in the full Senate (a vote they would have lost.) For the first time in history a nominee to a sub-Supreme Court position had been effectively filibustered. Estrada was filibustered seven times until he finally gave up and went into private practice.

The Democrats had again changed the rules.......To Read More....

Coronavirus, Globalism and Trump’s Prophetic Genius on China

By  February 19th, 2020

Candidate Donald Trump campaigned in large part against ‘unfair trade deals’ that were hurting the American worker, such as NAFTA and the Chinese entrance into the WTO and their subsequent takeover of American manufacturing. He won. So what says ‘bring manufacturing, food and medicine production back to America’ better than a massive potential pandemic originating in the country which currently performs so many of those tasks – a communist country no less? The coronavirus, which began in China, as so many other virus outbreaks like SARS and bird flu, just demonstrates once again that Trump is a visionary thinker and strategist who understands reality like no politician can. 

Politicians deal in segments of time – election cycles. Whether 2, 4 or 6 years, their primary focus, if they’re self-serving (and most are), is primarily the next election and how they can retain their office. International business people on the other hand, of which Trump is one, need a far broader scope, to include everything from politics, religion and its influence over a nation’s culture and business, even weather patterns, and everything in between which might influence the business cycle. One of these would be the implications of an epidemic like coronavirus. 

Trump’s complaints about the outsourcing of manufacturing is becoming dangerously clear, or should be, to every single person in America, from someone who has an I-Phone or Adidas sneakers, to anyone who takes medicine. After all, did you know that China manufactures 80% of all medicine in America? Yes, 80%! You probably didn’t, nor do most. I certainly didn’t..............To Read More....



2nd Circuit Hits a Homer on Sanctuary Cities

Editorial of The New York Sun | February 26, 2020



What a constitutional home run the Second United States Circuit Court of Appeals just clobbered against, among others, the “sanctuary city” of New York. It cleared the way for Attorney General Barr to require recipients of certain federal funds to cooperate with federal authorities. It would take the Yankees announcer John Sterling to do the opinion justice. Let us just say, “It is high. It is far. It is — gone.”

And no wonder. The panel of judges in the case — Reena Raggi, who wrote the opinion, along with Jose Cabranes and Ralph Winter — would be like a lineup of sluggers comprising, say, Mickey Mantle, George Herman “Babe” Ruth, and Barry Bonds. The judges were unanimous and, with the confidence that only big league hitters can muster, they swept aside contrary opinions of several other federal circuits.

The case is known as New York et al v. United States Department of Justice. It involves New York City and seven states. The judges characterize the main legal question as “whether the federal government may deny grants of money to State and local governments that would be eligible for such awards but for their refusal to comply with three immigration‐related conditions imposed by the Attorney General of the United States.”.........To Read More.....

When it comes to knowledge of American history, we are a nation at risk



Sorry, Democrats: Party's Over

By E.M. Cadwaladr

There is something deeply satisfying about watching the ironically named Democratic Party consume itself at every turn. I have tried to summon up some human pity for the carnage -- but frankly I just can’t.

If Joe Biden weren’t a corrupt, crude, shallow, self-righteous fondler of people’s children I could probably muster some sympathy for him. There he stands behind the bright blue podium, almost dizzy under the lights, recounting past accomplishments no one ever heard of. He is a creature beyond his time -- a sad figure who has made the subtle crossover from predictable dishonesty into agonized dementia. But Joe is a corrupt, crude, shallow, self-righteous fondler of people’s children. His dementia only makes his ugly nature more apparent. I think they park him next to Bernie mainly to ensure he doesn’t shamble over and sniff Amy Klobuchar’s hair. Joe has fallen in the polls and he can’t get up.

The days of formidable Democratic villains like Slick Willie have ebbed away..........Schadenfreude is, perhaps, the most delicious of all sins. .........To Read More....

Why They Hate Trump

By Steve FeinsteinFebruary 23, 2020

Nearly 50% of the American political world hate President Trump. Truly hate him. This is no mild disregard like it was for President Bush 43 “Dubbya,” he of the cowboy foreign policy. This is not the “He’s a total lightweight but he’s pretty harmless so we can sandbag him,” disrespect they had for George HW Bush. This is even deeper than the outright derision and scorn in which they held for Ronald Reagan.

No, this goes farther. This is hatred on a deep, visceral level. A we’d-revert-to-violence-if-we-could-get-away-with-it hatred. They really, really hate him -- personally, politically, any way you can slice it.

Here’s why:.........To Read More...

Can You Feel the Bern?

Berning Down the Democrat Party  Brian C. Joondeph
A new wildfire has ignited in the US, worse than the recent out-of-control wildfires in Australia. This fire, rather than being fueled by dead trees and mismanaged forests, is instead fueled by Trump hatred and near dead politicians wishing to turn America into a communist dictatorship. With the media, entertainment industry, and academia fanning the flames, the fire is raging across America, threatening to “Bern” down the Democrat party. A few unexpected firefighters, like Chris Matthews and James Carville, are warning about the all-consuming fire, but their words are squirt guns against a raging inferno.  More

Bernie Sanders: Last Step in America's Slide to Socialism? Fletch Daniels
There can no longer be any doubt that Bolshevik Bernie Sanders is a runaway freight train with the Democrat establishment tied to the tracks in front of him near a stop called Super Tuesday. Sanders absolutely steamrolled the field in Nevada, creating the sadly funny optic of Joe Biden celebrating like it was 1999, apparently thrilled that Sanders won only around 2.5 times as many votes as he did. If Sanders can keep his Havana daydreaming under control, he will sail to the convention with the lion's share of the delegates provided by actual voters. Considering the voting coalition he pulled together in Nevada and the laws of political momentum, it is a good bet he may secure a majority of delegates and not just a plurality.............More

Even as Democrats infantilize black voters, Trump reaches out to them

February 27, 2020 By Andrea Widburg

From 1865 to 1932, African Americans were Republicans. Franklin Roosevelt, though, started the Democrats’ Devil’s bargain with blacks: government benefits for votes. This was a disaster for blacks, making them unhealthily dependent on the government. Trump, however, is moving aggressively to convince blacks that they’ve got nothing to lose by giving Republicans a try.

Despite Democrat efforts to claim Abraham Lincoln for their own, the reality is that abolitionism created the Republican Party and Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican president. Once blacks were enfranchised, and for decades afterward, they voted a straight Republican ticket. For them, Democrats were the party of Jim Crow, segregation within the federal workforce, and the KKK.

The Depression changed this. Because they were already economically fragile, it hit blacks especially hard. Although Roosevelt was comfortable discriminating against blacks, his strong voting base in the Jim Crow south meant he sent a lot of New Deal programs that way. Inevitably, blacks benefitted from these programs, so they switched their allegiance to the Democrat Party.

This switch reached its apex with Johnson’s Great Society legislation. Whether or not Johnson ever said, “We’ll have those n*****s voting Democratic for 200 years,” it’s certain that Johnson understood that he could anchor blacks to the Democrat Party through perpetual government largesse:........To Read More....

Wednesday, February 26, 2020

Former Czech President warns of an assault on Capitalism — Climate Hustle 2 — April 21

By | February 25th, 2020|General Information|13 Comments




Former Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus explains that he sees strong parallels with the radical climate change agenda of today and the communist and socialist movements of previous decades. Learn more about his fight for truth in “Climate Hustle 2: Rise of the Climate Monarchy”, in theaters for one night only, April 21.

For tickets and theater locations, visit climatehustle2.com.

The Left vs Logic

January 22, 2019 By Deana Chadwell

More and more any foray into the news feels like a trip to Bedlam – rational thought is nowhere to be found; the inmates are screeching inanities, drooling at the mouth, and throwing excrement at anyone who dares to speak truth, at anyone who even dares to say the word “truth.” It’s not fair, however, to point out your opponents’ faults without some backup. So allow me. Ravi Zacharias, world-famous Christian apologist and philosopher, addresses the issue of truth by breaking it down into three requirements:
  • Logical consistency
  • Empirical adequacy
  • Experiential relevance
Those are a good place to start, but they need some elaboration.  So, what is logical consistency? 

Loosely speaking, it means that the argument makes sense -- like so many left-wing ideas don’t. Note the mess the rabid feminists are in having become bedfellows with the transgender crowd; now women have to compete with men pretending to be women. They have to compete in wrestling matches, soccer games, track meets. Women are not only being robbed of the chance to win, but are also likely to get hurt. But the feminazis are not walking away from their bad bargain, and so far they don’t seem to notice the even worse covenant they’ve made sidling up to Muslim activists, who will eventually see to it that as many American women as possible will be raped, mutilated, and beaten...............Read more

Stephen Moore: Natural Gas Crushing Wind, Solar Power and the Left Isn't Happy

Stephen Moore February 25, 2020 @ CNS.com

The U.S. Energy Information Administration just announced some spectacular news that should be banner headlines across the country: The price of natural gas has fallen to its lowest February level in 20 years. The data shows that natural gas prices fell to $1.77 per million British thermal units. In inflation-adjusted terms, the price of gas has plunged by some 80% since its high of $13.60 12 years ago. The price is down 90% since 2005, when prices hit nearly $20. (Quick: Can you think of anything else that now costs one-tenth of what it did 15 years ago?)

The Energy Information Administration also reports that U.S. natural gas production has hit an all-time high this year.

The shale oil and gas revolution keeps rolling on — but no one is talking about it. This boom in production has affected the economy of every state, from Ohio and Pennsylvania to Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado and the Dakotas. By the way, oil prices have also fallen considerably, bringing gas prices at the pump to nearly $2 a gallon in some states. Prices are so low now that the drillers aren't making any money and are starting to shut down wells. They are victims of their own success.

Today's bargain-basement prices are partly due to moderate temperatures on the East Coast this winter, but this has been a long-term trend of cheaper and cheaper energy. America is now the Saudi Arabia of natural gas, and we are exporting more throughout the world than at any previous time in our history. It's hard to believe that a decade ago, we were importing natural gas. Thanks to fracking and horizontal drilling technologies that keep getting more and more efficient, we now have hundreds of years of supply of this fuel.

This spectacular tumble in natural gas prices has been a multibillion-dollar godsend to consumers, homeowners, manufacturers and other businesses. Just last week, a major Texas utility announced it would be sending homeowners cash-back checks because electricity and home heating costs are falling so rapidly. Expect more to do the same in the coming months.

Meanwhile, the United States continues to reduce its carbon emissions into the atmosphere at a faster pace than virtually any other country in the world. This is because natural gas is not just cheap. It is one of the cleanest ways to produce scalable and dependable electric power for a nation of 329 million people. We don't need brownouts in America as we saw in California, and natural gas is an excellent way to make sure the lights don't go out.

It would be hard to find anything NOT to like about this great American success story. We've achieved energy independence, reliable and inexhaustible supply, low prices, reduced power of the Middle East, Russia and other OPEC nations, and cleaner air than at any other time in at least a century.

Yet liberal environmentalists are grousing about this good news. A recent Bloomberg news story exclaims in its headline: "Cheap Gas Imperils Climate Fight by Undercutting Wind and Solar."

"Gas is such a bargain that it's being viewed less as a bridge fossil fuel, driving the world away from dirtier coal toward a clean-energy future," the story tells us, "and more as a hurdle that could slow the trip down. Some forecasters are predicting prices will stay low for years, making it tough for states, cities and utilities to achieve their goals of being zero-carbon in power production by 2050 or earlier." Ravina Advani, head of renewable energy at BNP Paribas, complained: "The fact that there's an abundance of it makes the move to complete decarbonization much harder.... [Gas is] reliable, and it's cheap."

And that is bad news, why, exactly? It's like saying a cure for the coronavirus is bad for hospitals and doctors.

Maybe it is high time we admit we have found, for now, the great energy source of the next few decades and celebrate that America is endowed with a vital resource that is abundant and affordable — just like our best-in-the-world farmland. The left talks about eradicating "poverty," but "energy poverty" is a primary source of deprivation around the world. Now, there is an obvious solution: Natural gas could easily be the primary source of power production for the world as a whole, slashing costs for the poor everywhere on the planet, from sub-Saharan Africa to Bangladesh. Instead, politicians and government bureaucrats around the world are trying to force-feed the world expensive, unreliable and unscalable wind and solar power. The African Development Bank, for example, is only financing "green energy" projects, not coal or natural gas. It is substituting a cheap form of clean energy for a costly "green" alternative. Why?

In the U.S., this foolishness is happening every day as the federal government, in addition to state governments, is massively subsidizing wind and solar power — even though they are, in most places, only niche sources of fuel. With more than $100 billion spent already, less than 10 percent of our energy comes from the wind and the sun, with most of the other 90 percent coming from good old-fashioned fossil fuels. For all the talk about the falling costs of solar and wind power — and yes, they are falling — without billions of dollars of cash subsidies and tax breaks for the "renewable" energy sector, along with mandates requiring utilities to buy the power at any cost, wind and solar energy would be hopelessly expensive in most areas of the country. As a result, they would quickly surrender market share to natural gas and clean coal. (Don't look now, but coal prices are falling, too.)

It's time to get smart about energy and climate change and throw asunder taxpayer subsidies doled out to all forms of energy production. Let the market, not politicians and environmental groups, choose the safest, cheapest and most reliable energy source. Everyone is making a big bet on battery-operated cars and trucks. But who's to say that trucks and buses fueled by natural gas won't be the wave of the future? No one knows what makes the most sense or where the future will lead us. Nuclear power has great promise. But for now, the markets are shouting out for natural gas on a grander scale.

Fifteen years ago, no one would have thought we would have a superabundance of this wonder-fuel today. But we do. No one is more surprised than politicians. Why do we let them keep betting the farm on the wrong horse?

Stephen Moore is a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation and an economic consultant with FreedomWorks. He is the co-author of Trumponomics: Inside the America First Plan to Revive the American Economy.

A Two-Year Terror Campaign Against One Small GOP Office

Daniel Greenfield 2 Comments Tuesday, February 25, 2020 @ Sultan Knish Blog
Early Saturday morning, a bearded perpetrator in a hooded jacket, wearing gloves, smashed the glass door and windows of the Humboldt Republican headquarters with rocks. He poured an unknown liquid into the storefront office before escaping on a bike into the streets of Eureka in the pre-dawn hours.

There was one obvious clue. The bike had a giant BERNIE sticker on it.

When police caught up to the alleged perpetrator, Michael Valls attempted to escape on his bike, then he tried throwing the bike at the cops, and, when he was finally taken into custody, gave authorities a false name. But police caught him with the Trump flag that he had stolen from the vandalized office.

The Bernie Sanders supporter was charged with burglary, felony vandalism, attempted arson, resisting arrest, and providing a false name. The chemical liquid he had poured inside the office turned out to be flammable. Bail was set at only $25,000, and Valls was out of prison by Sunday. It is California after all.

And in an atmosphere of rising radical violence, maybe this story wouldn’t be so extraordinary.

But this wasn’t the first time that this happened to the Humboldt GOP HQ. It was the sixth time.

Not in a decade, but in only two years.

The small hole in the wall office on 5th Street in Eureka, unprepossessing tan walls, blue framed windows and single door, could just as easily be the bar next door or the burger place across the street. Aside from its narrow “Republican Headquarters” sign, it could just as easily be mistaken for a small business.

The 300 block of 5th Street with a Starbucks and Wells Fargo, adjacent to two motels and an AV shop, seems like an unlikely place for a pitched battle between radical leftism and the national norms. But that’s exactly what the extended campaign against the modest storefront with its “Republicans Register Here” notice and Trump signage on a street in this small 27,000 population city represents.

The small office with its American flag fan banners, a few tables and a bookcase is on the front line of a new war between radical leftist extremists and remaining conservatives in a formerly conservative area.

The windows of the office had been previously smashed in April of last year, before the release of the Mueller report. Like this latest attack, that assault had happened late at night over the weekend. After smashing through the windows with rocks, the “Make America Great Again” sticker was replaced with a “Keep America Green” sticker from the Sierra Club. Nothing says environmentalism like vandalism.

Eureka lefties justified the attack because the office has large cardboard cutouts of Reagan and Trump.

In March 2019, a window had been smashed. In August of 2018, the office was vandalized again, leaving behind signs reading, “Fake President Impeach + Indite”, “45 = Lies House of Lies”, and “Guantanamo and Torture x 20 Years 45 and all supporters." A “Make America Great Again” sign had been crossed out and the elephant on the “Republican Headquarters” sign had been defaced.

A month earlier, President Trump had nominated Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

The windows of the Humboldt Republican Headquarters have been broken three times in two years. They’ve been covered with plywood so often that it’s become a familiar sight. And while this latest incident was the most severe, previous episodes of vandalism had marred the windows, defaced signs, and tried to cause as much damage as possible with whatever the leftist vandals had at hand.

This latest attack is expected to cost thousands of dollars in repairs. Previous acts of leftist vandalism had cost in the $700 range.

And despite the leftist signs, the Eureka Police Department dismissed it as “random vandalism”.

"The local police say, ‘Oh, it’s random vandalism,’ except it’s happened five times to us and nobody else,” Humboldt County GOP Chairman John Schutt said.

"This is the 5th time in two years and on prior occasions I have been told these are random acts of vandalism. Interesting the Democrat Office has not had any 'random acts of vandalism'", the Humboldt GOP noted last year.

There’s nothing random about 6 attacks on a Republican office either carried out by identifiable lefties, leaving behind leftist signage, or specifically defacing Republican signage. That’s as deliberate as it gets.

But Humboldt County, once a Republican area, had swung leftward. And the HQ has become a symbol of everything that the new radical population hates. During the Kavanaugh debate, lefty protesters had gathered outside the small office with signs like, “Party of the Predators” and “Stop Rapeublicans”.

The lefty protesters targeted the office even though it had nothing to do with Kavanaugh and had already been vandalized two months earlier.

When local lefties can’t get to D.C. marches, they target the Humboldt County HQ. That’s where opponents of the Bill of Rights appear toting signs like "Massacre Mitch" and "Republicans: Shame on you!"

Reagan was the last Republican to win Humboldt County which has passed its own sanctuary measure. And Eureka, with its large homeless population and regular anti-Trump protests, leans lefty.

The Humboldt County Republican headquarters has faced a uniquely sustained assault on its existence. It is not the only Republican office to be targeted for vandalism and harassment, but the persistence of the attacks and the general disregard of the authorities, is unique and revelatory. This is the first time an arrest has been made despite the presence of surveillance equipment and attackers who leave handwriting samples. And the one man arrested for this latest incident is already back on the street.

“This is about your friends and neighbors and coworkers and people you live with here. It’s just sad that we can’t exercise our First Amendment rights in peace,” Schutt noted back in 2018. “There is not one member of my party here that would go down and do this down the street at the Democrat office.”

The Humboldt County Democrats enjoy an all-glass office on 4th Street. If there were a random violence problem, somebody would have taken a rock to it by now. That’s because there’s nothing random here.

The sustained assault on the Humboldt County Republican headquarters is not the work of one man, but of a culture of intolerance and hatred. It can be summed up by the Bernie sticker on the bike that the vandal threw at law enforcement as he was trying to make his getaway from the scene of the crime.

In 2017, James Hodgkinson, another Bernie Sanders supporter, came to a Republican charity baseball game with a list of the names of Freedom Caucus members and opened fire. The FBI coverup of that attack, which falsely claimed that it was a spontaneous act with no motive, has yet to be investigated.

Like the “random vandalism” in Eureka, the assassination of Republicans was also treated as random.

Civil wars begin in small ways. They’re born out of intolerance. A refusal to coexist. A failure to enforce the law. To punish violence against people different than the ones who hold political power.

In recent weeks, Project Veritas Action has released videos of Sanders staffers threatening violence before and after a possible victory. The media has maintained a tight ban on covering these videos.

In Jacksonville, Florida, earlier this month, Gregory Timm drove a truck into a Republican voter registration tent to take a stand against President Trump. It is no coincidence that the attacks on the Humboldt County Republican headquarters are linked to Trump’s victory. Or that they’ve been excused by some local lefties because the GOP HQ dared to have Trump material on the premises.

There is nothing random or isolated about the reality that the Democrats have become radicalized.

Radicalism doesn’t just mean the embrace of increasingly extreme policies from denying basic biology to taking away everyone’s health insurance to demanding open borders and suppressing free speech.

There is no meaningful separation between extreme policies and extreme tactics. Anyone willing to take away your rights is also willing to put a rock through your window. That’s what we’re seeing in Eureka.

And across America.

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.

Tuesday, February 25, 2020

Cartoon of the Day


National Debt Isn’t $23 Trillion, It’s $122 Trillion, Group Says

By Mark Tapscott February 24, 2020

America’s current national debt stands at roughly $23.3 trillion, according to the U.S. Treasury Department’s “Debt to the Penny” website, which is so precise that visitors can pick a specific date in the recent past—say Jan. 1, 2000—and get the exact amount on that day: $5,776,091,314,225.33.

While based on those figures, the national debt has more than quadrupled in that time frame, it’s actually much worse than that, according to calculations by Bill Bergman.
“This calculation highlights some of the pitfalls and perils of false precision,” Bergman, the director of research for the Chicago-based nonprofit advocacy group Truth in Accounting (TIA), told The Epoch Times.

“The U.S. government does not include the unfunded obligations for Social Security and Medicare under current law. These massive negative positions are so high that Truth in Accounting believes the ‘true’ national debt runs north of $100 trillion.”

$122,309,089,510,200, to be exact.

Because future obligations aren’t included in current-year accounting, a government budget can technically be “balanced” when, in truth, it’s anything but.............To Read More....

Declassified FBI memos further undercut Mueller-team claims

Bureau charged George Papadopoulos hindered Russia probe

By WND Staff February 24, 2020

Newly declassified FBI memos further undermine the legitimacy of special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation of the now-debunked claim of Trump-Russia collusion in the 2016 election.

Investigative reporter John Solomon said Monday the memos released under federal Freedom of Information laws directly conflict with court filings in which Mueller's team asked a federal judge to send former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos to prison.

The key Mueller prosecutor in the Papadopoulos case was Aaron Zelinsky, who recently resigned from the Roger Stone case over a dispute with Attorney General William Barr over the length of prison time Stone deserved.

Zelinsky signed a sentencing memo in August 2018 seeking prison time for Papadopoulos. The prosecutors alleged Papadopoulos hindered their ability to question or arrest the European professor Joseph Mifsud while he was in the United States in February 2017.........To Read More....

My Take - So what we have here is the FBI deliberately misrepresenting the facts, AKA lying, to the courts to send a Trump supporter to prison for things he didn't do. And who's in jail? 



Quote of the Day

No candidate, no matter how lefty, is ever truly pure enough for the party of the perpetually woke. - Daniel Greenfield

The Cutting Room Files, Part 8: American Politics


By Peter Zeihan on February 24, 2020 @ Zeihan on Geopolitics

This piece is part of the Cutting Room Files, portions of the upcoming Disunited Nations text that were cut for length. Disunited Nations is available for pre-Order now on IndieBoundApple BooksHudson BooksellersBarnes & NobleAmazonGoogle Play, or Kobo

I try to avoid US domestic politics in most of my work. In part because domestic politics are a loud and busy space, and it is easy to have your work get lost in the noise and rage. In part because – especially at the primary level – it is mostly fluff that doesn’t move the national needle. In part because Americans are wildly fickle in their views of political leaders and we’re just too early in the process for it to normally be worth my time. In part because I attempt to keep my personal views out of my work as a matter of course, and, as an American and a political independent, the sound and fury seems committed to drowning me.

But mostly it is because US foreign policy since World War II has been nearly lock-step bipartisan. The Americans crafted a global Order to fight the Soviets, and preventing global thermonuclear war tends to encourage unity.

This election cycle is different.

For one, US foreign policy is – for the first time in the life of everyone aged 75 or under – in flux. The Soviet Union collapsed in the early 1990s and America’s long-lived, Order-driven, bipartisan foreign policy overnight became a lot less relevant. America’s subsequent presidents never updated the policy for the post-Cold War age and global structures fell into disrepair. Now, a generation on, it is the American policy of forcing global stability which is collapsing, and it is taking the entire global Order with it. For the first time in decades, an American debate over foreign policy isn’t simply relevant and necessary, it is inevitable. Simply put, for the first time in most of our lives, foreign policy is political.

For two, the United States is utterly incapable at the institutional or national level of having that debate. For the moment, America’s two-party system is off-line. Every generation or two the factions that make up America’s parties shuffle around. Some get stronger. Some get weaker. Some get exiled into the wilderness where they become swing voters. Some factions of swing voters come in from the wilderness and join a party. In previous periods of American political reincarnation the populists of Trumpian extraction used to be Democrats, while African Americans used to be Republicans.

From one point of view this is normal and even healthy. Technology and social mores and economic patterns and security trends all shift with time, and American politics evolve with them – in ways both substantial and unpredictable.

But from another point of view this transition is anything but normal or healthy. While this rejiggering is in progress, the Americans effectively lack functional parties which means the capacity of the US to internally discuss issues of import more or less collapses. That’s triply true for topics – like foreign policy – for which the average American citizen lacks day-to-day exposure. During periods such as this, what passes as foreign policy comes down to the personal charisma, connections and diplomatic skill of the president. Last time around that was one of the American greats: FDR. This time around it has been a pair of men who are somewhat less…great: Barack Obama and Donald Trump.
(Editor's Note: Peter is brilliant, scholarly and has an extensive knowledge of history, but FDR was not one of America's greats. He was one of the worst Presidents this country ever suffered through. He didn't save America from the Great Depression, his policies drove America deep into it, and worse.  
His negotiations with Stalin gave Eastern Europe to Stalin and set the world up for a long, expensive and destructive cold war, which cost the lives of untold numbers and heaped abuses on much of humanity, abuses that were horrendous.  
Furthermore, looking over what went on in his administration, an administration filled with communists, socialists, fellow travelers and Soviet agents, one of them being Harry Dexter White, who lived in the White House for two years, it can be reasonably claimed he had to know what was going on, ergo, he was a traitor.  
Obama was a good protege of FDR since his actions can hardly be characterized as anything less than traitorous.  
But as for Donald Trump: He may actually become one of the greatest Presidents this nation ever produced. I love his work, but it disturbs me when liberals just won't accept the actual and terrible history of FDR. RK)
 
So with that disclosure and backdrop, let’s dive in:
 
Over this past weekend the Americans held their third pre-contest for who will get the right to run on the Democratic ticket in November’s presidential elections versus Donald Trump. 
 
Now I have (somewhat strong) opinions about all six of the remaining major candidates, but let me sum the relevant bits in as nonpartisan language as I can manage. (Remember, I’m an independent. I’m an equal opportunity bubble-popper.)
  • Former Vice President Joe Biden continues to underperform. The leader in national polls should not be doing so badly. His rankings so far in the primaries are fifth, fourth and a very distant second. Biden’s debate performances have been nothing short of awful and IMO he not going to make it, particularly in an environment where the party radicals are the ones who show up to primaries and caucuses.
  • Mayor Pete Buttigieg is an interesting character who is likely to do well…in 2032 and beyond. He’s just too young and too inexperienced and isn’t nearly radical enough to attract the sorts of people who actually show up to these primary votes.
  • Senator Amy Klobuchar is another moderate attempting to come from behind, but ultimately she is competing with Biden and Buttigieg for the same limited pool of votes.
  • Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are utterly, hideously, hilariously unelectable in a general election. Sanders isn’t even a Democrat. He only fills out the paperwork to say-so when he’s running for president. It isn’t simply that the pair espouse policies that most Democrats (to say nothing of independents or Republicans) are uncomfortable with. Warren made the mistake of issuing dozens of policy papers in which her apparent non-command of math was made eminently obvious. Sanders never pretended that his policies are bound by the laws of math. (This is the guy who turned what he joked was his honeymoon to the Soviet Union during the Cold War into an anti-US propaganda piece.) But since their politics are the sort that appeal to the sorts of people who show up for primaries, both continue to do well in the polls. Expect one to endorse the other in time (likely Warren backing Sanders) or even a joint ticket.
  • Billionaire former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg spent more on advertising in the past few weeks than all other presidential hopefuls have on all media markets for the past year. A candidate debate last week was his first appearance in the mix of things. Bloomberg didn’t exactly shine, but since he wasn’t actually on the ballot in Nevada we don’t have any reasonable data to tell us how well (or badly) he is doing nationwide. His latest advertising campaign involves anti-Trump billboards scattered throughout Trump Country saying things like “Trump eats burnt steak (Mike Bloomberg likes his medium-rare)” or “Trump cheats at golf (Mike Bloomberg knows this from playing golf with Donald Trump)”. While the watch-it-all-burn part of me thoroughly enjoys this rhetorical billionaire slap-fight, the key takeaway is not only does Bloomberg have a functionally unlimited budget for the race, but he’s already positioning himself as running against Trump rather than other Democrats.
With Nevada in the rear-view mirror, I feel reasonably confident to make a squishy forecast.

I expect this to go one of two directions, neither of which are good for the mainline Democrats. Both scenarios hinge on Super Tuesday. On March 3, Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, and Virginia hold simultaneous electoral contests. That’s our pivot.

In scenario 1, the centrists align to prevent a Sanders from gaining the nomination.

This scenario may well be a long shot. Klobuchar continually demonstrates her utter disdain for Buttigieg despite their ideological similarities. Joe Biden repeatedly showcases he is no longer capable, but refuses to step aside. You have to be an egomaniac to run for president, but the degree of disunity among what American independents have taken to calling the “sane” Democratic candidates is striking. Asking them to pull together in a touch over a week is a tall order.

But let’s assume the moderates agree to pool resources or even run some sort of joint ticket. They will face off against Bernie Sanders, and when we reach the party convention in July, we’ll all live through a rehash of the 2016 conventions when Sanders faced off against moderate Democrats…and lost.

But this time it’s different. No matter how intriguing you find the concept of a President Amy or Pete, they lack the force-of-nature and political-machine qualities of Hilary Clinton. More likeable? Certainly. More electable? Perhaps. But absolutely less recognizable or powerful. They would cut far weaker figures in July.

Perhaps more importantly, this time Bernie isn’t alone. The general breakdown of the Democratic Party in recent years has spilled into Congress, with Sanders now having a plethora of high-visibility allies. Between a weaker moderate wing and a stronger radical wing, the party will split down the middle no matter who receives the nomination.

In scenario 2, Bloomberg does well enough on Super Tuesday to eclipse the Buttigieg/Klobuchar/Biden crowd and proceeds to the convention as one of the top two candidates. We then have a face-off between Sanders, who rallies against money in politics and institutional interests committed to “stealing” the nomination, and Bloomberg, who is only a contender because of the money he’s put into politics and who in essence is looking to steal the nomination. Once again, the party splits down the middle. This time with folks like Biden or Klobuchar or Buttigieg – you know, the “normal” people who we have all thought of as “Democrats” for the past several decades – barely part of the conversation.

In either scenario, either Sanders loses the nomination and attempts to sink the party, or Sanders wins the nomination and political independents (and a not insignificant number of moderate Democrats) hold their noses and vote for Trump (assuming they show up at the ballot box at all).

The point is not that Trump is the odds-on favorite to win the election (although if I were a betting man, that’s what I’d put my money on). The point is that this primary process is the end of the Democratic Party as we know it. How long will it take to reform with a new set of factional alliances? History suggests 8-12 years.

For those of you reading this who consider yourself Republicans, curb your enthusiasm. Your party died over three years ago with the nomination of Donald Trump, a then-candidate who considered three of the core Republican factions to be ideological foes: fiscal conservatives, national security conservatives and business conservatives. If you consider yourself a member of one of those sub-groups, your party is gone – reduced to being a sort of personal vehicle for the sitting president. I’d argue the most significant outcome of the 2018 mid-term elections was those factions' near-wholesale ejection from the House of Representatives and their replacement with TeamTrump members.

Both parties are now nonfunctional. The Democrats are shattering along jagged, ideological lines. The Republicans have been hijacked by their equivalent of Bernie Sanders. We’ve been here before. We’ll get through it. It just takes a roughly decade-long transition period. The Democrats are starting now. The Republicans started three years ago.

But there’s something else going on right now that we’ve been through before that is likely to make this transition to our new normal even messier, and to have far more dangerous international implications.

It has to do with how we manage and transmit information.

Before the 1980s every American newspaper of even moderate size maintained a series of offices around the world to investigate, report and generate news as a matter of course. These foreign bureaus were the backbone of the American media presence globally.

But in the 1980s the fax machine, and in the 1990s email, gutted those bureaus. No longer were editing or copy-editing or research staff required on site. Instead a handful of reporters (still stationed at the bureaus) could simply communicate with the home office for support work.

Then came file attachments. Suddenly the bureaus were not needed at all and the reporters became de facto freelancers with no foreign office support. If you had a dial-up modem, you were the bureau.

Then came algorithms and the Internet. At home such advances jacked up productivity, and so necessitated fewer staff to handle tasks like editing. Fewer people by default meant a poorer collective memory which both made for thinner stories and less capacity to call “bullshit” on bad or inaccurate ideas. Abroad such technologies started scraping foreign news stories from foreign sites directly; stringers went away.

The new face of media is one of fewer and fewer bureaus with fewer and fewer staff at higher and higher cost. Not exactly a recipe for deep, quality-driven, context-heavy, investigative work. Newer algorithms and early-AI are now even writing a few stories here and there, slimming down the already rail-thin institutions that remain. From 1975 to 1995 network coverage of foreign news fell by two-thirds. Since then it has more or less fallen off a cliff.

And there’s the not-so-minor issue of time. Magazines had a production cycle of a week or more. Newspapers a day or more. The 6-o-clock news at least a day. There was time to peer under rocks and tease out details. Online media publishes the heartbeat the quick-take is completed, and no one reads the retractions (in part because no one can find them).

If there are few to no employees living abroad, and if computers are doing the heavy lifting, and if there is no context or institutionalized knowledge, then most of what remains is opinion. Shrill, screamed, uninformed, opinion. Add in social media and much of our information feeds today are distilled with a hatchet down to a Facebook post or something that can be transmitted in fewer than 289 characters.

It is nearly blasé to now say that social media has become a problem in American politics. By reducing the cost of not simply contributing to, but initiating, a political conversation to zero, we are now subject to an onslaught of voices ranging from the crazy cousin we all avoid to Russian propaganda as a matter of course. This is wretched for institutional parties who can no longer control fundraising and messaging. This is fantastic for folks in the political wilderness who now face few barriers to entry (e.g. Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders).

This isn’t an American phenomenon, but is instead global. Arguably the United Kingdom’s BBC has gone furthest down this road and is now a pitiful shell of its former glory. Canada’s CBC isn’t far behind and IMO ranks slightly below the American majors in terms of (lack of) quality. France24 is probably the Western institution that has fought off these trends most effectively, although even there the drop in excellence is obvious. Of the global news services Al Jazeera is the company making the best effort at providing what we used to think of as good global reporting (which is hardly to say AJ has no biases).

Now, like I said, we’ve been here before.

The last time the world wrestled with a new technology that reduced the costs of information flow, it was the telegraph and telephone. Then, like now, we had no legal tools for regulating what people could and could not say in the public domain. Slander became omnipresent, particularly in politics. Congress was of questionable effectiveness, and ultimately it fell to the Supreme Court to force a nationwide standard for libel. Media became responsible for the accuracy of what they printed.

Something like that is inevitable for today’s social media too. We’ll get through this. The question is, how long will that take? And, what will we break between here and there?

Last time, the Supreme Court didn’t act until it became clear Congress wouldn’t: 1964. I have some confidence it will be quicker this time around because the holes in our system are so obvious and what’s left of both parties agree on the core issue (even if they define the problem differently). Not to mention faster information flow works on the Supreme Court just as effectively as it does on the rest of us.

As to breakage, I’m far more concerned. The last time around the shift from road to rail reduced travel times by an order of magnitude while the telegraph and telephone enabled immediate communication. Journalists were able to report in near real time, putting a premium on sensationalism. Journalists of the yellow sort simply made stuff up. One of those fabrications charged the Spanish with blowing up the USS Maine, which led directly to the United States declaring war on the Spanish Empire.

Back then, the United States had a functional political system, was a military laggard in an imperial world, and really, seriously cared about international blowback from its actions. Today, the Americans’ foreign policy is a one-man show, its navy is more powerful than everyone else’s combined, the world is dependent upon the American security position, and Americans lack the institutional capacity both in politics and the media to even have basic awareness about the world.

This could well be imminent. This worries me. Greatly.

For a look at what is possible and probable with US foreign policy in the next two decades or so, I refer you to something else that is imminent: the release of my new book – Disunited Nations: The Scramble for Power in an Ungoverned World. I’ve got a whole chapter for you on how the Americans’ political rewiring collides with a global collapse to make for something fundamentally new.

Disunited’s release is on, heh, Super Tuesday.


 
PRE-ORDER PETER'S BOOK: DISUNITED NATIONS
BOOK PETER FOR YOUR NEXT EVENT

Hating Trump Can’t Unite the Democrats

By Daniel Greenfield 0 Comments Monday, February 24, 2020 @ Sultan Knish Blog
The Democrat presidential primaries have been a long politically correct apology tour.

Joe Biden was forced to apologize for opposing crime and busing. Bernie Sanders had to offer up
mea culpas for ever being on good terms with the NRA and for questioning open borders, Kamala Harris had to apologize for enforcing whatever passes for the law in California, as did Amy Klobuchar, who also had to apologize for having once supported border fencing and English as the country’s national language.

After jumping into the race, Michael Bloomberg launched his own apology tour for trying to stop gang violence with ‘stop and frisk’, for criticizing Obamacare, and the easy loans that wrecked the economy.

No candidate, no matter how lefty, is ever truly pure enough for the party of the perpetually woke. Any politician old enough to run for the White House also has a history of believing in things like borders, language, biology, math, law and order, free speech, and any other realities that offend the Wokeratti.

Only a candidate who has done nothing except chastely spout radical nonsense can pass the purity test.

That’s why Bernie Sanders, a hack from a minor state who, until being excavated by some Obama campaign people who hadn’t gotten a gig with the Clinton campaign, was an obscure nobody who had done nothing except rename post offices, is leading the Democrat death march to political oblivion.

There may be 48 years worth of difference between Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and Senator Bernie Sanders, but they both have the same amount of experience getting anything done in Washington D.C. The only thing they’ve ever done in his long and her short career is lay out imaginary visions of socialist utopias without having the life skills to change a flat tire, catch a bus, or make their own breakfast.

The Democrats have become a party divided between the moderates, obsessed with destroying Trump, and the socialists, obsessed with destroying the Democrats. The emerging representative of the former is Bloomberg: a billionaire willing to blow through 1.5% of his net worth to stop President Trump. And Bernie represents the vanguard of the oppressed proletariat of Burlington, San Francisco, and Aspen, who are slightly to the right of Castro, but, like their leader, have no clue how to get anything done.

Bloomberg represents the core Dems who don’t care about anything except beating Trump, while Bernie represents the radicals who care less about beating Trump than about beating the Bloombergs.

The average Democrat outside the DNC doesn’t understand this distinction. That’s why Bernie is leading.

In the party’s current electability obsession, any candidate who does well is electable and can beat Trump. That includes Bernie Sanders, a talking horse, and Amy Klobuchar. Biden maintained the lead for so long because he seemed electable. Details like what he actually believed and whether he was playing with a full deck were deemed irrelevant. Those same details also don’t matter when it comes to Bernie.

But that just meant that the Democrats outsourced policy to the radical fringe that cares about issues.

That’s why the 2020 primaries have seen Democrats endorse gun confiscation (Beto O’Rourke), letting the Boston Marathon bomber vote from prison (Bernie Sanders), eliminating private health insurance (Sanders, Kamala Harris, and Elizabeth Warren), eliminating free speech on the internet (Warren), and taking away the tax exempt status of churches and synagogues that don’t back gay marriage (O’Rourke).

These are not winning issues.

Most Democrats claim they want electable candidates, but they’re going into 2020 with unelectable policy proposals hanging around their necks that will alienate the average voters they need to win.

House Democrats could have changed that, instead they were sucked into the impeachment black hole. And no matter how much Speaker Pelosi resisted, the one part of elected government that the Democrats control is best known for an obsession with Trump and a disinterest in everything else.

Hating Trump isn’t a winning strategy. The post-impeachment polls showed that all too clearly.

But it’s either that or nationalizing health care, confiscating guns, banning churches and letting terrorists vote from prison. And those are even worse platforms to run on than Trump Derangement Syndrome.

The Democrats are now on track to have a nominee who once said, "I don't mind people coming up and calling me a communist” because they didn’t care about anything else except destroying Trump.

And, instead, they’re destroying themselves.

The Democrats have locked their party into only one possible strategy and that’s turning out as much of their base as possible. But turnout signals from the primaries have been mixed and large-scale national events like the Impeachment Eve rallies and the Women’s March fizzled badly with few attendees.

The white suburbanites whose cultural hostility fueled the “resistance” appear to be fading. Despite their hatred of Trump, they’re wary of socialism. And a Sanders win would depress their turnout. But a win by anyone except Sanders will depress turnout by his base of Marxist profs and unemployed vloggers. None of the leading candidates summon much enthusiasm from black voters.

Massive turnout requires a united party. And that was a lot easier when they were uniting against something.

2018 saw great turnout because the Democrats rallied around their common front of hating Trump. But uniting against Trump is very different than uniting behind Bernie, Bloomberg, or any other candidate.

Hatred is a powerful force. But it’s no substitute for leadership.

Republican primaries have seen massive turnout because of support for President Trump. A united party is set to face off against a divided party. And that is very bad news for the subdivided Democrats.

Hatred doesn’t unite political movements. It divides them.

Any political movement that depends on division is inherently fractured. The deeper the divisions become; the harder Democrats hate their common enemy. But underneath that common hatred are a thousand festering hatreds, rivalries and resentments, waiting to break out into internecine warfare.

The Democrats are now at risk of winding up with a brokered conviction because hate divided them.

In the Trump Derangement Syndrome era, the Democrats no longer really stand for anything and are willing to fall for anything, from radical ideologies to billionaires and socialists buying the nomination.

Hatred has hollowed out the Democrats leaving behind nothing but a great empty void.

The primaries are the dark night of the Democrat soul. The party’s soul has fed on poisonous hatred. Morning has come to America. But morning may never come to the Democrats divided in darkness.

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.

2020: The Witching Hour on Steroids

February 24, 2020 By Steven Baird

This reads like a Tom Clancy novel on steroids. Like a bizarre merger between Debt of Honor and Executive Orders, our hero, Jack Ryan/Donald J. Trump as the Boy Scout who can't be bought, has to deal with a myriad of seemingly disparate circumstances that intertwine into a cataclysmic finish that only our hero can navigate. But unlike in a "normal" Clancy thriller, our hero is not presented with three simultaneous crises. In our real-life adventure, Trump is dealing with more than double that number.

Our in-your-face villain is the Deep State, who, in an unusual turn, has decided to come out in the open and directly come after a duly elected president. As an apparatus built for another candidate who could not lose, this antagonist is replete with secret agents, crooked cops, corrupt judges, and elitist snobs who wish to destroy our country from within. We'll throw in the entire Democrat Party, which has been co-opted by a 130-year-old "new" generation of command-and-control statists who know exactly what is good for us and who should lead.

Now stir in the billionaire boys' club that has no use for a strong America, as it goes against the final goal of a one-world order. The puppet-master of this part of our story is the man who has brazenly declared his wish for America's destruction. George Soros, through his web of non-profit "humanitarian" organizations, has ushered in liberty's destruction by purchasing battalions of basement-dwelling pajama boys to burn deep blue cities to the ground if they fail to capitulate.

Throw in the diabolical superpower that through currency manipulation and viciously unfair trade practices has managed to acquire 5% of our national debt and can burn us to the ground on a whim (again, see Debt of Honor). Mixed into this soup is a weaponized coronavirus that is now starting to make its way across the globe (see Executive Orders). If you believe that a closed society is willing to disclose the actual number of infections and death statistics, you really have not been paying attention for the last 70 years. Since China believes that it is already overpopulated, as demonstrated by its one child policy, it can more than rationalize wiping out a quarter of its population in order to wreak havoc across the globe. Since no other president has ever exhibited a "clear and present danger," and Trump has, China is looking for a twofer by reducing the number of mouths it has to feed and clearing the road for a more malleable resident of the Oval Office.........To Read More....


Clarence Thomas wife among conservative activists leading Trump efforts to compile ‘deep state’ hit list

By Caitlin Yilek February 23, 2020

The wife of conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is spearheading an effort to remove officials suspected of undermining President Trump.
A network of conservative activists led by Ginni Thomas is helping compile detailed memos of disloyal government officials they want fired, according to more than a dozen sources who spoke with Axios.

Trump’s distrust of people inside the White House and the federal government has intensified since his impeachment and acquittal, and he thinks his government is filled with “snakes” he wants fired and replaced.

The memos sent to Trump included former District of Columbia U.S. Attorney Jessie Liu, whose nomination for a top Treasury role was withdrawn. A source with knowledge of the document said Liu’s alleged misdeeds included signing the sentencing filing asking for jail time for Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn, not charging former deputy director of the FBI Andrew McCabe, and not acting on criminal referrals of some of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh's accusers...................To Read More.....

The Problem with the Intelligence Community

By  | February 24th, 2020

Fifteen years ago, in a post 9/11 reaction to terrorist attacks on America, President George W. Bush signed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Act into law. By doing so, he created the post of Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), the National Counterterrorism Center and the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, stop gap measures to look like the government was doing something meaningful. These groups now believe in the truth of their own product. 

The idea was to ensure a transparent collaboration across all elements of the Federal Intelligence Community to coordinate the vast amount of data collected. Instead, the reality was to create competition for resources (money) by growing a vast bureaucracy. On the dark side, the act gave the DNI (James Clapper) the potential for corruption by politicizing the new organization, ostensibly for the government’s protection. What happened? The Clinton’s and Obama happened! 

Before that however, immediately the Twin Towers fell to the ground, why didn’t anyone express surprised with the rapidity of the enactment of a National Defense Act?

It was the long planned first step to ram through a shocked citizenry a scheme to cement the governments need to protect us. The Pandora’s box of scary extremism, to keep us cowed for our safety, was opened on Americans and we accepted it.........To Read More......

Al Gore revisited

By | February 22nd, 2020 | General Information | 398 Comments

We all know that Al Gore did not invent the Internet, though many say he claimed to have done it. He did make a small fortune selling ways for gullible people to reduce their carbon dioxide foot print by having trees planted in some far away place in there name. While he did not make it through Harvard he did become a very successful venture capitalist with the help of some Silicon Valley investors, earning hundreds of millions of dollars. While he did not create the man-caused global warming/ climate change delusion, it may not have had the world in its present state of concern without his spectacular fear-mongering.
 
Check your newspaper or favorite internet news sources tomorrow and surely you will find stories mentioning climate change concerns. There is not an issue of the Wall Street Journal, a supposedly conservative newspaper, without such articles. Any story describing a Fortune 500 strategy for the future will mention consideration of climate change.
 
Most of us know that the climate is always changing. Unless we are planning an outdoor event, a skiing trip or we are a farmer, we take change in stride. Now many , many people, frustrated with the weather for any reason, will be found to blame it on man-caused climate change and our use of fossil fuels. I believe there is good reason to give Al Gore the lions share of the credit for this dubious and completely unfounded fear for the Earth’s future and our own.
 
There was already an academic industry making a good living on global warming fears. Financed by government grants, it attempted to write mathematical equations to simulate our future climate with increasing emissions of carbon dioxide. Mr. Gore took over center stage with his book and movie, both titled AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH. It is a fair question to ask,”would the world be as concerned with the planet’s future today over the possible impacts of adding a degree or two to the planets average temperature if Mr. Gore had not gained so much attention”. He said life as we know it will come to a screeching end if we continue to operate on oil and gas instead of wind and sun. In fact if we ever do, as he says, life without oil and gas will send us back to the standard of living in the mid-nineteenth century.
 
In the 14 years since Gore launched his massively flawed book and movie, he has escaped the scrutiny that should have exposed the errors upon errors, or if you will, lie upon egregious lie that he foisted upon us. Dr. Jim Hollingsworth has ventured forth to refocus us on the damage Gore has wrought in a new book titled CLIMATE CHANGE: A CONVENIENT TRUTH, from Covenant Books. He dedicated an entire chapter to the re-introduction of 35 errors, untruths or lies, take your pick, that Gore presented in his movie and book back in 2006.
 
The movie was first introduced in England, in the hope of showing it in all public schools . Mr. Stewart Dimmock, recognizing the errors in the film, sued to prevent its showing in UK schools. Judge Michael Burton ruled that the film could be shown, but the teacher had to show the obvious errors in the film. The judge listed but 9 of them. There were many, many more. Judge Burton’s nine included the following misstatements:
 
1- the melting of Antarctica and Greenland will raise sea level 20 feet in a few      short years
2- Pacific atolls were flooding requiring evacuation of their populations
3- ocean circulation of warm water from the equator to the poles was being                                         shut off                          
4- temperature increases and increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide were in        
      lock step
5- My. Kilimanjaro lost its ice from global warming
6- Lake Chad in west central Africa dried up due to man-cased global warming
7- Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans was caused by global warming
8- polar bears were drowning because of loss of ice in the arctic
9- coral reefs were bleaching because of global warming.
None of these statements in the book and movies were true, but Jim Hollingsworth documents 26 more errors Mr. Gore made either purposely or out of ignorance. You decide. In the past 16 years he has definitely not been held accountable for his wealth of misinformation. Perhaps bringing these very important mis-statements back into public view through Hollingsworth’s book and this article will help people understand the damage Al Gore has done to society. They include:
1- a one degree change in temperature can melt hundreds of feet of ice
2- hurricane Catrina in Brazil was man-made
3- recent Japanese typhoons set new records
4- hurricanes are getting stronger
5- storm insurance losses are increasing
6- flooding in Mumbai is increasing
7- severe tornadoes are increasing
8- the sun alone heats the Arctic Ocean
9- the Arctic is warming faster than the rest of the Earth
10- the Greenland ice sheet is unstable
11- Himalayan melt waters are no longer filling the rivers
      rivers below the mountains
12- Peruvian glaciers are disappearing
13- Mountain glaciers world-wide are disappearing
14- the Sahara Desert is drying up
15- the West Antarctic ice sheet is unstable
16- Antarctic Peninsula ice sheets are breaking up
17- the Larson B Ice shelf broke up because of Global
      warming
18- mosquitoes are climbing to higher altitudes
19- many tropical diseases are spreading due to global warming
20- West Nile Virus is spread through Global warming
21- carbon dioxide is a pollutant
22- the European heat wave of 2003 killed 35,000 people
23- Pied flycatchers can not feed their young
24- all illustrations in the movie are accurate
25- the Thames river barrier to the ocean is having to close more frequently
26- no facts in the movie are in dispute
 
In Dr. Hollingsworth’s book Climate Change: A Convenient Truth, he explains the actual truth about each of these mis-statements. The book has 48 brief chapters that deals with all the mis-information you have been exposed to. I strongly recommend it to any one wanting the whole truth with out any jargon filled complexities. In this day and age people should not be glorifying Al Gore.

Author

  • CFACT Senior Science Analyst Jay Lehr has authored more than 1,000 magazine and journal articles and 36 books.