Death to America Isn't Just an Islamic Chant, It's The Democrat Party Agenda

People live against their own best interests, why wouldn't they vote that way? - By someone named Curt. 

By Rich Kozlovich,  Tags:

On October 13, 2024 by Silvio Canto, Jr. published this piece, about Governor Gretchen Whitmer, who at a pro abortion rally staged what can only be considered a deliberately disrespectful to Catholics saying:

It’s Sunday morning, and my guess is that a few friends at Mass will say something about Governor Whitmer of Michigan.  Honestly, we don’t talk a lot about the governor of Michigan down here, but what was she doing, giving a young woman a Dorito in something that looks a lot like Communion?.............  I’m not sure what the point here is, but it does look to some of us Catholics as though they are mocking our faith.  As you would expect, the Michigan bishops didn’t like the comedy, either........ It didn’t occur to the governor or the young woman kneeling that they were offending Catholics?  Would they have done a similar joke mocking another faith?  I think we know the answer, or just Google Charlie Hebdo for a quick history lesson..............

I really think this act of disrespect needs highlighted every day in some way by the conservative media, and here's why. This singular act is foundational to who the members of the Democrat party are, what they believe, who they support, and why.   You will notice, at least as far as I can tell, not one member of their party has come out and condemned her for this. Unlike so many feckless Republicans who crawl out of the woodwork to apologize over some meaningless act that offends one of the cults of the Church of Wokeness.

Ask to the nation this over and over again.  Would she be this disrespectful with Islamic practices?  We all know the answer to that, and we know why.  As Canto points out, if she did that they'd riot.   That's business as usual for the barbarians, and in a war between the barbarians and the wimps, the barbarians will win every time. 

They're supporting a violent hate filled political movement masquerading as a religion that regularly runs into the streets chanting death to America and Israel, and they mean it, and if anyone protests their violence and radicalism, the left calls it .   

Yet they think it's just fine to disrespect members of religions that were foundational in America's formation, and if they protest, they claim they're trying to destroy "our" Democracy. 

They want to make the murder of the innocent unborn legal right up until the moment of birth, and then murdering them if they survive.   Defining the moral values of the left is easy. They don't have any.  If this was a Muslim or Marxist controlled nation there wouldn't have been a Constitution and there most certainly wouldn't have been the Ten Amendments. 

So what should we conclude?  Death to America is more than a chant to the Democrat party, it's an agenda.  

Whitmer has now come out with phony clabber of how she "would never do something to denigrate someone’s faith", but isn't that what she did?   How can any rational person view this as anything except a planned intentional insult to Catholics?  Mark Tapson calls this, "A sulfuric whiff of the demonic."

Which must bring us to this foundational question.   

Why do Catholics support those who violate what is supposed to be the moral positions of their faith?   Paraphrasing Kevin Finn who asks how anyone can claim to be a "devout Catholic and support abortion, open borders, other harmful governmental practices and the open mocking and derision by politicians", ..... practices which are "diametrically opposed to their beliefs", supporting  "people who openly loathe them?"  

He calls this kind of thinking for what it is, cognitive dissonance!  That's believing two diametrically opposing views are both correct,  and says "when such people tell me they support Democrats I say, “Are you also a carnivorous vegetarian?”

 

Preconceptual Reality, Culture is King, and the 2024 Election

By Rich Kozlovich 

In 2015 I published an article dealing with polls, reality, and Johnathan Gruber.   Do you remember Gruber?  He's the Obamacare advisor and MIT professor who got everyone outraged for saying Obamacare was deliberately created to be too complicated in order for it to pass because they knew the American voting public was so stupid to understand it.   

Well, the question we need asking is why was everyone so upset?  Since Gruber was attacked as ‘arrogant’ by various writers, we need to clearly define in our minds if he was being arrogant or was he merely making an observation of reality no one liked?   Given what's going on with the 2024 election, I think we need to go back in time and explore this.

While Obama was President 54% of voters wanted no new taxes and more budget cuts.  Obama wanted to spend an additional 4 trillion dollars and raise taxes.  Only 16% favored more spending, and 21% favored no cuts in spending.  

Polls also showed most didn't believe Obamacare would do anything to fix the nation's health care system, and they were right. Rasmussen gave him a 51% approval rating.  Does that make sense to anyone?

I don’t really know if Rasmussen can be trusted any more than other pollsters, but I put pollsters as a whole in the same category as snake oil salesmen. They ask questions in ways that will generate affirmation versus reality. Having said that, I used to follow the Rasmussen polls and I kept seeing a majority who claim they dislike Obama's policies and yet think he's just doing a Jim Dandy job. 

Is that rational?  Is that a case of cognitive dissonance or was Gruber right, people are just stupid?

I think it’s a combination of an American educational system that's turned into an expensive failure, cognitive dissonance is rampant, the pollsters are corrupt, people are largely misinformed and uninformed by choice, a corrupt media wants to keep them that way, and Gruber was right. 

That year  Newsweek gave a test to 1000 people and found that 29% of Americans didn’t know who the Vice President was, 27% didn’t know the President of the U.S. was in charge of the executive branch and 70% didn’t know the supreme law of the land was the U.S. Constitution. 

One commenter made the observation that perhaps they thought it was the Prime Directive from the United Federation of Planets. I would be willing to bet if that question was part of the test a fair number would have agreed, and believed it! Is that an indication the American educational system has failed to teach history and civics?

Sixty five percent didn’t know the Constitution was written by the Founding Fathers at the Constitutional Convention, only 12% could name one of the writers, 43% didn’t know the first Ten Amendments to the Constitution is called the Bill of Rights and 63% didn’t know there were nine justices on the U.S. Supreme Court. Now, perhaps I'm just being picky again, but is this another indictment of American education?

Now for those who are snickering– how many amendments are there to the U.S. Constitution? Answer without looking it up!

Eighty percent didn’t know who the President of the U.S. was during WWI and 40% didn’t know the U.S. was fighting Germany, Italy and Japan during WWII, with a full 73% being unaware the “cold war” was over the spread of communism. Now does all of this give anyone the impression that someone in American education is clearly dropping the ball? Is it any wonder why so many believe "going green" is good, in spite of the fact the green movement has been responsible for more death and suffering than the socialist monsters of the 20th century who killed over 100 million innocent people.

And 51% believed Obama, who increased the national debt from a little over ten trillion dollars to a little over eighteen trillion dollars in six years without having much of an impact of the "Great Recession", was just doing a really fine job.

Some polls claimed Biden and Trump were tied.  Some only have Trump about five points ahead, and for a while some polls claimed Biden was in the lead.  Is that believable?  The public is really upset at the Democrats, and Biden specifically, for out of control immigration, inflation, drugs, cost of housing, energy, etc., and there's not one area in which the public thinks Biden is doing a good job, and we're to believe he has a 44% approval rating?

On May 14, 2024 Andrea Widburg published this article, People are waking up to the rot within academia and in America as a whole, noting only crises can bring people out of their cultural stupor.  She notes those who start their day searching news sites to see what's going on know the rot impacting the nation, but that's not the typical person.  They don't read, they don't listen, and they don't think.  Right along with Preconceptual Science, and Preconceptual Economics, this an affliction of Preconceptual Reality, where people reach conclusions without looking to see what the facts really are, then ignoring anything that disputes those conclusions, and often times shouting invectives at anyone who challenges those conclusions, totally arrogant in their ignorance. 

These nitwit protestors, they are stunningly ignorant, bereft of any stable moral foundation and working really, really hard to commit national suicide. Those who read history books, and follow the news, and write about all of that fear a national economic and social collapse at the hands of:

........."complete nincompoops, shysters, and grifters, people with no verifiable quality of statecraft, petit tyrants who lack the skills or intellectual insight to govern except by diktat.'...." Everything despicable about Joe Biden and his corrupt family and party has been revealed. Still, it has either been propagandized to death or denied by the Democrats and their propaganda henchmen, the legacy media."

Whether the issues involve domestic or foreign policy the public is clueless, and has aways been clueless, so they're easily fooled by the media and lying politicians, and they want to just marinate in their cultural comfort zone.  Well, culture is king, and Gruber was right.  Even with all the outrageous behavior, much of it criminal, Biden still has, according to polls, an over 40% approval rating.

Conclusion?  Either the polls are lying or Gruber was right and the public really is stupid, or as I suspect, both!  There are no boundaries on the left, no moral foundation that acts as a stop for vile behavior.  So, if for some reason the public's stupidity can't be relied on to re-elect Biden, and restore the Congress to outright Democrat control in order to give them the power they so cravenly desire, they will do anything and everything, no matter how vile, how illegal or how corrupt it may be in order to gain total control the lives of all the stupid peasants, who will have nothing and be grateful....or else!

A Pandemic of Cognitive Dissonance

April 6, 2023 By John Green We’re facing yet another pandemic. It’s not a viral outbreak. This crisis is a mental disorder outbreak -- rather like mass hysteria. The outbreak has spread worldwide, but fortunately only affects those of a leftward political persuasion. The condition is cognitive dissonance. According to Medical News Today:

Cognitive dissonance is the discomfort a person feels when their behavior does not align with their values or beliefs. It can also occur when a person holds two contradictory beliefs at the same time. (Emphasis mine)

Condemning America for its past use of slavery while helping companies profit from the current use of slavery -- and calling oneself woke for doing it -- is an example of cognitive dissonance.  Unfortunately, the only known treatment is talk therapy. However, the leftist preference for screaming and cancellation over debate and reason renders them resistant to treatment. In addition, the availability of treatment is limited, as many therapists are also sufferers.  The infection rate among leftists is nearly 100 percent.............To Read More....

The Death of Honesty

By Jack Gleason ——Bio and Archives February 22, 2023 

Honesty is dead. Its time of death is not certain, but it might have been the day Bill Clinton, in a national address, looked into the camera and proclaimed, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky...”............People believe habitual liars because we, ourselves, are honest in most situations and we trust others to speak the truth. In fact, the bigger the lie, the more likely we will believe it. 

• After seven years of lies, distortions and misinformation told by his political opponents and a corrupt news media, that have proven to be wrong, 59% of Americans still have a negative view of Donald Trump.
• Those in the current administration claim to be environmentalists and say global warming will destroy the planet if we don't curtail use of fossil fuels immediately. 
•  They claim that electric vehicles are the only answer, and gas powered cars and trucks, need to be eliminated, despite the fact that we don’t have the minerals to build them.
• They say our borders are the safest they've ever been, and
•  crime is under control in the inner cities despite irrefutable evidence to the contrary.
• Our military leaders tell us that it's in the vital interest of the United States to send billions to Ukraine to stop the Russians despite evidence of widespread financial corruption.
• Our teachers tell us it is important for our children to know multiple details about sex starting at the age of five, 
• and that they should attend drag queen shows to learn about homosexuals and transsexuals.
• Many Americans still believe our administration’s doctors and fear the COVID virus. 
• Over 70% have supposedly gotten at least one injection despite learning it doesn’t work and has multiple deadly side-effects.

When people refuse to even consider they are being lied to, their minds will jump through hoops to continue believing. The psychological term is “cognitive dissonance,” “The inconsistency between what people believe and how they behave motivates them to engage in actions that will help minimize feelings of discomfort. People attempt to relieve this tension in different ways, such as by rejecting, explaining away, or avoiding new information.”...........To Read More....

Dangerous Thinking

Michael D. Shaw Nov 20, 2022 

 

It has long been observed that Americans have been losing critical thinking skills. Classically, “critical thinking” involves…

• Respecting evidence and reasoning 
• Being able to consider different perspectives and points of view: in other words, having cognitive flexibility 
• Skepticism 
• Clarity and precision 

But under the weight of cancel culture, none of these precepts can exist. Of course, a kind of evil twin of critical thinking can be taught, whereby a radical concept such as mutilation surgery to relieve gender dysphoria might be promoted and “critically analyzed” against a faux backdrop of civil rights, love, or even Christianity.

Cancel culture operates under an Inquisition-like atmosphere of the standard “appeal to authority,” in which the mere invocation of the authority is presumed to be an argument in itself. These days, though, such authority is based far more on social pressure, than actual demonstrated knowledge.

Indeed, in the matter of COVID and vaccines, formerly renowned figures including Peter McCullough and Robert Malone lose all authority, while repeatedly failed institutions such as the CDC, FDA, and NIH, are held to be unimpeachable, no matter what.

Which brings us to the curious matter of the suppression of inductive reasoning, the far less well-known cousin of deductive reasoning. Most of us are familiar with the typical deductive syllogism:

Police officers wear blue uniforms. Joe Jones is a police officer. Joe Jones wears a blue uniform.

Thus, deduction starts with a general premise, and ends in a specific conclusion. You might say that the end result of the deduction is a “smaller” or more granular point.

Inductive reasoning starts with a series of specific observations, leading to a more general conclusion:

I observe for many days or years that the sun rises in the morning every single day. I predict that the sun will rise tomorrow morning, and every successive morning.

You have now arrived at a fairly “large” general conclusion. Likewise, the same reasoning is used by children who burn themselves ONCE by touching a stove, and then conclude that they must never touch a hot stove again, lest they get burned.

In a sense, inductive reasoning is learning from experience. And, as long as it applies only to your personal situation, it is vastly helpful. But, when you expand it to the way you view things in a global sense, it can become quite dangerous—to those in charge.

In the case of of COVID, we were bombarded with official information from the get-go, nonstop. For those conditioned by the education system and peer pressure to always trust authority, their patterns of behavior would become predictable. They would keep a six-foot distance from others even though the virus is carried as an aerosol and is suspended in the air for some time before dispersing, no matter how far away you stand from others.

They would mask up, even after getting contradictory information from the same authorities. And, they would get vaccinated repeatedly, even though the ADMITTED initial side effects of the vaccine were worse than anything they had previously experienced.

The CDC would first say that the vaccines prevent infection and transmission, only to later say that they don’t. When the infection/transmission mantra disappeared, it was replaced with the never-proven notion that at least the vaccines would prevent serious illness. (None of the touted studies corrected for anything other than the age of the patients involved, There was no consideration of health histories.)

Dangerous inductive reasoning would eventually conclude that the authorities were repeatedly lying to us. Thus, why should we believe a single thing they say?

Finally, some will object that you can’t PROVE anything with inductive reasoning. In the sunrise example, I certainly can NOT prove that the sun will rise tomorrow; I can only predict this. However, it is also true that nothing can be proved, absent some assumptions, including the meaning of words and the Law of Identity.

Bear in mind that nothing can be proved with deduction, either, unless the premises can be independently demonstrated to be true, and the application of the deductive logic is shown to be sound. At any rate, since deductive conclusions are very specific, they will almost always be less profound or dangerous than inductive conclusions.

The Leader of the Free World is "Cognitively Delinquent"

By Richard Abelson May 12, 2021 307 Comments

“This bloke is without shame,” Jones said. “He hailed the Covid-19 vaccines distributed across the United States as a ‘dose of hope’. That hope, Mr. Biden, was launched on Trump’s watch. Trump ordered millions of vaccines before anyone thought of it.”

Jones quoted Australian defense minister Tony Abbott: “There has been the militarization of the South China Sea; the bullying of neighbors, even India; the trade boycotts against Australia; the abrogation of the “One Country, Two Systems” treaty on Hong Kong; the mass internment of the Uighurs; and, most dangerous for the wider world, the growing belligerence towards Taiwan — a liberal democracy of 25 million people that should not have to submit just because it was part of China more than 100 years and two world wars ago.”..........To Read More....

 

The Amazon Effect

The Internet giant has been a key driver of job growth and productivity during the pandemic, but unionization efforts could undermine its e-commerce model.

Steven Malanga February 15, 2021 @ City Journal,  published with permission.  I recommend subscribing, it's free.

 

For decades, unions tried unsuccessfully to organize Walmart as it expanded from a regional chain to America’s biggest store. Founder Sam Walton fiercely resisted labor’s efforts because in a successful company, he said, workers and management must pull together to serve customers; in a unionized business, though, employees and management were too often at odds. Walton offered generous stock options, profit sharing, and a path to management for long-time employees as part of his arsenal to fend off what was for years the most intense ongoing union-organizing effort in America.

Now Amazon is inheriting Walmart’s mantle as the retailing company most fiercely pursued by organized labor, even as the online store experiences explosive growth. To keep unions at bay, Amazon offers starting pay that’s often well above what workers can get at many other retailers, as well as health benefits and a 401(k) plan. Moreover, Amazon has been willing, even eager, to place the distribution centers so crucial to its business strategy in declining regions that desperately need jobs—like Bessemer, Alabama. It’s no small irony, then, that the workers at that Bessemer facility are in the middle of an election on whether to authorize a union. If the vote succeeds, it will almost certainly prompt other unionization efforts at many of the company’s more than 100 U.S. fulfillment centers.

Much is at stake. Though Amazon is popularly viewed as a giant tech company that dominates its marketplace, the company’s e-commerce business has low profit margins and only an erratic history of making money. A successful wave of unionization drives could fundamentally alter Amazon as we know it, threatening its e-commerce model.

Nearly 6,000 people now work at the Bessemer facility, up from the 1,500 that the company originally said it would employ when it announced the project in June 2018. The Greater Birmingham area had originally pitched itself somewhat optimistically as a site for Amazon’s so-called HQ2. While it didn’t win that battle, nearby Bessemer won a commitment for a $325 million investment in a fulfillment center. Until then, greater Birmingham was the largest metro area in the nation without such a facility. A former mining and steel-making region whose fortunes faded with the decline of mining, Bessemer needed those jobs and the income they would bring. Even today, median household income in the area is just $32,301, less than half the national median. The median hourly wage for a retailing job is about $11, while packers and stockers, who do the kinds of jobs needed in the company’s fulfillment warehouses, earn from $11.50 to $12.50 on average. Amazon, by contrast, starts workers at $15.30 an hour.

The Amazon facility is supercharging growth. The fulfillment center stands on a site once owned by U.S. Steel. Studies initially estimated that the area would gain some $200 million in new economic activity based on the original 1,500 jobs. Amazon added jobs so quickly there, however, that those original estimates became quickly outdated. Other big firms have noticed Amazon’s move. FedEx, Lowe’s, and online used-car retailer Carvana are now building similar distribution centers nearby.

The pandemic that has boosted Amazon’s growth—as millions of Americans traded in-store shopping for online—also underlies the unrest at Bessemer. The facility officially opened last April, just as Covid-19 was spreading rapidly throughout the country. Workers have complained of long shifts, inadequate breaks, and lack of attention to Covid protocols. 

They’re looking for higher wages, news reports say. Amazon says that it offers compensation packages well beyond those of similar jobs, including vision and dental care and a 50 percent match on employee contributions to their defined-contribution retirement plans. The company also says that it has made extensive modifications to provide worker protection from the coronavirus and is offering two weeks off with pay for workers who contract it. Nonetheless, workers have opted for a vote on whether to join the Retail Wholesale and Department Store Union. That would be a big win for labor in an industry where union membership has declined by 400,000, or 40 percent, over the last 20 years.

As one of America’s largest employers and a giant technology company, Amazon has more than its share of critics across the ideological spectrum. Some 50 congressional representatives wrote the company a letter recently urging it to use the Bessemer organizing campaign as an opportunity “to chart a new course and break with your history of disempowering workers.” The letter accused the company of “a clear pattern of denying workers dignity on the job” and “strong-arm tactics.” It made no mention of the wages and benefits that Amazon pays workers compared with other, similar companies, but did note that the company’s profits have recently risen robustly—as media stories have also noted.

Yet, the profit story at Amazon is far more nuanced. Amazon has attracted a lot of attention since its early days in the 1990s as a tech innovator with a hot stock price that eventually helped make Chairman Jeff Bezos the world’s richest person. But it took the firm nearly a decade to earn a profit, and for years, the income it could squeeze out of its growing sales was modest. By 2006, the company’s sales had soared to $10 billion, but it made just $190 million in profits on that enormous volume—a net profit margin of just 1.9 percent of sales. Things have improved substantially since then, but much of Amazon’s current earnings power has not come from those distribution centers and its consumer website.

The real profit success of Amazon today is its web services—cloud computing, network services, and data analytics, offered largely to businesses and government. Though perhaps the least visible of all Amazon’s enterprises, these provided nearly two-third of the company’s operating profits last year: $13.5 billion on revenues of $45.5 billion. By contrast, the North America retail business that the Bessemer facility is part of recorded profits from operations of $8.6 billion, but that from an enormous $236 billion in revenue—a margin of only 3.6 percent. The pandemic has helped fuel growth of the retail division, but because it’s so labor intensive, the company has had to hire tens of thousands of new workers and now employs an estimated 800,000 people in the U.S., mostly in the retail division. Adding compensation of just a few dollars an hour through some combination of higher wages and greater benefits to that workforce would add billions of dollars annually to Amazon’s costs, eroding its already-slim margins.

In the world inhabited by many of its critics, Amazon should be sharing most of its profits with its workers, regardless of how much it pays them now and what it offers them in terms of security and opportunity in an otherwise struggling retail landscape. Among the many factors that these critics ignore—probably because they can’t understand them—is that innovative, efficient businesses like Amazon not only produce unprecedented job opportunities but also drive productivity, and hence standards of living, across the economy. 

One way they do this is by offering an intensely competitive selling landscape, where average Americans can benefit from quality products delivered at low prices. If a retailer becomes big enough, those gains can be enormous. In the 1990s, as Walmart expanded across America, McKinsey estimated in a famous study titled “The Wal-Mart Effect” that the giant retailer’s gains had been responsible for one-sixth of the U.S. economy’s productivity improvements in the decade. Warren Buffett declared that it wasn’t Microsoft or any other tech giant but Walmart that had done the most to spur the country’s economic growth in that era. Nonetheless, many of labor’s political allies worked hard to restrain Walmart’s growth, including in low-income areas in places like New York City and Chicago that desperately needed its jobs and low prices.

Amazon may be a virtual retailer, but it relies on those brick-and-mortar fulfillment centers to make its model work. A string of successful organizing campaigns might force it to accept even smaller profit margins that bring it closer to being in the red again after the pandemic ends, which might simply prompt layoffs. Or the company could try raising prices, which would almost certainly be an invitation for competitors to chip away at its fragile profitability. Given that only 4 percent of retail jobs in America are unionized, many of those competitors would gain a distinct advantage over Amazon. So the company has bluntly resisted unionization, which, to many of its critics, is nothing short of immoral.

Amazon hasn’t helped its case among free-market types and cultural conservatives. Apparently wanting to placate the Left, Amazon has endorsed a $15 national minimum wage—a move that, not coincidentally, would also force competitors to raise their salaries closer to Amazon’s. And it was Amazon’s Web Services that de-platformed Parler, the free-speech alternative to Twitter, in the wake of the January U.S. Capitol protests that turned violent.

The one constituency that matters the most—American consumers—doesn’t pay much attention to these kinds of internal corporate disputes. Consumers just go on expecting quality products at good prices and reasonable service. If Amazon stops delivering in any of those areas, consumers will move on to the next big next thing. Amazon understands that, and that’s why it’s fighting this battle.

Steven Malanga is the senior editor of City Journal, the George M. Yeager Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, and the author of Shakedown: The Continuing Conspiracy Against the American Taxpayer.

Photo by Rick T. Wilking/Getty Images

City Journal is a publication of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research (MI), a leading free-market think tank. Are you interested in supporting the magazine? As a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, donations in support of MI and City Journal are fully tax-deductible as provided by law (EIN #13-2912529). SUPPORT

Leftism Is Like the Cult of Cthulhu

By Michael Walsh| February 13th, 2019

The most merciful thing in the world, I think,” wrote the American horror writer H. P. Lovecraft in the opening to The Call of Cthulhu, “is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents.”

In the Lovecraftian mythos, this refers to the occult world of the Great Old Ones, eldritch gods from outer space, as old as time itself who lie beyond our ken, dead but still dreaming. If we could only grasp their existence and see how fragile our imaginary world really is, we would go mad. Thus, we go on believing in an illusion and subconsciously hope Cthulhu and Azathoth never show us their true faces.

The secret to being a successful leftist is very similar. Like Lovecraft’s narrator, they are unable—certainly unwilling—to correlate the contents of the minds; thus, they are able to hold two or more antithetical bits of information in their minds and discount or ignore any bit of evidence that does not conform to their theoretical worldview.

In Through the Looking-Glass, the White Queen tells Alice that she can believe as many as six impossible things before breakfast. Leftists have her beat many times over.

A prime example came this past week, when the Democrats, who now appear to be the personal party of a small child from the Bronx named after a city in Egypt, rolled out their “Green New Deal”—which implicitly called for, among other inanities, high-speed trains to Europe and the reconstruction of every building in America—at the same time that the newly installed governor of California, Gavin Newsom, was aborting his predecessor Jerry Brown’s high-speed train to nowhere, a $77-billion exercise in fruitlessness that marks, to date at least, the high-water mark of liberalism’s inability to correlate any of the contents of its largely empty heads............To Read More.....

The Vast Cognitive Gulf between the Left and the Right

By Patricia McCarthy

Is there a neurological or psychological reason that explains the left's complete meltdown at losing an election, compared to the Right's historic general acceptance of loss? 

Since Donald Trump's upset win on November 8th, a vast number of angry voters on the Left have become unhinged, delusional, depressed.  And they act out, like spoiled children when they do not get the toy they want.  Many of our elite media left remain, like Ken Burns, in a "fetal position."..........There is an abyss between how the Left and the Right accepts loss.......The Left will produce countless "studies" that "show" they have bigger brains, are a more advanced species and that conservatives are truly mentally impaired......Nothing makes them feel better than demeaning their ideological opponents on pseudo-intellectual grounds........the self-appointed morally superior Left that is behind the tyrannies of multiculturalism, political correctness, a genderless society, man-made global warming, the promotion of homosexuality and gay marriage, the crusade against all religions but Isalm.....loved Castro, and Stalin and Mao -- they still do........ There is a huge disconnect between how the Left and the Right see the world, America, and people, especially those who do not embrace the same rigid anti-values they do.......... Read more